[Pitchfork]

You raise a good point. The evidence is ambiguous. I can point to countries like Canada where guns are controlled, and violent crimes are rarer and say yes there is evidence. Of course what works for Canada (or Britain or Australia) may not work in America. Conversely some may note that crime is high in areas of the US with restrictive laws. But establishing the direction of causality is problematic and the transportation of guns across state lines (while it may be illegal) won't stop determined individuals from violating the restrictions.
Perhaps Hawaii, in its isolation, would serve as an example of how gun restrictions might work in the US since the only way to get there is by plane etc.
I'd like to collect data and test hypotheses empirically but as I've noted the gun lobby doesn't want that to happen. This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.

[Torie]

You need to correct in your little self study for the nature of the population. In the UK, where guns are largely illegal, crime and gun crime has gone way up. The nature of the population there has changed. In North Dakota, that has unrestricted gun ownership, crime is very low. German farmers tend to have low crime rates. Washington DC has strict gun laws also by the way. Dope is also illegal generally. Odd that those that want it can still obtain it. The dirty little secret is that laws are often disobeyed, and laws restricting possession of personal property seem particularly difficult to enforce.

[palmer]

Of course what works for Canada (or Britain or Australia)

The latest evidence shows it is not working in Britain.

[EternalVigilance]

I'd like to collect data and test hypotheses empirically but as I've noted the gun lobby doesn't want that to happen. This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.

Sorry, we are free men and women--Americans--who are not the least bit interested in being test subjects for your 'cost/benefit analysis'.

If you want test cases, study the totalitarian gun-banning regimes who killed a few hundred million human beings in the last century.

That should keep you busy for awhile.

Come on back when you're done, Teach, and give us a report.

[Long Cut]

Bothy Britain and Australia have experienced skyrocketing crime rates, including GUN crime rates, since they essentially banned private gun ownership a few years ago. Both nations, BTW, are islands. You should certainly consider this.

"Perhaps Hawaii, in its isolation, would serve as an example of how gun restrictions might work in the US since the only way to get there is by plane etc."

See above. Oh, and Hawaii's gun laws are quite restrictive, compared to the rest of the country. Their crime rates are, however, just as high.

" as I've noted the gun lobby doesn't want that to happen. This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see"

I see you've chosen to ignore my prior post on this very subject, and to simply repeat your "evil gun lobby" talking point, with its companion code words for registration. Very well, then, we have nothing further to discuss.

[Teacher317]

This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.

Get this straight, friend:
My rights are not subject to your cost-benefit analysis.
The day you actually have a chance to change this is the day you get to see exactly how horribly wrong you are in your assumptions about a bunch of common citizens taking on a modern army. I guess your insufferable "intellect" won't be troubled by the "coincidence" that a civil war had to be waged for you to finally get a clue.

[Torie]

I've noted the gun lobby doesn't want that to happen

I missed this bit. Gunners don't want any data collection? That seems odd, since in the last 10 years the data has been the gunners friend. Yep, it suprised me too a bit. Sometimes one's intuition as to how things will play out is proven wrong. When that happens, some of us adjust our opinions. Others simply have too much cultural iconic baggage to allow data to influence their opinions. That is understandable, but in an honest debate, it should be acknowledged.

[CharacterCounts]

. This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.

You have been asking for a cost benefit discussion; so here goes.

Cost Benefit Analysis - Personal to CC

Cost	Benefit
Glock 29 - $600.00 Bullet - $.50	One dead criminal Breaking into my home.

My anaysis comes out overwhelmingly in favor of individual gun ownership.