Unlike positions on gun control those are facts. No matter how strong you, i, or anybody else feels about how much, if any, gun control there should be it is ultimately just an opinion. And even if ignorant of facts that still does not mean one has nefarious intentions.
Feel free to dig up the CDC-WISQARS info on gun deaths and compare it to the number of firearms owned in this country. The bottom line is that, even assuming a different gun is used for every crime committed, less than 1/10 of 1% of all of the firearms in the United States are ever used to commit a crime.
Now, if one adheres to the opinion that the only acceptable number of gun deaths in a country is zero*, I suppose that's an opinion, but it's one that is certainly not informed by a realistic view of human nature, technology, or the world in general, as even nations with the most stringent gun control laws still have gun crime. (Nevermind the fact that basic economics and criminal surveys have shown that in a situation absent of guns, criminals will simply substitute another weapon in order to victimize citizens, and will grow more brazen in their victimizations, particularly of the infirm and elderly.)
Anti gun beliefs cover a wide spectrum and include many outside of those who make a career of it.
There are many people who are simply not engaged in the debate who lean somewhat anti-gun due to cultural views and the like. There's a fundamental difference between someone who's not a shooter, and is therefore somewhat uncomfortable with guns, and ignorant of the current laws, and someone who's an actual prohibitionist.
But to be fair the extreme anti gun crowd have never been able to truly test their policies in the full sense in which they want them implemented. They generally pursue gun legislation as steps to further legislation with the ultimate goal of the complete removal of certain types of guns from private ownership.
This is dependent on how willing you are to believe their excuses for failed policies. Within the United States, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California have all experimented with extreme levels of gun control. Internationally, the United Kingdom has gun control that is so utterly strict that the UK Olympic Pistol Team has to travel to France just to conduct a practice session. In Australia, nearly all handguns are prohibited, and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned. In Saddam-era Iraq, the only people allowed to have guns were Ba'ath Party loyalists.
In all of those countries, enforcement of those gun control laws required actions on the part of the government that, hopefully, would not be tolerated in the United States, including registration, confiscation, and private property searches without so much as a warrant.
Oddly enough, all of these countries still had gun violence.
But even if they didn't, you'd have to be willing to set fire to the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights as well in order to enforce an effective gun control scheme in this country.
My position is ultimately that liberties, gun rights included, are more important than statistical drops in murder rates so wether or not extreme gun control will work in preventing some murders is not consequential to me.
This is the position that I adhere to as well. As a culture, we're willing to put up with avoidable deaths attributable to overconsumption of fats leading to heart attacks. According to the CDC, in 2009, we were willing to tolerate
2.3 million injuries annually related to automobiles, and over 30,000 deaths.
Could we avoid deaths by heart attack (one of the leading killers in the US) by instituting ridiculous controls on who can eat what? Sure.
Just as we could reduce or eliminate the number of traffic deaths and injuries by banning or strictly curtailing access to cars. But the majority of people in this country are willing to tolerate those annual death tolls.
But really neither side looks at data objectively. They both think backwards in the sense that they look for facts to support their position rather than to form it. The truth is there are a facts that don't exactly flatter either position.
You should spend more time at the CDC website. FWIW, there isn't a whole lot of direct evidence that more guns result in less crime, but this country has been experiencing not only a drop in violent crime since the early 1990s, but also a drop in accidental gun deaths as well, and in that time, not only have gun laws become more liberal, gun ownership has skyrocketed.
The bottom line is that education on the safe use of guns has become more pervasive (despite the actions of VPC, Brady Campaign, etc.) and that crime in general has gone down. Despite the protestations of the professional anti-gun activists, liberalization of concealed carry laws has not led to "blood in the streets" or "shootouts over parking spaces."
Furthermore, a
2003 meta-analysis by the CDC found that
The CDC said:
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Of course, they do include a disclaimer, but the fact that they were unable to find a connection is quite thought-provoking.
In any event, I have seen no evidence presented by anti-gun activists that their proposals have actually worked to reduce violent crime, and in the countries where stringent gun control has been enacted, it often requires the loss of other civil liberties just to be able to enforce such a law.
What I find peculiar about the anti-gun activists I've spoken to, including the aforementioned Brady Campaigner, is that they refuse to actually come right out and make a public commitment to seeing that the levels of gun control (and other infringements on liberty) be enforced in order to realize their ideals in the real world.
*Interestingly enough, the anti-gun activist and Brady Campaign Board Member I attempted to engage in conversation hewed to this belief, though she would refuse to state just how, exactly, we would achieve that goal, especially since she continually claimed that she "didn't want to take anyone's guns away."
when I hear of a gun owner disparaging "those guys;" whether "those guys" are dedicated AR (or "other Assault Weapon") shooters, or a 1911/semi-auto handgun shooter, or the Knob Creek crowd, "those guys" have guns that your typical bolt-action rifle/pump-action shotgun hunter doesn't use, and therefore doesn't see a need for.
