Canada loosening gun control laws.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Blablahb:

The most recent year is 1994, but such figures don't change over time. In 1994, the number of murderers who were repeat offenders was 1,2% of the total number of people arrested for murder.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=781

Let me just clarify that "repeat offender" in this case means someone who was previously convicted of murder.

Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery
or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of
murderers, and 53% of rapists.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Canada's experience has shown that gun registration is very expensive, but not very useful for fighting crime. The reason being that criminals don't register their guns, so it's a waste of resources and overreach of government power to register the guns that are onwed legally. And even in the rare case where a legal gun owner commits murder it's unlikely still that the registry would be in any way useful.

What a registry is good for is facilitating the confiscation of legally owned guns which is the goal of the gun control lobby and many leftists.

JRslinger:
Canada's experience has shown that gun registration is very expensive, but not very useful for fighting crime.

And because you didn't just make that up, you can show us a source for that claim, in the form of a policy evaluation? For one thing you contradict the OP's newsstory, which said it was used to track down murderers pretty regularly.

JRslinger:
The reason being that criminals don't register their guns, so it's a waste of resources and overreach of government power to register the guns that are onwed legally.

Ah, right out of the NRA book of tricks. Unfortunately for that theory, most 'criminals' are not a different species of animal. They're humans, and like shown earlier, normal people, who pass background checks, and don't go through weeks if not months of hassle to purchase a rare illegal weapon.

And let's be honest, if a legal weapon becomes as untraceable by getting rid of registration, why would they bother?

JRslinger:
And even in the rare case where a legal gun owner commits murder it's unlikely still that the registry would be in any way useful.

So being able to tell on day 1 of the investigation who the killer is, isn't usefull? I'm very curious to as why you claim that.

Blablahb:

JRslinger:
Canada's experience has shown that gun registration is very expensive, but not very useful for fighting crime.

And because you didn't just make that up, you can show us a source for that claim, in the form of a policy evaluation? For one thing you contradict the OP's newsstory, which said it was used to track down murderers pretty regularly.

JRslinger:
The reason being that criminals don't register their guns, so it's a waste of resources and overreach of government power to register the guns that are onwed legally.

Ah, right out of the NRA book of tricks. Unfortunately for that theory, most 'criminals' are not a different species of animal. They're humans, and like shown earlier, normal people, who pass background checks, and don't go through weeks if not months of hassle to purchase a rare illegal weapon.

And let's be honest, if a legal weapon becomes as untraceable by getting rid of registration, why would they bother?

JRslinger:
And even in the rare case where a legal gun owner commits murder it's unlikely still that the registry would be in any way useful.

So being able to tell on day 1 of the investigation who the killer is, isn't usefull? I'm very curious to as why you claim that.

Depends what they take in the registry. I mean, do they keep Ballistic Fingerprinting done of the gun? I didn't see anywhere that was mentioned. And if they do, that's useless for shotguns. If they just take a serial number, what is that going to do?

JRslinger:
Canada's experience has shown that gun registration is very expensive, but not very useful for fighting crime.

That is in fact NOT the Canadian experience. If you bothered to read up on it at all instead of making it up you would have seen in this very thread that the registry failed to keep stats that would determine how useful it was. So there is NO proof either way.

Something in the order of 90% of police, chiefs of police, and even police unions agree that the gun registry has been useful in the protection of lives, has saved lives, and has been useful in getting criminal convictions.

As for the cost, the initial cost spiraled insanely out of control. It was horribly executed. However, once in place the entire federal program costs $1-4million/year to administer, a trivial cost for a country wide program. It costs more than that to keep the car registry up to date in one province.

What a registry is good for is facilitating the confiscation of legally owned guns which is the goal of the gun control lobby and many leftists.

Don't apply US pro gun paranoia to Canada. Sorry, that idiocy doesn't apply here. There really is almost no one who wants to take away everyone's hunting riffles.

Rage19:
its a gun, a device for the sole purpose of killing.

[/quote]

Pinkamena:
That was definitively the reason for its invention. People have just found other ways to use it after a while.

