The Maryland sniper

[Deadeye]

but more peopole are killed in other countries, that have tigheter gun control too.  and like the canada example, and the england, you just don't know if guns are the factor.

all you've shown is that there are less homicides and more suicides in many countries.  what you didn't show was if guns or gun bans were responsible.  bucc mentioned the scientific method.  the only way to really tell if gun bans work is to look at the countries that imposed them, before and after the bans.  bringing other factors into it just confuses the issue, and the data.  because for every england, there's an el salvador.

from the examples you gave, i could just as easily say that cold weather means less homicide, because in the warmer countries, there are many more homicides.  while colder nations have more suicides.  nations like the us and ussr have about an equal ammount, being that they are so large and cover numerous climate zones.  all your data would seem to support that.

[Bondo]

You can only compare countries of similar stability and quality of life, so those like El Salvador are not comparable to the US.  On the other hand, England is comparable to the US.  There is no way to use the scientific method on social issues because it isn't a lab and there is no way to have control.  But that doesn't prevent valid conclusions from being drawn from the data available.  I never said guns were the only factor, but it IS clear that having stricter gun laws is A factor, and from these numbers a pretty significant one (once again, only taking countries of comparible social situations).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No, I think weather is more the factor Bondo.  I can draw those conslusions from that same data.  No problem.

Like the man said, compare places that have had bans then removed them, or vice verca, before and after.  Compare England pre ban to post ban.  Compare Canada pre ban to post ban.  That will give you a much, much better picture then will comparing different countries that have many other differences.  I do think Deadeye said that.

One thing is for sure.  Your argument will not have a valid conclusion when you start deciding what data you want, just to make it fit.  Go compare the homicide rate in England to the US's before the ban, see how they compared then to now.  You aren't even close to having data that actually supports your conclusion, let alone validates it.

[Postal Worker]

This guy is a complete whack job.  He's practically in the next country, and I admit, I'm kinda nervous.  We even had a class trip cancelled because of this guy.  Its nuts.  
One funny thing I did manage to pull out of this was something I heard on the radio this morning.  They were talking about the one "witness" who gave false info and what they should do to punish him.  And someone said "hey, Why don't we make him pump gas for a month."  Amen to that.  Him and that sniper are screwed.  

[Bondo]

*Continues to wait for anyone to post any actual numbers that prove me wrong, because I still am the only one to supply firm numbers*

[Jeb]

I've heard that seattle has a high suicide rate because of the weather around here, but i think its mostly BS, i've never heard of anyone commiting suicide around here. shit it was 75? yesterday, and it hasn't rained to much yet.
try living on a res in south dakota and come back and talk about depression (they have the highest suicide rate per capita)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo, we are mocking the huge leap you take when you draw your conclusions from that data, not that data.

First, I'll throw out one for all these people, including me, that think the laws involving what happens when you use a gun should include much heavier punishments.

"Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm."

That tells me that roughly half the prisioners don't get more time for using a firearm.  I know that they have an automatic kick up in this state.  For shame on the states that don't.  Any (criminal) use of a deadly weapon should be punished.

Next I'll throw out one for the violence in our society.

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms"

That tells me that a whole third of the murders (not homicides, but murders) were still comitted without a gun.  How many of the others do you think not having a gun would have stopped?  My guess is not many.  If you want to kill someone, you can kill them.  You don't have to have a gun to do it.

Here's one to show that criminals get most of their guns illegally.

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
*   a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
*   a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
*   family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

That pretty much speaks for itself.  

Those were all taken from the Department of Justice's web site.  Which was nice, because if you click down they tell you exactly what information was gathered, since when, and by whom.  That gives it some nice credibility.

Now, here are some more about mortality, and firearm mortality from our friends at the CDC.

Annual Firearm Deaths:? 28,663 (2000)
Firearm Homicide Deaths: 3.9 per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Suicide Deaths:?6.0 per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Black Males Ages 15-19: 62.2 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)

I threw that last one in to make a point, since young black males are the highest death rate in the USA.  

