Question for anti-gun:

[omega 616]

Nope, the fact that there is something to intentionally kill speaks volumes about our "civilized" world.

Our world isn't civilized.

Remember Star Wars? Lightsabers were actually considered "civilized" compared to the wretched universe Star Wars is set in.

Just 'cos you haven't killed yet doesn't mean you would be bad at it.

That is a huge logical fallacy.

I still don't get number 2, you need to reword it. If you misuse a gun you don't kill ... the only reason we have guns is it's the quickest and easiest way to kill, it's the reason we don't run round battlefields throwing poison at each other.

Quickest way to kill? A knife can kill faster if you know what you are doing. The most obvious advantage of firearms is the reach and quick successive attacks.

There are battlefield reports of people taking several 5.56x45 and 9mm NATO hits and still running.

If you misuse a gun - i.e. disrespect the safety guidelines - there is a higher chance of someone ending up shot than if you follow the proper procedures while shooting.

That is lawful semantics

As long as I follow the law, I am not doing anything illegal. Get it?

Why do I get the feeling they could? Also some nice hidden guns there, like hiding them in glasses and ear defenders.

Now you're being pedantic. Those are items used in competition to protect eyes and hearing.

That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill.

Research and develop better guns to more effectively kill people

WOW. I assume you have never heard of ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass. If you want to develop those things you need guns.

Is that the same as research and development?

I didn't know that MythBusters developed guns.

Hey, I gave you FPSRussia ... you only gave me 11, play fair!

YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A CHILD. If you gave it, of course it will count. That's why you said 9 instead of 10. Jesus H. Christ you're starting to annoy me.

Carrying guns, a use for a gun is to carry it? It was designed to carry? I could have understood to intimidate or scare but carry?

Concealed carry. It's not used for intimidation, because anyone who pulls out a gun in a situation that does not require shots to be fired is an idiot.


I'll give you:

>Display/collecting/historical uses (go tell your local shooting club and your museums that they can't display guns)

> Scaring birds: guns firing blanks are used to drive birds away from airports. Blanks do not fire projectiles.

> Shooting flares: there are emergency flares designed to be fired in 12 Gauge firearms.

3 more. None of these kill people.

Ok, here we go!

Did you just reference star wars in your point? Just 'cos it's considered more civilized doesn't mean it's better. This point is getting too abstract, lets just leave it alone.

How is it? If you can shoot a hand gun and hit a paper target "centre mass" 50 meters away 9 times out of 10, how would that be any different to hitting a guy centre mass about 50 meters away? Unless you start adding things to make it more difficult, like panicked crowd, emotions etc.

Depending on the circumstances, yes a knife can kill quicker. To do so, you have to get close enough though, if the guy is already ready to fire ... your fucked, in the time it takes you to take 1 step towards him or move your arm to slash/stab, he has pulled the trigger and a bullet moves faster than you, obviously.

Why do I think you pulled that out of your ass? If your shooting at somebody, you are more likely to hurt somebody if you don't follow the rules? What?

I don't know about you but I am not talking about legalities here, I am talking about things like moral right and wrongs, necessity etc. If we start talking about how legal it is Americans will jump behind that "constitutional right" quicker than a rabbit down a hole! It's like a religion, arguing against it is futile 'cos they always bring up the same Constitution, instead of questioning it.

No, I was making a joke ... to try and lighten the mood, I think intense arguments sometimes need a joke to make peoples heads a little clearer 'cos when people start getting frustrated the argument devolves into petty insults.

What is this about? "That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill."? I am following you till "Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill" then you go off and put words in my mouth or something.

Why would you need ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass if guns were no longer around? Anyway, I think we have bullet glass and ballistic plates ... had them for some time now.

... Neither did I?

Again, making a joke!

You miss my point, think of this like family feud/fortunes I asked for "a use of/for a gun" ... carrying isn't on the board! You don't carry stuff on a gun like a tray.