So you are arguing that my friend's sporterized AR-10 was designed to kill things? If so you might want to talk to him since he has yet to kill anything but trees with it. Gun is a very general term. As is knife. Many types of knives were invented for the sole purpose of killing and yet you do not describe all knives in that fashion, do you? Why is a gun so special? My friend designed his firearm from the ground up so it is his intention you should be concerned with.

Blablahb:
The article said that if anything, the registration is used to find the perpetrator of murders, because often, rifles are used to commit murder.

How anyone can be in favour in repealing such a registration in the light of that fact, is utterly beyond me. Is it a good thing people shoot and murder other people and then get away with it?

How the fuck did you get that sentiment from the article?

"The majority of homicides committed in Canada, for example, do not involve long guns at all. Statistics have shown that long guns, in other words, rifles and shotguns, are not the problem. In reality, they are not the weapons of choice for criminals,"

Beyond that how exactly would registration help in finding criminals? First of all criminals probably are not going to even register their firearms (a fact that the government has admitted). Second the only thing left at the location of a crime is going to be a bullet and maybe a case and even if you know the caliber of a firearm how is that going to help? If there are 50 people in a particular area who have a rifle with the same caliber then how are you going to identify which is which? There are methods but those methods (i.e. ballistics) are questionable at best and they rely too much on chance.

OT- The short and sweet version. Ending the registration is a good thing because it gets rid of some inane bureaucratic bull and it saves the Canadian people some money.

Blablahb:

And because you didn't just make that up, you can show us a source for that claim, in the form of a policy evaluation? For one thing you contradict the OP's newsstory, which said it was used to track down murderers pretty regularly.

The news story did not say that it was used regularly to track down murderers. What it said was:

But an internal evaluation from Canada's national police force found the federal gun registry was a useful tool for police

Now since I haven't seen this internal police document, we can only guess how useful it is. For example if the police are responding to a domestic violence call they could see if the homeowner owns a legal gun. However even if the homeowner doesn't own a legal gun the police must still be on guard, because their could be an illegal gun or other weapon in play.

Blablahb:

Ah, right out of the NRA book of tricks. Unfortunately for that theory, most 'criminals' are not a different species of animal. They're humans, and like shown earlier, normal people, who pass background checks, and don't go through weeks if not months of hassle to purchase a rare illegal weapon.

This statement makes it pretty clear that most murders are committed by people with previous criminal records.

Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery
or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of
murderers, and 53% of rapists

Blablahb:

So being able to tell on day 1 of the investigation who the killer is, isn't usefull? I'm very curious to as why you claim that.

It would only be useful if the gun was recovered and happened to be registered.

Among persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess a valid firearms license. Data from Australia show that most firearms used to commit homicide are unlawfully held by accused persons (Mouzos, 2000).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm#n2

I don't really have strong opinions about this as long as the guns are registered. Fact is here very few people have any interest in owning a gun. The only people who do are farmers to protect there livestock

JRslinger:
This statement makes it pretty clear that most murders are committed by people with previous criminal records.

Still a whole lot of them don't. And one or two accounts of shoplifting is hardly a warning sign. The point remains that gun registration is absolutely necessary.

JRslinger:
Among persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess a valid firearms license. Data from Australia show that most firearms used to commit homicide are unlawfully held by accused persons (Mouzos, 2000).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm#n2

Why are you suddenly switching countries? Did it turn out many crimes in Canada are committed using legal firearms, so you picked a different country?

I mean, where I am, like 99% of all crimes involving firearms, involve illegal firearms.

But that's because we had the sense of forbidding weapon possession unless in very few, strictly regulated cases, of which most people can't even afford the restrictions such as having to store it in a safe and keep ammunition elsewhere, compulsory membership of a shooting club, psychological evaluation, etc.
As a result, you almost never see guns in crime. Only top crimelords use firearms when they try to kill eachother off. And you could probably punch one of those in the face without them using it. Why would they? Gun crime is so uncommon each incident draws a lot of police attention.

Blablahb:

JRslinger:
This statement makes it pretty clear that most murders are committed by people with previous criminal records.

Still a whole lot of them don't. And one or two accounts of shoplifting is hardly a warning sign. The point remains that gun registration is absolutely necessary.