Oh, here's another good one for you.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Wow a 39% decline, with no ban on guns.  Oh my.  Oh me oh my.  How could that happen.  No big gun laws went into effect, most of them were in effect long before that.  But gee wiz Wally, it went down.

Now, all of those facts, as intersting as they are, are no more important then the ones you threw out.  Why?  Because they don't deal with the actual issue.  Are we safer or at more risk with guns?  You can look up the previous stuff on the DOJ or CDC web sites, if you really want, I'll give you the links, but they aren't important, like I said.  But here's a quote and a page you should read.

Victims use handguns an estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Studies have found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the risks of injury in half.
Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the study found that:
*   Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.
*   Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults would have occurred during those 15 years.

That, and all kinds of other interesting information can be found HERE

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sorry for the double post, but the other one was too long.

Bondo, there are numbers that actually look at America, and how we do both with more or less guns in innocent hands.  There are university studies that are published.

So, happy reading, I doubt if you will bother.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Damn, Bucc brought out the flamethrower and Bondo is getting burned, ouch.

This is why I stayed out of this argument because you cant argue with a liberal and hope to change him or knock some sense into him. Many liberals are so deep in their own shit that it is damn near impossible to change their ways of thinking.

Have fun arguing, I have my own convictions on this issue, and no bleeding heart liberal is going to change my opinion.

P.S. Fuck you in advance if you want to criticize my use of liberal in this post or any other post.

[Deadeye]

bondo, you should just quit now.  your half assed attempt to find relevance in those figures continues to show the lack of understanding of logic you actually grasp.  it must be nice to know it all back at your age.  me, i still learn things every day.  most of all, i like to read both sides before making up my mind.  you sure seem to make up your mind, then try to find facts that support your side, while ignoring all else.

one a final note, to everyone.  the usa was a country built upon a set of principles and rights.  one of these was the importance of the individual rights and liberties.  another was the right to bear arms.  it is part of our society and nation.  that's good.  that's part of what america is about.  other nations are about other things.  that's great too.  i don't think that england or austria or any other country needs to change their outlook on gun control.  it's their right to govern themselves in the lifestyle they chose.  

so, for people that don't like our constitution, or it's ammendments, i can just say, cya.  bye.  don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  it's good for people to have pride in where they live.  i expect mauti to think that austria is the best place in the world, and he is right, for him.  i think the usa (and michigan, specifically) is the best place in the world, and i've visited many.  and for me, that's correct.  but bondo, for a guy who has nothing good to say about the usa, and always says why other countries are better, why in the fuck do you stay here??  go!  begone!  please.  go where you will be happier.  go where you think it is better. you are an adult, there is nothing to stop you.  you'll have to move out from your mothers basement first, but that's ok.  everyone needs to take that first step.  what are you waiting for.  canada isn't that far away, and you speak the language (for most of it).  you seem to like it better.  what's stopping you??

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Heres what guns can do for us:
*   In 1998 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) 10 young people a day died from gunshot.
*Gun homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for young people 10-14 years of age and the second leading cause of death for young people 15-24. [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.]
*A youth aged 10-19 committed suicide with a gun every six hours in 1995 -- 1,449 young people in one year [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997].
*Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for both African-American and white teenage males [Journal of the American Medical Association].
*One in six parents say they know a child who accidentally shot himself or herself with a gun [Harvard School of Public Health].
<>Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun. [Kellerman, A.L. et al., N Engl J Med 327, 1993.]

