The academic evidence shows that "more guns=more crime" hypothesis cannot be rejected. The reaction to that evidence also shows that the pro-gun lobby are reliant on emotionalism and authoritarianism. Be an individual, acknowledge the evidence!
A Snippet Answer: I don't see any evidence. All I see is emotionalism and authoritarianism in your post. You hate that I have the right to bear arms and you want the authorities to take my guns and protect us. (Which you know they cannot do.)
The evidence that you speak of only exists in fantasy land with unicorns, leprechauns, and flying dragons. Here in reality, there is no such evidence, and thus your hypothesis ("more [legally-purchased] guns=more [gun-related] crime") should be rejected, and the null hypothesis (e.g. more legally-purchased guns do not equal more gun-related crime) holds true.
I've summed it up for you. The evidence, except for Kleck and extremely dubious results from Lott (e.g. his bogus use of dummy variables in order to achieve the statistical outcome he desired), does not reject the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. This is well known. Why don't you fellows know about it? Nope. I just like a little truth! Perhaps you've gone all post-modern on me?
we're back to me where you actually admitted you were terrorized by the thought of a weapon thousands of miles away from you.... that is your only motivation. You'd get along real well with two others trolling this thread......
I'm not worried about sheep. That they are confined in a field away from my prize lawn is handy mind you