JRslinger:
Among persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess a valid firearms license. Data from Australia show that most firearms used to commit homicide are unlawfully held by accused persons (Mouzos, 2000).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm#n2

Why are you suddenly switching countries? Did it turn out many crimes in Canada are committed using legal firearms, so you picked a different country?

I mean, where I am, like 99% of all crimes involving firearms, involve illegal firearms.

But that's because we had the sense of forbidding weapon possession unless in very few, strictly regulated cases, of which most people can't even afford the restrictions such as having to store it in a safe and keep ammunition elsewhere, compulsory membership of a shooting club, psychological evaluation, etc.
As a result, you almost never see guns in crime. Only top crimelords use firearms when they try to kill eachother off. And you could probably punch one of those in the face without them using it. Why would they? Gun crime is so uncommon each incident draws a lot of police attention.

Hang on a second, my friend. Did you not try to bring in statistics for the Dutch in a previous post?

farson135:

Rage19:
its a gun, a device for the sole purpose of killing.

Pinkamena:
That was definitively the reason for its invention. People have just found other ways to use it after a while.

So you are arguing that my friend's sporterized AR-10 was designed to kill things? If so you might want to talk to him since he has yet to kill anything but trees with it. Gun is a very general term. As is knife. Many types of knives were invented for the sole purpose of killing and yet you do not describe all knives in that fashion, do you? Why is a gun so special? My friend designed his firearm from the ground up so it is his intention you should be concerned with.[/quote]

It doesn't matter what your friends tree killing gun was built for, it can be used just as easily as any other gun to harm a human being and he should be required to have it registered too.

Don't give me that knife arguement crap, killing with a gun is a lot easier than killing with knife, looking someone straight in the eye as you make a serious physical effort to plunge the blade into them is very different than fraction of a second decision to pull a trigger at a distance, all that takes is a split second moment of madness, anger or lapse in judgement to do. A gun also makes mass killing much easier as you can kill in an instant without the need of running down each victim, which would be hard as by the time your finished with the first everyone else in the area has fled. Though private ownership of a military knife or any other knife designed to kill a person should be banned.

As for your comment saying I should be worried about intent rather than the gun, it's very nice of you to argue against yourself and make a case for gun regulation, your friend may not be a psycho (yet) but what if he changes, so if you're gonna say it's the persons psychological state, then you need to know everyone who owns ANY type of firearm to help prevent the wrong people from having them.

There is no arguement for this Canadian law on rifles to be repealled.

You may say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

I say "Guns don't kill people, but they sure help"

Blablahb:

JRslinger:
This statement makes it pretty clear that most murders are committed by people with previous criminal records.

Still a whole lot of them don't. And one or two accounts of shoplifting is hardly a warning sign. The point remains that gun registration is absolutely necessary.

So you're convinced that gun registration is absolutely necessary even though it is only useful in a small percentage of murders. First you have to subtract the murders committed without guns. Then the ones done with unregistered guns, then the ones done with registered guns where the gun wasn't found at the crime scene, leaving you with a small percentage of murders some of which could probably have been solved without the registry. So you can tell me that billions of dollars spent and invading millions of peoples privacy is really worthwhile??????

Blablahb:

Why are you suddenly switching countries? Did it turn out many crimes in Canada are committed using legal firearms, so you picked a different country?
I mean, where I am, like 99% of all crimes involving firearms, involve illegal firearms.

My mistake. I didn't see that quote applied to Australia. I was unable to find data on what percent of Canadian murders are committed with legally owned guns.

Blablahb:

But that's because we had the sense of forbidding weapon possession unless in very few, strictly regulated cases, of which most people can't even afford the restrictions such as having to store it in a safe and keep ammunition elsewhere, compulsory membership of a shooting club, psychological evaluation, etc.
As a result, you almost never see guns in crime.

You're comparing your country to the US, which has a large racial underclass with a significant thug culture and borders Mexico. This explains the different amounts of gun crime much more than the difference in gun control laws. Criminal gangs are stronger and more numerous here.

Rage19:
It doesn't matter what your friends tree killing gun was built for, it can be used just as easily as any other gun to harm a human being and he should be required to have it registered too.

Once again so can anything else. More in the next paragraph.