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]
*   Every day in America, 13 young people ages 19 and under are killed in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. www.handguncontrol.org
*   In 1995, 3.280 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,450 committed suicide with guns, and 440 died in unintentional shootings. Firearms killed a total of 5,285 of our young people. National Center for Health Statistics, 1997
*   In 1994, about 70% of the murder victims aged 15-17 years old were killed with a handgun. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996
*   Two in 25 high school students (7.9%) reported having carried a gun in the last 30 days. Centers for Disease Control, 1995
*   Gunshot wounds are the second leading cause of death for all people aged 10-34. National Center for Health Statistics, 1993
*   For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded. Annest, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
*   "The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century." Christoffel, Children's Environments, 1995
*   In 1992 the estimated cost in pain, suffering, lost quality of life, and loss of productivity due to gunshot violence was $113 billion. Miller, Textbook of Penetrating Trauma, 1995
*   The estimated cost of direct health care expenditures for firearm-related injuries in the United States in 1995 was $4 billion. Kizer, Journal of American Medical Association, 1995

[EUR_Zaitsev]

:::sorry for double post length limitations just have to reinforce my point and ill be gone lickedy split:::

*   In addition to the $4 billion, $19 billion in additional indirect costs, such as lost potential earnings are reflected in the premiums paid for private health insurance, and as taxes through Medicaid. These costs often go unreimbursed. American College of Physicians, 1998
*   The average total cost of a single gun-related crime can be as high as $268,000. Most of this cost is borne by the taxpayer. The Washington Post, 1997
*   The total lifetime cost of a gun-related crime, including medical care, rehabilitation of the injured and incarceration of the assailant can run as high as $1,000,000. Again, most of this cost is borne by the taxpayer. The Washington Post, 1997
*   Based on studies of two sample populations, at least 80% of the costs of firearm injuries are borne, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers. Wintemute and Wright, Journal of Trauma, 1992
*   The most serious firearm injuries, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) can require a lifetime of care and rehabilitative service costing upwards of $1,000,000 over the course of a patient's life. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (NSCISC), January 1998
*   It costs more than $14,000 to treat each child wounded by gunfire - enough to pay for a full year of college tuition. National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1993
Annual Firearm Deaths:? 28,663 (2000)
Age-Adjusted Death Rate: 10.4 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Males Ages 15-19: 22.7 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Death Rate for Black Males Ages 15-19: 62.2 deaths per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Suicide Deaths:?6.0 per 100,000 population (2000)
Firearm Homicide Deaths: 3.9 per 100,000 population (2000)

Homicide?? Suicide ?? Unintentional
?
USA?? 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999)?? 0.42 (1999)
Canada? 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997)?? 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland? 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998)?? -
Scotland?? 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999)?? -
England/Wales?? 0.12 (1999/00)? 0.22 (1999)?? 0.01 (1999)
Japan? 0.04* (1998)? 0.04 (1995) ? <0.01 (1997)

WOW and my guess would be most guns in circulation in those countries go in the exact same order. Thus we must conclude the more guns the more deaths the more victims the more incent lives are taken away because people want to hunt animals.

SINCERLY ZAITSEV

P.S. to sin: Nobody cared or noticed your liberal comments it lacks maturity and also shows ignorence of stereotyping

[Bondo]

*???family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"[/
That pretty much speaks for itself.  

I'm guessing a huge majority of that 80% were bought legally to begin with, especially the family/friends part.  If they weren't available to be bought legally to begin with, they wouldn't be available to be gotten through these means except the VERY SMALL exception of cases that are actually committed with smuggled guns.

Nice work Zait.  Just more reason why I am not burned as Jeb put it.  In fact it looks quite like the oppisite.  I guess calling us liberals (as if that were an insult) failed to be a winning strategy once again.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm guessing a huge majority of that 80% were bought legally to begin with, especially the family/friends part.  If they weren't available to be bought legally to begin with, they wouldn't be available to be gotten through these means except the VERY SMALL exception of cases that are actually committed with smuggled guns.

Guessing isn't a fact.  It's bullshit.  The point that speaks for itself is those guns are not obtained legally, because I'm NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE IT TO YOU.  THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL.

And, I've actually read that a good majority of the illegal guns SOLD on the streets are stolen in the first place.  

