"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694
This study found the opposite of what the above letter claims. In countries where there is less gun ownership murder and suicide rates were higher, not lower.

And if you actually read the piece by Elizabeth Rosenthal, her examples of the high murder and crime are "Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela". All of these countries have wars, drug lords, economic strife and revolutions impacting them. She fails to mention any of that.

England since enacting their gun ban now has the highest murder rate in Europe, based on this article shouldn't it be the lowest?

I also love how the writer points out several examples to drive emotion over reason.

Here's one just as tragic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18870607
In England where guns are banned, a 35 year old father of 3 murdered his three children ages 12, 8 and 6 with a knife before then taking his own life.

Kiyan Prince, a London star high school athlete was stabbed to death in front of his school.
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00867.html

Here's an idea, instead of focusing on the tool maybe it's time to start focusing on the people committing the crimes.

Mr. Barnes,
master spinner,

The drug wars, economic strife and revolution in Latin American countries do not negate the impact of gun violence. It's the proliferation of guns, and that tools capacity for killing, that escalate violence.

England might have the highest murder rate in Europe, however, the absence of guns puts it well below the USA in regards to gun murders and gun violence. Imagine the number of dead bodies if they had a gun proliferation rate equal to the USA?

You think we need to focus on the people committing crimes in the USA as if we are easy on criminals? Then why does the USA have an extremely high incarceration rate compared to other industrialized nations.

Do you realize our prisons are bursting at the seams?

Mr. Barnes,
do you realize that the USA has a gun homocide rate 32 times higher than Britain? So you want to compare the US with Britain, your argument falls apart.

"Let's not focus on the tool..."
Mr. Barnes, you know that's disingenuous. People have been killing people since Cain and Able. You know we cannot legislate morality.

You know that tool in the hands of an individual significantly increases the ability to do damage. And that gun control laws do not simply "focus on the tool" but focus on the firepower of the tool and keeping that significant firepower from the hands of people who want to do damage.

So it's disingenuous to say that the laws simply "focus on the tool", that's another half-truth.

Ray,
You are all over the place with your arguments.

Fact is in every single country and state where gun laws have gone into place, violent crime has gone UP, not down. That is a conformable fact.

Also if you want to compare the US to the UK, murder rates have been higher in the US then UK for decades even before the UK gun bans went into effect so it's an invalid comparison.

Here is a valid comparison... NY city to London. NY has 8 million people to London's 7 million. The violent crime rate in London since the gun ban has went into effect is now 7 times higher then the violent crime rate in NY city. Both cities have comparable police budgets so that isn't a factor.

How do you explain this?

Mr. Barnes,
Your statement "The violent crime rate is seven times higher than in NY City since the gun ban went into effect"
tells us NOTHING regarding the impact of GUN murders and GUN violence. And the fact is that despite the higher violent crime rate, the gun murder rate is 32 times LESS in England.

So if you are harmed and/or murdered with a bat or knife its ok as long as it isn't a gun?

Sorry Ray but I think it does matter.

Look at statistics from the UK and Ireland after gun bans went into effect
http://mygunculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ireland_murder_rates_gun_ban.png

In both counties gun bans resulted in higher violent crime rates and higher murder rates.
If someone is murdered I don't think it's any less a crime if it's done with a knife compared to a gun.

And if you really want to consider some interesting facts here's another one... after the gun ban went into effect in the UK even gun crimes went UP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Is the goal to stop murder and violent crimes or is it that you just don't like guns?

Charlie,
you ignore facts.

The tough gun laws in NY are undermined by the lax gun laws in other states.

Have you not heard what Mayor Bloomberg has said about people bringing guns to NY? And 60 % of guns used in crimes in Boston are with guns brought into Boston from out of state. We need strong national laws, which we will never get until the NRA releases its stranglehold on Congress.

The other fact that people ignore is that the NRA does everything it can to undermine law enforcement when it comes to enforcing laws already on the books. The NRA calls for tougher enforcement, but then lobbys Congress to prevent law enforcement from doing its job.

Ray please spare me. This policy of "ban it everywhere" works so well with drugs and illegal immigration we have none of that right? You seriously think that taking failed policy nationwide is going to fix the issue of gun violence? You must be in favor of a fence and armed military every 50 feet or so along the boarders too then right?

