Not looking to pick a fight with anyone here, but in a nutshell I feel like guys who really, really want to own a gun will seek out the opinions of the NRA, select news agencies, columnists, so-called experts, etc who will reinforce and give credence to their strong desire to own a gun. It is important to them to have justification and a feeling of righteousness. Obviously I can't prove it but I think a hhuuugge percentage of gun owners are stricken with bloodlust and want to take out the 'bad guys'.
Uh, except Hawaii isn't a gun control success story.
See stupid, you posted an article about a singular year of violent crime data. Further, when you posted that you did not know that:
1. The violent crime rate in Hawaii was higher in 2011 than in 2002 - so if gun control is successful, you can't explain that
2. The sharpest drops in the violent crime rate in Hawaii have taken place while more guns were being purchased
And of course, Hawaii is an island.
But no matter, you actually can not understand this. Mainly because you're a dimwit.
Here is the problem with your line of thinking:
The violent crime rate in areas surrounding cities where you can go buy a gun are lower than the cities where the guns were banned.
So in other words, guns are not the problem.
Of course the other issue is that there has been a 500% increase in the issuance of concealed carry permits and 150 million + more guns go into circulation in the last 25 years and the violent crime rate has dropped.
So guns are not the problem.
Finally, the violent crime rate in the UK and Australia has seen spikes since gun bans.
Since nobody quoted or referenced the opinions of the NRA, or "select news agencies" or any columnist, I'm not sure where these ideas come from.
Further, the "justification" for someone owning a firearm is something endowed from our creator. In other words, I seek no justification what so ever for owning a gun.
Finally, since there is almost 1 gun for every man, woman, and child, in America, I'd say the comment about bloodlust is laughable.
Why are you non gun owners always assigning motives to people about an object you are afraid of and do not possess?
Hey, why don't you tell us which part of the gun control agenda includes citizens having more guns?
“While there has been a tremendous increase in firearm registration activity in Hawaii since 2000, the annual trends for both the number of firearm-related violent crimes and the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms relative to other weapon types remained stable within a low and narrow range through 2007, and decreased substantially from 2008 through 2012, during which time registration activity increased the most sharply,” the Department of the Attorney concluded.
=======
Your answer, to the extend you will pretend to supply one, will be rather comical.
the 'less guns=less violent crime' issue is kinda akin to the 'less calories in vs calories out= weight loss' . Both are intuitive-- they gotta be right, no? 
.95% of 'calorie counters ' fail- they don't lose weight , keep it off. So much for that, eh. Here, America eat less and exercise and you'll lose weight-- obesity rates have risen, ugh. A simple mathematical model to work on a complex biological system? really?
Less guns do not mean less violent crime/ less murder rates -- evidence is not there.
here's a good read, sources r cited
http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime.htm
. Copying and pasting a few notes:
The former Soviet Union's extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].
In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens -- again, almost entirely without guns -- equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser; Pridemore; Pridemore].
On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].
The point is, the "more guns = more violence" argument and the "gun ownership = decreased crime" argument both sidestep the complicating socioeconomic, cultural and psychological factors affecting violent crime. Economic disparities within countries, along with periods of economic downturn, drive up crime and homicides, and violent crimes occurs four times more often in countries with wide income gaps. While economic prosperity tends to decrease violent crime, crime itself can depress community development, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and violence [source: UNODC].
The only clear message in this complex issue is that violent crime overall does not increase with the availability of guns, but gun-related violence does [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]. In 1996, for example, you were far more likely to be shot to death in America than in any of 35 other wealthy nations, but you were also less likely to be the victim of murder, or of violent crime in general [sources: Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher].
.95% of 'calorie counters ' fail- they don't lose weight , keep it off. So much for that, eh. Here, America eat less and exercise and you'll lose weight-- obesity rates have risen, ugh. A simple mathematical model to work on a complex biological system? really? Less guns do not mean less violent crime/ less murder rates -- evidence is not there.
here's a good read, sources r cited
http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime.htm
. Copying and pasting a few notes:
The former Soviet Union's extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].
In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens -- again, almost entirely without guns -- equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser; Pridemore; Pridemore].
On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].
The point is, the "more guns = more violence" argument and the "gun ownership = decreased crime" argument both sidestep the complicating socioeconomic, cultural and psychological factors affecting violent crime. Economic disparities within countries, along with periods of economic downturn, drive up crime and homicides, and violent crimes occurs four times more often in countries with wide income gaps. While economic prosperity tends to decrease violent crime, crime itself can depress community development, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and violence [source: UNODC].
The only clear message in this complex issue is that violent crime overall does not increase with the availability of guns, but gun-related violence does [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]. In 1996, for example, you were far more likely to be shot to death in America than in any of 35 other wealthy nations, but you were also less likely to be the victim of murder, or of violent crime in general [sources: Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher].
You are laughed at by people who agree with you. Even they see your debate skills are comical. Your constant "I didn't say that" is pathetic. Of course your firearm stats mean zero. Nothing you can post will ever say how many deaths gun control prevents...so it means nothing when you post about firearm deaths. You are incapable of understanding anything that causes you to think on your own.
You continuing to say I said something I did not say is comical.
You have offered nothing to debate, mainly because you're stupid.
Nothing you can post will ever show how many lives gun control saves. In fact, there are absolutely zero statistics that can show how many deaths gun control prevents and the fact the you keep bringing it up shows what a comical idiot you are.
Everything you believe about gun control has been shown to be spectacularly wrong. And since that is an absolute fact, you laughably assert homicide by firearms statistics are "meaningless"
Keep flailing, idiot.
This is utter nonsense.
America is not Norway or the Soviet union, and this is 2014, not 1996.
Fact: In 2011, a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm
In 1993, that number was 1,500,000
There were almost 100 million more firearms in circulation in 2011 (including firearms subject to the "assault weapons ban") in America than there were in 1993.
See, for example: Record numbers packing heat and then see: U.S. death rate from homicide drops to a near 50-year low
Why people want to continue to pretend these things are not true is not at all clear.
The point is, the "more guns = more violence
This abjectly false statement is easily refuted by the research of the US DOJ.
And we see specific examples such as: Va. gun crime drops again as firearm sales soar
This abjectly false statement is easily refuted by the research of the US DOJ.
And we see specific examples such as: Va. gun crime drops again as firearm sales soar
You have shown yourself to be the biggest moron here. Whether it's akp making you look stupid on the economy, Guesser proving you a liar on every issue...you just keep getting massacred in every way.
The gun issue might actually be where you look the most foolish...even more so than when you try to tell people what the bible means.
According to the FBI, in 2011 knives and other cutting tools were responsible for five times (1,684) the fatalities as rifles (323) or shotguns (356) (but not as much as total firearms). Remember the rage against the ownership of “assault” rifles? Well, given that knives seem to pose a much greater threat to the safety of Americans than rifles of any classification seem to pose, one can expect that the outrage and the cries of fury to push for knife control are going to be exponentially louder and more vehement.
Obviously, knowing that knives kill five times as many people a year than rifles, the Brady Campaign and Mothers Demand Action will march on Washington and demand that something be done about the national knife epidemic. We can expect to see the Brady Knife Bill, forcing the registration of all knives except those intended for hunting and cooking.
hno:
Modern liberalism in a nutshell
Obviously, knowing that knives kill five times as many people a year than rifles, the Brady Campaign and Mothers Demand Action will march on Washington and demand that something be done about the national knife epidemic. We can expect to see the Brady Knife Bill, forcing the registration of all knives except those intended for hunting and cooking.
hno:Modern liberalism in a nutshell
