There's no such thing as a "stray dagger" killing anyone.

[Baculus]

Gun control simply does not work, as evidenced by the situation in the U.K. Also, in areas where there isn't high firearm violence, there are incidents of stabbings and blunt trauma assaults. Just Google "stabbings," and you will see the huge amount of such assaults - this article describes "Up to 60,000 young people, mostly male, may be stabbed and injured each year" in the UK from stabbings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/nknife320.xml

The issue is with the human condition: many humans are just inherently violent. And if they don't have a firearm, they will find other means to attack another human being.

[Baculus]

I'm curious, what are the restrictions on ammunition? As has been mentioned, even if you outlaw guns, those in existence won't just disappear. However, if ammunition is controlled, it's single use only.

The restriction on the U.S.? If varies from state to state, with so-called "cop killers" armor-piercing ammo typically being restricted.

[Popeman38]

First off, if you want to have a real debate, try to spell some of those "big words" correctly. Because right now, what you wrote makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.

Is this a football message board or a 4th grade classroom? That's what I thought, put the red marker down, I ain't looking for grades. If spelling errors distract you from the topic, or points raised from the other side, you should probably be debating in a classroom.

Second of all, what you just did was the straw man argument. You dodge the issue of gun control by saying that its not fair to take away a right when we don't take away privileges.

I didn't dodge jack. We have gun control laws. Commit a felony, you can't possess a firearm legally. Declared mentally unfit? No gun. I don't complain that it would be unfair to take away guns. I contend that it would be ILLEGAL, based on the fact that it was penned into the Constitution by the founders of this country.

Just debate the issue that is being discussed: whether or not there should be tighter GUN control, and what that should entail. Otherwise, you're like that kid who says "I know I was wrong, but Billy was more wrong."

Do you really want to allow the govt to compile DBs of firearm owners? Nobody trusts the govt with any personal info until it fits their personal views. There are laws that govern who can have a gun. There are laws that punish those who either ignore those laws, or use a legally purchased firearm to commit a crime. There are sob stories like this that can be applied to every "weapon" (however you want to define weapon). And I defy anyone to give an example of how a gun every killed anyone, without another being loading the gun, pointing it, and pulling the trigger.

[PokerPacker]

Ok, to dive into this one:

If the gun control laws were tight enough to make it impossible to obtain a gun legally, then yes. Because I'm willing to bet the gun was obtained legally.

Plus, to the generality of the problem, tighter gun control laws would reduce the supply and demand overall of guns in this country. If people can't legally buy them, people wouldn't make them.

BLACK MARKET!

there will always be a market for guns, and if "people can't legally buy them", then people will overthrow the government. who's gonna stop them, the other citizens AGAINST guns? HA!