Charlie,
you have an active imagination.
I did not say "ban it everywhere", in fact I do not believe guns should be banned.

You made that up in your knee-jerk straw man reaction.

Drugs and illegal immigration are not the issue, you wrongly conclude that if a problem isn't fixed completely, then it isn't fixed. Yes, I support enforcement of laws against illegal substances, despite the fact that some people ignore the law, does not mean that it's useless. I support the law against murder, despite the fact that people still commit murders.

New gun laws won't completely eradicate gun violence, in fact all laws will not eradicate violence by any means. That does not mean that laws against violence are useless. Otherwise we would have anarchy.

You think that if a law doesn't work completely then it's useless. That's not the case.

We need tougher gun laws, and we need the NRA to get off of law enforcement's back so that the laws can be enforced. These are facts that you will not acknowledge.

This is the dumbest argument of them all. Well, let's see in Chicago, you can drive 20 miles outside of Chicage and get the banned weapon. That is why. Same in NY City.

Ray,
Its a fair argument to say other states undermine gun laws in some states but then how do you explain the increase in murder and violent crime in England where guns are banned in the entire country?

And how do you explain that these states with the lax laws which undermine the other more violent states have some of the lowest crime rates in the country?

Mr. Barnes,
Don't compare the crime rates of the states with lax gun laws to the crime rates of cities where there are strict gun laws, compare the gun violence rate of the two, then we can compare apples to apples.

Again, England might have an increase in murder and violence, but please compare the rate of violence and murder utilizing the tool, the gun, in England with that of the US.

So the fact that you are 7 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in London compared to NY city is ok because they may only be using a knife and not a gun? Ray you really do make me laugh.

ATF can only inspect a gun dealer once per year, thanks to lobbying from the NRA, just the tip of the iceberg of what the NRA has done over the past few decades.

But the NRA was not always against gun control, back when Bobby Seales and the Black Panthers believed in arming themselves for defense against the police, the NRA helped write gun control laws.

There's a long history out there Steve, we've just scratched the surface.

Here ! Here!

How dare the NRA help write gun control laws against law abiding citizens like Bobby Seales and the Black Panthers who believed in arming themselves for defense against the police during the late 60's,

Works for me.

Truth is Bob , may I call you bob? All legal gun owners would back legislation that would actualy reduce crime without affecting them. If the anti's want to prove they are serious, they need to start with measures that actualy do reduce crime. Increased penalties for:
Ilegal posession'
felon in posession
posession of stolen
sale of stolen
ect.

And in many cases without a shot ever being fired.

How do ya plan on keeping em off the streets?

Criminals don't obey laws in case you haven't noticed. Less guns on the street would only mean fewer law abiding citizens would be carrying. That leave the criminal element fully armed and confident in pulling the trigger with no fear of anyone shooting back. No, less guns on the street would not necessarily result in less gun deaths. It could very well result in more gun deaths of innocent, unprotected, defenseless, law abiding citizens.

You anti-gun folks should all walk around wearing a shirt that says "I DO NOT CARRY A WEAPON" and stick a large sign on your front lawns that reads "THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOUSE". We'll read about you here and see the results on the evening news.

Proud---so the criminals run the lives of the majority??????????????

Geezer - you got that right. The criminals do indeed run the lives of the majority. If that were not the case, we would not be talking about any proposed gun laws. We would not be locking our doors, our windows or our cars. We wouldn't be buying insurance policies that cover theft. We wouldn't be shredding documents with our name, account numbers or Social Security Number on them. We wouldn't be installing security systems in our homes or cars. Businesses wouldn't be installing surveillance cameras all over the place. Retail businesses wouldn't be hiring security personnel. Identity theft would be unheard of. You wouldn't have to worry about being mugged, raped or robbed on the streets at night. No one would have to worry about their kids being kidnapped while outside playing. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. And guess who pays for this protection??? And you don't think criminals run our lives???

"less guns on the street equals less gun deaths"

Take a look at the stats in Chicago. Strictest gun laws in the country and a huge rate of gun deaths. 500 killed by guns in 2012.
http://rt.com/usa/news/chicago-murder-year-city-038/

Seamus---It is true that local areas have strict gun laws--criminals just go across any border to get all the guns they want with no registration--you can even buy them online. Numbers say little unless the whole country is involved........................

Ya' Right,
let's pretend there's absolutely no connection. Pure BullSheet.