You think we have a shooting club in the UK? I can kind of see what you mean about guns, it's like what Snake (big boss) said to ocelot in MGS3 (about 1:05 in)


Some guns are made to look all fancy and show off but I would say, the same as I will say for Olympic/sport shooting, there an off shoot (see what I did thar?) from the primary use of guns, even from the very first gun (the musket or whatever) it was designed to kill 'cos swords and archery were inferior.

Already had it.
Fair enough, can't argue.
I would call that a meeting of the minds but I can't argue with it.

 

[ElPatron]

How is it? If you can shoot a hand gun and hit a paper target "centre mass" 50 meters away 9 times out of 10, how would that be any different to hitting a guy centre mass about 50 meters away? Unless you start adding things to make it more difficult, like panicked crowd, emotions etc.

Paper is not alive on the first place. For once, it would require external force to move. Second, no matter what I do it would not attack me.

50 meters is a stretch for handguns. It's perfectly possible to score 10/10 but then you're testing your gun's precision and your accuracy - not your "combat shooting" skills.

Depending on the circumstances, yes a knife can kill quicker. To do so, you have to get close enough though, if the guy is already ready to fire ... your fucked, in the time it takes you to take 1 step towards him or move your arm to slash/stab, he has pulled the trigger and a bullet moves faster than you, obviously.

Most firearm-related self-defense shootings in the US happen at ranges so close the shooter does not need to use his sights.

Why do I think you pulled that out of your ass? If your shooting at somebody, you are more likely to hurt somebody if you don't follow the rules? What?

You have a target/person in front of you. If you draw your weapon correctly, keep the finger off the trigger until ready to fire and mind the backstop behind the person/target, you just killed nobody/one person.

If you're unskilled, you can shoot yourself in the foot/leg while drawing, putting the finger on the trigger too early can kill/injury people around you and not minding the backstop might cause your bullet to go trough your target/person and kill another person.

Using guns properly means less kills. What if gangsters used rifles or just walked up to people and shot them? There would be a casualty. But gangs do that retarded thing known as "drive-by", which is more likely to kill bystanders than actual rival gang members.

I use my guns properly. That's why I haven't killed myself or anyone in my family.

I don't know about you but I am not talking about legalities here, I am talking about things like moral right and wrongs, necessity etc. If we start talking about how legal it is Americans will jump behind that "constitutional right" quicker than a rabbit down a hole! It's like a religion, arguing against it is futile 'cos they always bring up the same Constitution, instead of questioning it.

Legal talk is based on morals and ethics. It's unethical to copy an iPad and gain profits. That's why it's illegal. It's ethical to attack someone if they shown the intent to harm you.

>always bringing up the constitution

The American founding fathers knew that people would try to question the ownership of guns. That's why they wrote the constitution. The constitution also safeguards the right of free speech.

I am not American but my constitution allows me free speech. I wouldn't like people questioning my right to free speech.

What is this about? "That's exactly my point. If you keep shooting, maybe you'll be able to kill someone. But they were never designed to do so. Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill, and when faced with the truth you criticize guns for not being designed to kill."? I am following you till "Your logic is to criticize guns for being designed to kill" then you go off and put words in my mouth or something.

No, I did not. I shown you guns that were designed to be used in competitions. You just said that they look like they can kill. They will. Eventually. But you just dodged your own argument.

Why would you need ballistic plates and bullet-resistant glass if guns were no longer around? Anyway, I think we have bullet glass and ballistic plates ... had them for some time now.

First, anyone with access to a machine shop can build a Sten SMG. In 2004 a gang in Australia was building silenced Owen submachine guns.

Second, ballistic plates can save people's lives during war. They are used by soldiers, war journalists, etc.

Third, politicians have armed security. If they were really safe from guns, why do they need guns? Rich people love buying this stuff. Heck, there are billionaires that just buy planes with missile countermeasures and yachts with sonars to detect torpedoes.

You miss my point, think of this like family feud/fortunes I asked for "a use of/for a gun" ... carrying isn't on the board! You don't carry stuff on a gun like a tray.

Concealed Carry has been proven to reduce crime in some states in the US. If there are random, trained citizens with a license to carry firearms then there is a deterrent because criminals will not know if they are going to attack someone with a gun or not.