Here's Zaitsev's also not so brillant statement "WOW and my guess would be most guns in circulation in those countries go in the exact same order. Thus we must conclude the more guns the more deaths the more victims the more incent lives are taken away because people want to hunt animals."

There you go, basing a conclusion on a guess.  You can't base anything on those numbers logically except that there are more homicides in America per capita then in those other countries.  And more with guns.  You can't say that the actuall number of killings would go down, can you?  Not supported with those numbers.

HONESTLY, DID EITHER ONE OF YOU EVEN GO TO THE LINK?  READ IT?

Zaitsev, Criminals kill.  What's your point with all those figures?  We all know that criminals kill.  We all now have read that around 2/3 of those criminals kill with guns.  We all now have also read that having a legal gun at that time signifigantly lowers your chances (you, the innocent person) of getting killed. You quoted some of the same numbers as I did Zaitsev, but they don't mean much except that we have a violent society.

Zaitsev, are you going to stop violent crimes if all guns just went away?  Do you think that the number of violent crimes will even go down?  They wont.  Violence is part of America.  Taking away a tool will not solve it.  Taking away alcohol didn't solve any problems at the time either.  Why?  Think about that one.  Why?  There are lots of answers, but to simplify it, it's part of our culture.  Guns and violence are both part of it.  There was and will be plenty of violence and killings without guns.  But, all those legal owners can be safer with them.  All you've done is site examples of criminals, not legal gun owners.  How in the world is disarming the legal, non criminals going to put an end to anything but safety??

Look at your numbers and facts Zaitsev, then tell me how they can support your conclusions without you having to GUESS at anything.

[Bondo]

Bucc, did you even bother to read what I wrote...that the guns were INITIALLY bought legally, not that the people who used them got them through legal means.  But if there aren't guns to be obtained legally, then the number of guns to be obtained illegally goes way down.

That was also the thought of many in terms of the England gun ban.  The full effects won't be seen for a little while because the guns being used are those sold before the ban and still making their way around.  But with no more guns making it to the country outside smuggling which isn't a huge amount, eventually the guns will truly be gone.

As for going to your link...I thought you were just citing the site you got your info from.  But now that I've gone there I don't see exactly what it has to do with arguing that having guns isn't a reason the US has such a high homicide rate in comparison to those countries that have strict or total gun control.  Once again, I never disagreed that having the laws like Texas does lowered crime (in fact I gave the reason it does but isn't the preferable way).  But Texas like I showed has just as high a homicide rate and thus that solution isn't a solution in the big picture of trying to prevent homicides.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Your guess that they were bought leagally doesn't mean much, since it is that, a GUESS.  I said that.  As for weapons being smuggled in, there are plenty.  I just watched a show on the Discovery chanel that was about US Customs, and how they intercepted a shipment of thousands of chinese made assult rifles.  Do you think that the number of smuggled guns would go up if criminals couldn't get them another way?  Do you think it's all that hard to smuggle things into the USA?  I look to history, and how effective the ban on alcohol was.  Anyone that wanted it could still get it.  Why would it be any different with guns?  How hard is it for you to find weed or coke that was grown outside the USA?  Don't be a fool Bondo.  If criminals are willing to pay for them, anything will find it's way here.

Ok, I ask again, where in the fuck do you you get that cutting down the number of guns will cut down the number of Homicides?  The numbers didn't go down in Canada or England, did they?  They were low before the ban.  I read more then once that the numbers went up.

You aren't going to reduce the number of homocides by removing guns, you are going to reduce the number of gun related homocides, maybe.

If you want to make it tougher on criminals that use deadly weapons (and not just guns) I'm all for it.  If you want to make hand guns safer so that there are fewer accidental deaths, I'm all for it.  But, if you want to take away part of my freedoms, that were established with this great country, because some criminals use those same items for evil and killing, then you need to come up with something a hell of a lot more convincing then numbers that show American is violent.  Hell, those numbers make me want to get another gun.  To be safer.

