In response to http://www.gamezine.co.uk/features/game-types/shooter/time-guns-and-elderly-gamers-what-gamezine-readers-think-$1255679.htm

> "I'm questioning an inanimate object that can kill people."

Oh? You are questioning sticks, rocks, pencils, candlesticks, baseball bats, cut crystal decanters, metal busts, rope, tire irons, lengths of chain, ...?

> "The US crime rate..."

As the topic at hand is your call to _ban_ guns, you seem to be ignoring the important relevant statistics: the _change_ in rates of violent crime _since_ gun bans were instituted in major industrialized countries. Simply citing comparative current statistics does nothing to support a ban, as it presumes the results of that ban.

> "...firearms are designed to kill in the most efficient way possible."

No, they are not. They are designed to propel a bit of metal at high speed as accurately and reliably as possible. Whether or not they are used to harm someone is _solely_ up to the person holding them.

> "And the best weapon for self-defence? It's the best if you want to hurt or kill someone."

Sadly, that is what is _required_ sometimes. And, please point out a better, more effective self-defense tool for someone who is physically limited relative to the typical 18-25 year old criminal in the prime of health, for example a paraplegic in a wheelchair or a 70-year-old gamer.

> "And if it's so good at being a deterrent, why not keep it unloaded? Then it fulfils its purpose for scaring the burglar without the possibility of injury or death. The fact is that firearms aren't the best weapon for self-defence. If you wanted technology for self-defence, you'd have mace, or another weapon that doesn't have the slightest possibility of being fatal."

Please don't limit it to burglars. There are rapists out there, too, as well as violent criminals who are just out looking to kill someone for a thrill, or as a rite of initiation for a gang, or as a way to get their thirty minutes of worldwide fame before they commit suicide. Not all violent criminals will be intimidated by the mere presence of a firearm, not all violent criminals will be stopped or even slowed by chemical deterrents. Some of them will _not_ be stopped by anything less than severe or fatal injury. Some of them you _will_ have to shoot to successfully defend yourself or others. A less-than-lethal self defense tool is important and useful, but not sufficient in all cases. If you are going to carry a firearm for self defense, get training, practice, and _carry it loaded_. Otherwise it's just a short club with very poor ergonomics.

> "Guns don't protect your family, they endanger them."

In what way? Granted, if you approach firearms with ignorance, they will endanger you. That can be said of _any_ tool - would you pick up a chainsaw without first at least reading the owner's manual? If family members are educated in how to properly and safely handle firearms, if they are not treated in a manner that grants them a "mystique", then they present no more danger to your family than the knives in your kitchen drawer.

> "I am a free man, but I don't have the right to kill or injure another person. There are a lot of rules, regulations, and laws that we all follow as free men, why not follow one that stops us from being a murderer?"

Ah, but you do have such a right, if the other person is attacking you with the intent to kill or injure _you_. Killing someone in justifiable self defense is not murder. I do follow the laws against murder, and I have never killed or injured - or even displayed to, much less shot at - _anyone_ with my firearms. A law banning firearms *will not* stop firearms violence from occurring - you ignore the fact that there are those who won't follow those laws. If someone is going to ignore the laws against murder and commit murder, how would a law against the possession of a firearm stop them from obtaining one if they wished? All a ban does is expand the pool of defenseless possible victims among those who _do_ obey the law, and actually _increases_ the levels of violent crime. Making that point clear was the reason for providing the data resources I did.

> "But what would you rather say? America has an exponentially higher proportion of disturbed inhabitants, or American's have a higher homicide rate due to gun ownership?"

I would say that a murder by a disturbed person, however infrequent, gets a great deal of media coverage and is given disproportionate weight by the public. Please don't judge all firearms ownership based on _one_ _single_ highly-publicised murder by a disturbed individual; that is unrealistic, unwise, and dishonest.

I would say that America has a high rate of inner-city gang violence. The level of legal gun ownership in the US is irrelevant, since in the vast majority of cases the firearm used in a homicide was _already_ possessed in violation of the law.

> "But so be it, lets sign 17,000 death certificates for 2009 right now."

That's certainly a tragic number. Do you even care how many innocent lives were _saved_ by firearms used in self-defense? Or does the fact that even one person was killed using a firearm outweigh _all_ their benefits?