Sometimes criminals die during self-defense, but concealed carry is a lifestyle, a choice and most importantly a way of keeping the cities peaceful without necessarily involving violence.

You think we have a shooting club in the UK?

http://bit.ly/RzD6Zm
http://bit.ly/RzDo29

Also, there are non-shooting clubs that hang firearms on their walls. We are talking about high-society here. I bet the Royal Family have a huge private collection of guns.

Some guns are made to look all fancy and show off but I would say, the same as I will say for Olympic/sport shooting, there an off shoot (see what I did thar?) from the primary use of guns, even from the very first gun (the musket or whatever) it was designed to kill 'cos swords and archery were inferior.

If you use that argument, then any kind of axe, knife, bow or crossbow can be an offshoot of the developments achieved during wartime.

Heck, I can't think of any other use of bows and crossbows during peace time (that exclude killing or "training for killing"), unlike blades and axes.

 

[ElPatron]

Did you know the 70's and 80's was when guns became so cheap the average criminal could afford them? And suddenly there's a massive increase in violent crime.

Thanks for the graphs. They clearly show that banning firearms will radically lower violent crime.

>cheapness of guns will increase gun sales for violent purposes
>BANNING FIREARMS WILL LOWER VIOLENT CRIME

Wow. You should present this findings to an university. Because I am that mean and I would love to hear everyone laughing at this "dissertation".

Oh, wait. Is that why London has 3,3 times more rapes than New York City? Is that why violent crime has rose in Australia?

- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

If you understand how the derivative of a function works, you'll notice that not only the ban was not capable of affecting the rise of non-gun homicide, it also had no statistical effect on the reduction of gun homicides - as the reduction had been falling at a nearly identical rate for years before the ban.

And here's murder:

Suicides:
No statistical effect on the already decreasing numbers of firearms suicide.

Now UK again:

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Thanks for the graphs. They clearly show that banning firearms will radically lower violent crime.

Eh? Is that some sort of joke? They show that violent crime has risen across the US over the last century where guns are comparatively freely available, just like they have in the UK where they aren't. (See Above).

 

[A Distant Star]

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

I'll be honest here, from what I've seen and heard I could pretty much just buy a gun on the internet and go on a killing spree in the US. Simple as that.

In Norway that's not possible, you have to go through great deals of trouble to get yourself a weapon the legal way. And after that you've got the whole hassle in making the gun useful for a killing spree.
Breivik bought a half automatic rifle in Norway with a magazine with the capacity of 5 rounds. The parts, the 30round magazines and the laser sight was bought from the US and smuggled into the country.

It took him around a year before he had a rifle fixed for the killing spree.

Gun Regulation Laws would have stopped Breivik if it wasn't for the US's lax relationship to guns.
It's Illegal to tinker with a gun in a way that changes It's purpose. The parts aren't sold in Norway.
The Magazines aren't sold in Norway.
The Laser Sight is the only thing I'm not sure about, but pretty sure that's Illegal too.

Please check you facts before you go mentioning stuff like that.
I am one of the unlucky bastards who lost friends to the massacre, who watched other friends cry out in despair when they found out close friends had been shot by a cold blooded extremist.

That's all I've got to say on this subject, I don't care if anyone else has mentioned this.
I'm not digging through 5 more pages.

Maybe you should have read a little closer to what I had to say. I am pro-gun control, I am also not American and come from a country with gun control laws. I think owning a gun should be treated exactly like owning a care. Which means, training, licencing and registering. All I am saying is, gun control will not stop crazy people from doing crazy things. The Genies out of the bottle, guns are out there on the market and there's nothing we can do about it. If some one really wants to shoot up a bunch of people who will probably do it. (Unless he slips up and gets caught.) There are lots of reasons to be pro-gun control, worrying about a small minority of crazy people isn't one of them.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

I'll be honest here, from what I've seen and heard I could pretty much just buy a gun on the internet and go on a killing spree in the US. Simple as that.[/spoiler]

No... not really. You have to have a federal license to sell ANYWHERE, unless it is a gun made before 1893. Some states, including mine, online purchases can only be picked up from a licensed dealer, who does an instant background check on you (via the internet). You should also note that we don't have mass shootings every day, most gun owners

In Norway that's not possible, you have to go through great deals of trouble to get yourself a weapon the legal way. And after that you've got the whole hassle in making the gun useful for a killing spree.
Breivik bought a half automatic rifle in Norway with a magazine with the capacity of 5 rounds. The parts, the 30round magazines and the laser sight was bought from the US and smuggled into the country.