And, if you read that link I posted, you'd see lots of information, like Vermont, which blows what you said about Texas out of the water too.  It just shows me that you don't have the respect or even the intelligence to read an article that you are trying to discuss.  You are really a waste of time, since you can't even read the whole thing.  Hell, if you had even read the stuff that you linked to, it would have been a start.  But Bondo, you are just an opinion in search of validation.  In other words, your opinions mean less and less, because that's all you have.  They aren't even informed opinoins.

Like I said, you can't compare America with other countries.  There are too many differences.  It's not about violence.  It's about gun bans, and if they work or not.  If they would work in America or not.  All the real facts I read say NO.

[Bondo]

And, if you read that link I posted, you'd see lots of information, like Vermont, which blows what you said about Texas out of the water too.  It just shows me that you don't have the respect or even the intelligence to read an article that you are trying to discuss.  You are really a waste of time, since you can't even read the whole thing.  Hell, if you had even read the stuff that you linked to, it would have been a start.  But Bondo, you are just an opinion in search of validation.  In other words, your opinions mean less and less, because that's all you have.  They aren't even informed opinoins.

All the Vermont example tells me is that I don't want to go to Vermont.

As for my opinions meaning less and less.  I could say the same about you because for you it is always an ideology thing.  I continue to see this word liberal thrown out by you.  That alone makes your opinion mean less.  You don't respect the opinion of liberals as has been shown in this thread.  You fail to realize that I, or even Zait and I, are not the only ones saying there should be extremely strict gun support.  In fact, the numbers supporting that are just as many as those that support your case.  Zait and I have both provided numbers to prove our case.  You have provided some numbers that basically say, the US is less bad in comparison to others when guns are available.  You need to get beyond looking at trying to be less bad, and try to be equal with the other countries.  Sorry, but you are in no position to decide whose opinions should be counted and whose shouldn't because you are biased.  But one thing can be said, your side is no more valid or logical than mine.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Bucc wrote: "...Zaitsev, are you going to stop violent crimes if all guns just went away?? Do you think that the number of violent crimes will even go down?? They wont.? Violence is part of America.? Taking away a tool will not solve it.? Taking away alcohol didn't solve any problems at the time either..."

Violence is part of America rofl. Indeed there will be always crime in every country but I seriously think that stricter gun laws would reduce deaths committed with guns. Taking away alcohol wouldn't solve any problems may you are right but you could make alcohol unattractive like the US did with cigarettes. That's the best example how laws can reduce smoking. They don't forbid it they just say you can't smoke here and there. It is also "uncool" to smoke. I don't have stats but I think many many guys don't smoke anymore or didn't start to smoke because of these laws.

Same would be with stricter gun laws: if you need an expensive weapon cupboard to keep your weapons safe most guys would think twice about buying a weapon because you ask yourself if you really need a weapon and if it is worth the high price. This wouldn't stop murderers but it would reduce gun accidents when kids are playing with daddy's loaded gun. I don't say guns are bad I just say you could save so many lifes with some additional laws. Many school shootings could have been prevented if the gun would be kept in a weapon cupboard.

In Austria we have a law called (1:1 translation) "Seduction to theft" I can't translate it but it says that e.g. you are riding with your mountainbike to the next supermarket. You  go in to buy something but you let your bike unlocked on the streets. Now someone takes it away. In this case you are also responsible for the theft because you lead someone to steal your bike. Another example you have to lock your house when you leave it or if someone steals something your insurance won't pay because you lead someone to do something.

What I want to say with this is if you give someone the possibility to do something it is more probable that it happens. Same with some school shootings: if they couldn't have taken the fathers gun so easily some shootings would remain as  a stupid daydream of a teenager.

And I think nobody of you can tell me only one reason against a law that says if you let your weapon alone at home you have to lock it. - Just one small step into a safer USA  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Violence is part of America rofl. Indeed there will be always crime in every country but I seriously think that stricter gun laws would reduce deaths committed with guns. Taking away alcohol wouldn't solve any problems may you are right but you could make alcohol unattractive like the US did with cigarettes.

