I predicted this...

[A Black Falcon]

It's interesting that you bring up drugs, because making them illegal has not stemmed drug use. We have just as many problems with illicit drugs as we always have (even slightly worse). And if the gun control laws do not demonstrate evidence to lowering violent confrontations, why just say, "Oh, well we'll do it anyway, because that just makes sense"?

True banning drugs hasn't stopped their use, but it certainly has reduced use well below the level it would be at if it were legal. As for the second part, I'm not sure what you mean -- if there were fewer guns, even if there were violent confrontations, since guns would probably not be involved, they would be less deadly...

Many things in life are counter-intuitive. Consider this: if you gather 50 or so random people, the laws of chance tell you that you'll get at least one person who has a birthday in each of the twelve months, right? Actually, as any statistician or mathematician will tell you, there's a much greater chance that you won't. I know this must sound slightly like rationalization for what you consider craziness or naivety, but I'm just trying to point out that you can't always rely on intuition.

I'd say that the fact that nations with gun restriction laws are safer than America is is a good piece of evidence...

Of course you're right, part of it is cultural, but we don't exactly seem to be doing a good job of reforming American society...

Banning guns in America would accomplish everything that banning alcohol did ninety years ago: Taking the firearms industry out of the hands of legal corporations and handing it on a silver platter over to underground criminal organizations. Guns are already so massively proliferate in America. Banning sales and possession now would serve to prevent the law-abiding from owning them, but it would do little to harm the black market arms trafficking that exists so profligately. It's as meaningless as the Brady laws, which serve mostly to prevent accidental firearms injuries. The Brady laws do nothing to stop a thug or gang-banger from buying a Glock on the cheap from some alleyway dealer, avoiding all those pesky background checks and waiting periods.

I already addressed this in my last post by saying that it's just not true, it's just hype pro-gun people invent to try to fight against gun control. Of course there is going to be less gun violence if guns were mostly illegal. It doesn't affect criminals at all? I'd say you are wrong. For one thing, police would be armed. Criminals would have a harder time getting guns though if they had to get them underground, and would be subject to losing them if the authorities ever found the ones they had. Of course it's not perfect -- look at the occasional gun violence in England or Japan -- but it's a heck of a lot better than the situation here, that's for sure... but no, that "point" is just ridiculous.

One other argument I've heard is 'well Washington DC has/had a handgun ban and it's violent' to which my response would be 'well, when you surely get one easily in Virginia or Maryland...'

But the inverse fact is that removing the most effective means of self-defense from the citizenry at large makes them easy victims of the sort of criminals and mental defectives like this guy who are already going to disregard any regulatory system put in place.

Pro-gun people always talk about this, but seriously, how common is that really, compared to the huge numbers of people killed because of non-defensive gun violence? Pretty rare, to say the least... and if it were harder for the perpetrators to get guns too (no, not all people who attack people with guns are already convicted criminals or insane), then the 'I need a gun to defend myself because "they" (whoever 'they' is) have them too' just wouldn't be as valid anymore... seriously, the number of lives saved by the removal of handguns would be, I'm sure, far, far larger than the number lost because of not having guns to protect themselves (I'm not going to try to pretend that if we ban guns suddenly no one will kill people with them, but it would become less common for sure. And as for the 'criminals' thing, well, isn't that what the police are for, really?)... and also, this is something you'd have to phase in, and a big effort would definitely have to be made to get guns away from criminals as part of it. While I doubt you'd ever get rid of all guns from this country, we could greatly, greatly reduce gun violence, and that would be a very good thing.

People may get guns for self-defense, but I'm sure that if you look at actual casualty totals, the actual deaths are probably much more likely to come from disputes (family or whatever) or accidents, not as a result of protecting yourself. By a huge, huge margin.