It isn't that hard to make magazines. All it is, is basically a metal box with a spring on the bottom. He could of taken the clip he had bought, sliced it in half, and then added more metal between the top and a bottom.

A laser sight could of been bought anywhere that has office supplies, and attached to the gun with ducktape.

Making a gun from scratch isn't very hard either. Today, in the Arab world, they are constantly making out guns, ammo, and RPGS in CAVES, often with little more than hammers and basic tools.

Or he could of decided a bomb was less trouble and gone to the gardening shop.

The worst school massacre wasn't actually done with a bomb, it was done with explosives. Colobine would of been a lot worse if the bombs the shooters set went off during lunch time, as they planned.

It took him around a year before he had a rifle fixed for the killing spree.

Which shows the lengths some men will go to kill others.

Gun Regulation Laws would have stopped Breivik if it wasn't for the US's lax relationship to guns.
It's Illegal to tinker with a gun in a way that changes It's purpose. The parts aren't sold in Norway.
The Magazines aren't sold in Norway.
The Laser Sight is the only thing I'm not sure about, but pretty sure that's Illegal too.

Again, no hard to alter mags, laser sights on guns are not much different than laser sights you use at the office to point at graphs.

I am one of the unlucky bastards who lost friends to the massacre, who watched other friends cry out in despair when they found out close friends had been shot by a cold blooded extremist.

That's all I've got to say on this subject, I don't care if anyone else has mentioned this.
I'm not digging through 5 more pages.

I am sorry about that. I also know a guy who is sitting in a wheel chair because instead of shooting a robber in his house when the thief had his back to him, he warmed him that he would shoot.

The robber shot at the noise and hit his spine. If my friend pulled the trigger, if he didn't follow the "required warning" law, he still would of be walking today.

 

[mrdude2010]

snip

The reason gun control in the U.S. isn't working is because they're going about it all the wrong way, and it's probably too late to even attempt. There are already so many guns in the country that unless we went out of our way to round them all up, trying to stop people from buying them now won't work. Also, the U.S. tends to go about gun control in a more local sense- an individual state or city banning the use of certain weapons, and that's just stupid. If you can't buy a gun in one city, what's to stop you from going to the next city over?

Gun control laws by themselves aren't the problem, the way the laws are implemented are. If you wanted to reduce gun violence at this point, your best bet would be to make the penalties for owning an illegal firearm much harsher. It's not worth it for a criminal to brandish around an illegal weapon for a measly $150 from a gas station if he knows he might spend 20 years in prison because of it.
Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except that the crime rate decrease you're talking about started before the brady bill was passed and continued afterwards, long afterwards, those rates are still decreasing. Also, gun control doesn't reduce crime rates anywhere, it's not just a US problem.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You're right. That one year on each side based on funding the police properly is totally evidence of gun control not working. my mistake.

Also, crime rate definitely increased after the Brady Bill, but nice try.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This arguement needs to stop. Seriously. "Dont make them illegal, criminals dont follow laws so there isnt any point making them illegal".

Question. Why is owning nukes illegal? Criminals don't follow laws so they should be able to get nukes and hold entire cities to ransom for VAST sums of money all the time like in batman. Therefor nukes should be llegal for every citizen to own since we only make them illegal to stop criminals from getting them and criminals avoid laws so making them illegal doesnt make any difference at all. Laws have zero to no effect on stopping anyone from doing something ever. People just WALK into secret bases all the time and take things! They are criminals after all. They dont follow laws so whats the point?