Mauti, it's no joke.  America has always been violent.  It's not something to be proud of, but it is a fact.  Looking at the numbers, we still have a lot more homicides every year carried out without a gun then many of those European countries that Bondo talks about.  

And the taking away of alcohol not solving any problems wasn't a maybe, that too is history.  We did that to ourselves once.  And we started a whole new great empire of crime to get around it.

I don't personally know anyone that quit smoking because of the laws.  Me and my buddies never smoked because it's just stupid, and we decided that long before the current wave of laws.  The only people I know that ever smoked and quit personally were my parents.  And they quit back in the 70's.

Same would be with stricter gun laws: if you need an expensive weapon cupboard to keep your weapons safe most guys would think twice about buying a weapon because you ask yourself if you really need a weapon and if it is worth the high price. This wouldn't stop murderers but it would reduce gun accidents when kids are playing with daddy's loaded gun. I don't say guns are bad I just say you could save so many lifes with some additional laws. Many school shootings could have been prevented if the gun would be kept in a weapon cupboard.

I've always and will always agree that weapon locks, in all their forms are a good thing.  They don't need to be expensive, but it needs to be a crime for weapons not to be "safed" in some manner.  Remember Mauti, I'm the one all for the bracelet lock guns that are out there now.

Also, being from Europe, I know that you don't understand that most of our laws aren't National, but State laws.  In the state I live in, if you leave your gun where a kid can get it, and a kid does (and hurts himself or others), you are held responsible.  It's not as far as I want those laws to go, but it is the same direction that you are talking about.

And I think nobody of you can tell me only one reason against a law that says if you let your weapon alone at home you have to lock it. - Just one small step into a safer USA  

As I just said, I'm all for laws like that, and we have one in my state.  I believe in gun safety and gun regulation.  I think it should be harder to get a gun then a drivers liscense.  BUT, that doesn't mean I agree with Bondo or Zaitsev that guns are the root of all evil, removing them removes the violence, or that they should be banned.  None of those solutions make sense for our society.

In Austria we have a law called (1:1 translation) "Seduction to theft" I can't translate it but it says that e.g. you are riding with your mountainbike to the next supermarket. You  go in to buy something but you let your bike unlocked on the streets. Now someone takes it away. In this case you are also responsible for the theft because you lead someone to steal your bike. Another example you have to lock your house when you leave it or if someone steals something your insurance won't pay because you lead someone to do something.

Now there is a perfect example of why I would never want to live in Austria.  I don't believe that it's my fault that I get robbed if I leave my house unlocked.  The criminal is the one responsible for his own actions in my book.  You make one of my earlier points for me.  Our societies are based upon differnt things.  In American, it's not your fault that you are robbed if you leave your bike or house unlocked.  It's the fault of the robber for stealing.  That's why America is a good place for me and Austria is a good place for you.  Nothing wrong with you guys doing it your way and us ours.  It's why people came to America in the first place, right?

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Bucc what you claim is completly wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of murders involving guns in the US are over fights and someone gets angry and its a split second action, you hear about the premeditated ones in the news because they are so rare. However bursts of anger often kill with a gun at hand and dont, without one.

As to your comment about homicide going down with no guns, You look at us and we have tons of guns and tons of homicide but countries like Britain have less guns and less homicides. Coincidence? No, Less guns clearly mean less homicide which means a safer better  country. Even if a body buys a gun intended for recreational use (which in my opinion is completly disgusting) many wind up being grabbed in the midst of a fight and someone dies. You say criminals are criminals and that is completly false, we all have been so mad you dont know what to do and if you have a gun at hand bamm. Its not premeditated its just in fury humans quite frankly lose it and that would happen a lot less with knives etc.

Click this link, It is a known fact that US citizens have more guns then any other civi population and here are the results of that:

Link