Quote from Ustartin

Drugs are completely different to guns. People are addicted to drugs, which is why they are so rife. There's lots of drugs here in the UK and they are too banned. There is also a gun ban and there are no guns. They are completely different and cannot be compared.

I don't see how just because some of those are addictive substances it makes for an irrelevant example. But if that's the case, what about marijuana? It's not addictive, it's completely illegal, and people still manage to get a hold of it.

But if someone does decide not to kill someone because of not having a gun then problem solved.

Wait, what? Since when has a murderer's victim not having a gun ever been the deciding factor on them choosing whether or not to kill them? Hell, the victim having a gun would have probably prevented the murderer from going threw with it. Unless they knew a good hitman.

Knives and chainsaws actually have practical and real reasons why they are allowed to be owned by the public. They are not weapons purely made to hurt and kill people - it is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill and to hurt.

I already said this to Automaton. You seem to be confusing purpose with feature. The purpose of something is what it was created for, such as a car's purpose is to transport. The feature is what that object uses to carry out that purpose, such as a car using the feature of mobility in order to transport (it's purpose). The purpose of a gun is to protect using the feature of killing and/or hurting. In that sense, a gun has a practical and "real" (according to your biased beliefs on what "real" reasons are) purpose.

To say that the purpose of a gun is to kill is a pretty naive and hippy way of looking things. If the purpose of a gun was to kill or hurt, then it would do something completely different than what it already does. If that were the purpose, then all guns would be lined in some sort of deadly material that kills you when you touch it.

Many on killing sprees do kill themselves afterwards and do not underestimate human stupidity. Even if they are traced, the damage is done and people are dead.

You fail to see my point. The point isn't what tracing techniques do afterward. It's the fact that people know any crime they commit will be traced back to them. That's what stops most legal gun owners from committing crimes.

And furthermore, you act as if the only any one's ever committed with a gun was to go out on a mass murder spree in public. How many times this decade have you heard of a gunman going on a public murder spree?

I can name plent of movies that don't feature guns. High School Musical,

You best be trollin'

The Lion King, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...

You know I was joking, right?

Overall, I just think outlawing guns all together is a really naive way of reducing gun violence. For one, people turn to plenty other weapons before they choose guns if looking to commit a murder, because guns are loud, messy, and harder to come by. Second, guns crimes aren't even that common of a crime. Property crimes, sex crimes, fighting, possession of drugs, child pornography, shoplifting, piracy, grand theft auto... the list goes on of crimes more frequently committed that someone gunning someone down or using a gun to rob someone. Third, you seem to believe the only time people use guns is if they want to kill someone.

Quote from Fusion

What about all those Asian movies with the guys shooting fire out of their hands and slicing people up with swords?

I can't turn down a good Bruce Lee movie. But almost all my favorite movies contain some kind of gunplay. The Matrix, Equilibrium, Beverly Hills Cop, Pulp Fiction, hell even Star Wars has guns in them.