Oh wait. Laws. Are. ENFORCED. Its HARD for a Criminal to get a gun in England BECAUSE its illegal. You gotta smuggle them in from overseas, move them, sell them and evade capture at ALL TIMES. That makes it hard and EXPENSIVE. This restricts their sale massively.

I shoot for fun down at the range. My gun is safely under lock and key and it NEVER leaves the range. I LOVE shooting. Just doesnt need to come home with me. Im against an armed population. But you cant undo an armed population. Its too late for america now so its safest to leave it how it is. Its EASY for American criminals to get guns EVEN illegally. It is NOT easy for English criminals to get guns illegally. Thats the difference. We have an ocean, VERY little firearms floating around and llegal sellers are very rare and licences are very difficult to obtain. We are safe. Firearms are a one way street. Once everyone is armed everyone needs to stay armed since a "hand in" is ridiculous. Unarmed societies should stay unarmed if possible though. Oceans help.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Maybe you should have read a little closer to what I had to say. I am pro-gun control, I am also not American and come from a country with gun control laws. I think owning a gun should be treated exactly like owning a care. Which means, training, licencing and registering. All I am saying is, gun control will not stop crazy people from doing crazy things. The Genies out of the bottle, guns are out there on the market and there's nothing we can do about it. If some one really wants to shoot up a bunch of people who will probably do it. (Unless he slips up and gets caught.) There are lots of reasons to be pro-gun control, worrying about a small minority of crazy people isn't one of them.

Then I stand corrected, I seem to have misunderstood what you were getting at.
It's quite a personal subject for me, the whole Breivik massacre

snip

How many people in Norway do you think can actually make a gun?
Sure, there's bound to be a lot of instructions on some dubious website, but guns used for anything else than hunting are so uncommon in Norway.
I find it rather impressive that Breivik actually managed to tinker with his gun at all.
He didn't even finish high school.

And yes, I see your point, It was stupid of me to mention the whole part of him getting his parts from America, when I didn't really want to touch this topic at all.

snip

I stand corrected then on the whole buying guns on the internet thing.
And I know very well that massacres doesn't happen that often in America.

On the magazine making. That's not something a normal Norwegian would have been able to do and neither did our dear Breivik.
What he did do though was buy gardening stuff and build one hell of a huge bomb and blew up Norways seat of power.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

How many people in Norway do you think can actually make a gun?
Sure, there's bound to be a lot of instructions on some dubious website, but guns used for anything else than hunting are so uncommon in Norway.
I find it rather impressive that Breivik actually managed to tinker with his gun at all.
He didn't even finish high school.

Have you ever ?tinkered? with a gun before? I have, in fact I am a licensed gunsmith (still, god help me). It is easy to make a gun. Hell, PRISONERS have made guns INSIDE of prison. Do not underestimate human ingenuity.

http://www.correctionsone.com/contraband/articles/1961780-15-deadly-improvised-prison-weapons-and-tools/

On the magazine making. That's not something a normal Norwegian would have been able to do and neither did our dear Breivik.

He didn?t but he could have. A magazine is just a box with a spring in it. Who the hell can?t build one of those?

I sure as hell can't build one, but yeah, I get your point.
It was ignorant of me not to think that he'd manage to do something if he didn't manage to buy a gun.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, wait. Is that why London has 3,3 times more rapes than New York City? Is that why violent crime has rose in Australia?

- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

I can't speak for London, but that's simply not true of Australia. Pro-gun groups in the US often falsely claim that Australia became much more dangerous after weapons restrictions were tightened following Port Arthur, and generally avoid giving actual statistics gathered in Australia.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.aspx

You'll also note, that in that article about Australia, it mentions about "the gun ban" several times. That's a total fantasy, guns are not banned in Australia.

(As an aside, while trying to find out which illegal weapons are most common in Australia, and which are most commonly built in backyards or whatever, came across the statistic that 1.3% are believed to be homemade...didn't find out what models predominate, though, beyond handguns are the majority of illegal firearms)

 

[gufftroad]

How many people in Norway do you think can actually make a gun?
Sure, there's bound to be a lot of instructions on some dubious website, but guns used for anything else than hunting are so uncommon in Norway.
I find it rather impressive that Breivik actually managed to tinker with his gun at all.
He didn't even finish high school.

