But not necessarily the debate here. We're not discussing 'the debate', but the actual topic. So you can keep the debate here as clean and pure as you'd like.
If 'the debate' is so dirty.

No, it doesn't. It reads a lot like flame-bait.

What I do always find interesting is the argument against restrictions by people who gladly support restrictions in areas where they claim that they have the right to be free from some potential problem. There are laws in many places restricting what you can do with your property, they are called zoning laws, thereby restricting ones freedom to use his property as he sees fit. And such laws are important or you might see a pig slaughter house in an area of half million dollar homes. There are restrictions designed to protect you from a neighbor devaluing your property by allowing his to become dump site or an eyesore, therefore infringing on his perceived right to be a slob. There are occupancy laws restricting the number of people who can reside in a dwelling because who the hell want 42 Vietnamese boat people living in the 2 bedroom house next door. The list is endless.

I found it highly interesting that there was so much objection to the healthcare legislation requiring someone to buy insurance, and the lawsuits now filed claiming it is unconstitutional because it somehow contravenes laws regarding free commerce. Funny thing, I doubt they object to people being required to buy liability insurance to own a car because they would hate to be stuck with huge medical and property bills because some uninsured twit ran into them. For most of them that certainly does not seem to contradict any commerce laws. Always a contradiction. One persons liberty is always at the expense of someone else.

One more time, for the hard of thinking. I'm not claiming anything. You made an assertion, I produced data which refuted it.

I was a bit pissed.

I still think the underlying point is true though. Firearms do provide the weak with a means of defence against the strong.

In #292, you've claimed that homicide rates between the US and England cannot be compared.

My question to you was not rhetorical: Do you believe that the US has a higher homicide rate, or do you dispute that?

I think that you're attempting to divert attention from the fact that your assertion that stricter gun control necessarily leads to lower crime rates has been shown to be false. And I'm not going to play.

I've provided you with data from a reputable source that shows that the annual number of homicides in England and Wales has been declining for several years. I will admit that I do prefer official data sources to editorial from the Torygraph, but we all have our flaws.

Translation: The comparative homicide rate data doesn't tell the story that you'd like it to tell. It's tough to explain why a country that is kept safe with firearms can kill off people at four times the rate of other countries that are endangered by the lack of firearms.

You see, what you should have done was attack my refutation on the basis of a continuity error in the longitudinal analysis. I even gave you a pointer toward that, in the Telegraph article.

Instead, you went broad and put up a straw man. That was a mistake, IMHO.

There is no logical argument that can rationalize away a four-fold disparity in homicide rates. There is no difference in the definition of "homicide" that is so great that it can explain away the disparity.

The fact is that Americans kill each other off in much greater numbers and at much greater rates than do others in other industrialized nations. The propensity for Americans to use guns when committing these homicides is not debatable.

Clearly, if guns kept people safe from homicide, then one would expect a lower homicide rate in the US, thanks to all of that fantastic safety. But this is clearly not the case.

I've made no straw man argument -- you've asserted that the homicide rates cannot be compared, but then refused to explain why they allegedly can't be compared or what those rates would be if, as you claim, they were recalculated in a way that they were comparable. The fact that you refuse to defend that just illustrates that your core argument isn't particularly good.

And here is proof that easier access to guns does not reduce crime. Nor serve as a deterrent.

In 2008 there were almost 80% more murders in Arizona than in New York.

There were more than double the rapes (so much for lax gun laws solving that problem)

More aggravated assaults, although not the extreme differential in the previous two.

New York did beat out Arizona in robberies back then. Barely.

Property crime, almost double again in Arizona.

Among those crimes: Burglaries almost 2.5 times as many in Arizona.

Larceny/theft, 50% more in Arizona.

Motor vehicle theft almost 4 times more in Arizona.

Texas also has a higher crime rate than N.Y. and Arizona.

From a 2009 review of gun related crime in the U.S. for 2008.

Over 100,000 gun deaths or injuries every year in America.

America's five most violent states, for example - South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Louisiana, and Florida -- have no laws to require a Brady criminal background check for every gun sale, no laws to combat illegal gun trafficking effectively, and no laws to restrict access to military-style assault weapons.

One result is that - as the most recent figures show - South Carolina has the highest violent crime rate in America; Tennessee has the fifth-highest rate of gun homicide; Nevada has America's fourth-highest gun death rate (including the fourth-highest rate of gun suicide); while Louisiana has the highest gun death rate, highest gun homicide rate, and highest accidental gun death rate in America.

Gun homicides in America rose over 14% between 1999 and 2005, according to the latest available figures. Ten states with the highest gun death rates in America have some of the nation's weakest gun laws, including Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Arizona, Mississippi, and West Virginia.

I find it interesting that VT and NH both states with rural populations AND a good share of "rednecks" are on the low end of the graph, there are a fair few gunowners there........

What are the poverty rates in comparison though?

Might be totally wrong here, but it strikes me that most of the gunowners there own hunting fireams (rifles and shotguns) rather than handguns and that the vast majority of gun related crime comes from handguns rather than "long" guns.

When looking at crime rates by state I aways go when I get to Washington DC.

WTF is going on there?!?!? Jaysus.

True and the higher murder rates are going to be concentrated in low income urban areas.