Listen the safest place I've ever lived was not in NY where they have strict gun laws but in Eureka Springs,
Arkansas where everyone openly carried. In Eureka I never had to lock my front door.
I can think of whole countries that are safer: Japan, Australia, Netherlands, France, that right FUCKING France, etc, etc. All of which have stricter guns laws and fewer guns per capita than the USA! Many things separate NY from Eureka Spings, like radical difference in median income, population density, ethinicities, etc, etc, any which of these factors could be the cause in the difference in crime rates, trying to determine the effects of guns laws verses these two very different places and amongst all the dilution in cause and effect by all these other factors is like trying to determine which ocean you pissed in via samples taken from different oceans!
The reason why there is so much gun violence is because typically criminals can get hold of a gun while most people go unarmed.
This is call a hypothesis, in this case one unsupported by any evidence. Ideological people though tend to believe hypothesises are true despite lack of evidence or even huge amounts of evidence against.
The kid died not because he didn't turn down his music but because he was confronted by an armed perpetrator. If the perp KNEW that those two men where carrying a weapon do you think he would have gotten into an argument with them over music they were playing in their car in a parking lot no less? I doubt it.
You did not read that case did you? the 'perp' had a register gun and killed them claiming he saw them with a shotgun (which was never found and not likely hidden by them). Clearly you logic fails in this case: he thought they were armed so he unloaded his gun on them as fast as he could! He did not 'respect' them in anyway.
Family vendettas? I don't know what that would has to do with anything.
Often people argue that gun arm society would be a respectful one, like back in the 'good old days', well a lot of things were different back then beside lots of men with openly holstered guns and quick draw training, like dualing was legal, family vandettas and all out clan warfare (Macoys verse Hatfield for example) these things could have made people more 'respectful' as well. Again its a matter of how many differences there were from then to today and somehow point at guns as the causative difference out of all the other possible factors is illogical.
Studies generally show if you own a gun your more likely to shot your self or a family member then an intruder.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Do you believe for a second Zimmerman would have followed Trayvon if he KNEW that the young man was armed?
Considering how you failed to read the minds involve in the case I brought up, I not going to imagine what Zimmerman would have done, he might have shot Trayvon from afar within moments of recognizing he was armed for all we know!
I say he would have called the cops and not left his apartment.
He was in his car... you don't read do you?
The reality is that the US is not going to be disarmed
Does not need to be! We could implement all kinds of things to try to reduce gun violence without having to fuck with the 2nd Amendment. For example require every gun owner to have training or else pay a fine, require gun insurance or else pay heavy fines, have gun insurance companies handle all gun registration (thus separating the "Big Bad Government" from gun registration records) and gun storage inspections. We also have the technology now for rapidly opening gun safes and gun safety system like RFID key ring activated guns, we could require gun owners place their guns in such guns safes (or else pay massive fines or receive increase insurance prices), heavier criminal charges for gun trafficking, illegal gun sales, gun swapping, unregistered or uninsured guns, etc, etc
Look we require every car owner have a licence, car insurance, car registration, maintain car standards, right? Why don't we place at least some of those kinds of regulations on guns? I'm not asking to take away all guns, just for a little more regulation which is perfectly within the bounds of the 2nd amendment... is that so much to ask for? Look at the Swiss, there guns (and ammo) are highly regulated as well as having every family require to be arm as and part of a militia.
Go and check the stats and you will find that the states with the strictest gun laws also have the most gun violence and commonly by those who arrive at a firearm illegally.
Again this is an inability for you to see the problems of cause and effect: states might have more gun restrictions because of high rates of gun violence, not vice verse of gun restrictions causing high gun violence: correlation does not mean causation! Again other countries demonstrate the benefits of gun regulation or even bannishemt. Australia for example banned and bought back all automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in since 1996, resulting in reduce homicide and suicide rates that could even be correlated with the rate of buy back per Australian state, thus removing any other national factor!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
More importantly if your claim that more guns would reduce gun violence was true then we would have seen an increase in Australian homicide rates, not a decrease!