And yes, I see your point, It was stupid of me to mention the whole part of him getting his parts from America, when I didn't really want to touch this topic at all.

if you want to know how easy it is to make a gun please look up the sten any variant it is just a milled bit of steal with a point in a tube the trigger is the most complicated part and it has all of 3 parts followed by the magazine tell me some one in Norway cant look that up and make one

 

[ElPatron]

"the gun ban" several times. That's a total fantasy, guns are not banned in Australia

I know. It's a ban. It involves guns. So I call it the "ban" or the "gun ban". I am not going to literally enumerate every item that was banned.

Like my sources stated, there is no statistical influence of the "restriction" since those guns were taken away from legal owners. Said ban was a kneejerk reaction because the crime figures did not justify banning that type or firearms.

The Australian Bureau of Criminology itself says that there is no correlation between gun control and violent crime.

Overall, do you really think that reducing the gun ownership percentage from 7% to 5% has had any *real* effect?

Oh wait. Laws. Are. ENFORCED. Its HARD for a Criminal to get a gun in England BECAUSE its illegal.

No, it's not... Most "small time" criminals won't ever need a gun with them, so forget about the chavs and teenage delinquents. If a real criminal wants a gun in the UK, he's going to get it. Simply put, there is a black market for them even if nobody uses them. And there are people afraid to be caught with an illegal gun, or even people who will deal with anything.

I met an American guy once. He had to work night shifts in London and he felt so unsafe he got his hands on a black market Makarov. He spent more than a year with it, without anyone ever guessing. When he was going back to America, he threw it into some place it would rust.

Thing is: there is no point in committing crimes with a gun in the UK, so criminals rather not use them.

Also, licenses are difficult to obtain? A SAC is very easy to obtain, children as young as 11 have got it.


Do you even know how hard it is to make the simplest nuke? Because I know how, and it is ridiculously hard. Mostly because even if you stumble on a nuclear powerplant's stockpile, the uranium available is not weapons grade.

I find it rather impressive that Breivik actually managed to tinker with his gun at all.
He didn't even finish high school.

Because it takes a college diploma to learn how to operate power tools. Jebus H. Christ, 30 years ago every male half of my age could probably accomplish what Breivik did.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

The reason gun control in the U.S. isn't working is because they're going about it all the wrong way, and it's probably too late to even attempt. There are already so many guns in the country that unless we went out of our way to round them all up, trying to stop people from buying them now won't work. Also, the U.S. tends to go about gun control in a more local sense- an individual state or city banning the use of certain weapons, and that's just stupid. If you can't buy a gun in one city, what's to stop you from going to the next city over?

Gun control laws by themselves aren't the problem, the way the laws are implemented are. If you wanted to reduce gun violence at this point, your best bet would be to make the penalties for owning an illegal firearm much harsher. It's not worth it for a criminal to brandish around an illegal weapon for a measly $150 from a gas station if he knows he might spend 20 years in prison because of it.
Besides, you could also point to the huge crime rate decrease from the early 90's to the mid 2000's when the Brady Bill was active as evidence that banning assault weapons can help reduce crime.

Except that the crime rate decrease you're talking about started before the brady bill was passed and continued afterwards, long afterwards, those rates are still decreasing. Also, gun control doesn't reduce crime rates anywhere, it's not just a US problem.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You're right. That one year on each side based on funding the police properly is totally evidence of gun control not working. my mistake.

Also, crime rate definitely increased after the Brady Bill, but nice try.

Try two years before, and 6 years and counting after. Crime rate did not increase after the Brady Bill, check you're facts. Firstly, the Brady Bill is still around, secondly, crime rates are still decreasing and the Assault Weapon Ban went out of effect in 2004. I don't know what is causing our crime rates to steadily decline right now, but I can tell you one thing: it isn't gun control.