Don't give me that knife arguement crap, killing with a gun is a lot easier than killing with knife, looking someone straight in the eye as you make a serious physical effort to plunge the blade into them is very different than fraction of a second decision to pull a trigger at a distance, all that takes is a split second moment of madness, anger or lapse in judgement to do. A gun also makes mass killing much easier as you can kill in an instant without the need of running down each victim, which would be hard as by the time your finished with the first everyone else in the area has fled. Though private ownership of a military knife or any other knife designed to kill a person should be banned.

I am guessing you have never had any hand-to-hand combat training correct? I am far from an expert but I have been training in self defense both armed and unarmed.

First of all killing with a knife is easier and faster than killing with a gun. Have you ever even shot a gun before? It takes a huge amount of training and experience to shot properly even on a range. Most people when shooting in a self defense or offensive scenario rely on muscle memory and since inexperienced people do not have that they are rarely able to use firearms properly. A knife on the other hand is easy and quick to use. Apparently you have never heard of the Tueller Drill. A brief explanation, the Tueller Drill is an exercise meant to train people to draw and fire on a close ranged knife attacker. The reason we have to train for this is because a fit person can cover 20 feet in less than 3 seconds which is a little over the time it takes a moderately trained person to draw and fire a pistol. This is where we get the 21 foot rule. In addition I can draw and utilize my pocket knife waaaay faster than my pistol. I have practiced using both and if a person is within 7 feet of me I am not using my pistol.

Take a look at this if you want to see how deadly a knife attack can be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL1zX-SrBH0&feature=related

You also need to keep in mind that guns are not really that deadly in relative terms. Few people when shot immediately die. Your typical gunshot will not be deadly as long as the person receives basic medical attention within the first 10 minutes (and by basic medical attention I mean someone slapping a pressure bandage on or similar) and more advanced care within the first 30-60 minutes. Knife attacks on the other hand are far more vicious and tend to cause far more damage.

As for the physiological impact if you are angry enough to kill a knife will work just as well as a firearm. A knife attack takes very little physical effort (once again you prove your ignorance) and the mental trauma that comes from such an attack will come after the adrenaline has stopped pumping.

As for mass killings, have you ever built a bomb before? I have (years and years ago) and it is not that hard. Try this someday, walk through a major city and stand on a few major intersections during lunch hour. See how many people there are and then imagine a homemade claymore going off. How many people do you think I could kill? It is call the substitution effect, if you prevent people from killing in one way they will replace it with another.

So you are saying that you would ban military knives? Including the Ka-bar? That is a military utility knife that was meant both for killing and cooking. BTW this statement reminded me of this article, enjoy.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2011/02/bloomberg-calls-kitchen-knife-law-reform

As for your comment saying I should be worried about intent rather than the gun, it's very nice of you to argue against yourself and make a case for gun regulation, your friend may not be a psycho (yet) but what if he changes, so if you're gonna say it's the persons psychological state, then you need to know everyone who owns ANY type of firearm to help prevent the wrong people from having them.

Reread your statement because doesn't make much sense. I think what you are saying is that because a person has the potential to go crazy that means they should be sectioned. Maybe you should section yourself. After all, as a friend of mine used to say, "competent people tend not to go crazy". Incompetent people who have no goals and no dreams for the future tend not to train to a level that would make them proficient with anything of value. In other words YOU are far more likely to go crazy and kill a bunch of people than my friend because he is certainly competent.

BTW I suppose you would agree with Senator Mary Ann Carlson-
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Senator McCarthy would be proud.

There is no arguement for this Canadian law on rifles to be repealled.

How about because it is an inane law that wastes taxpayer money?

You may say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

I say "Guns don't kill people, but they sure help"

Nice sound bite but it doesn't really hold up to the facts. Any tool can help to kill a person so what makes guns so different?

farson135:
snip

I'd also like to add that, all things considered, it's easier for the common man to defend himself against any attacker with a firearm than it is to defend himself unarmed or with a knife against any other threat.

When we went through MCMAP they told us that going hand-to-hand against a knife-wielding attacker meant that you will be injured, no matter what. I don't know of any martial art that teaches one how to completely prevent injury from a knife - but I do know that several teach how to reduce injury.

Simply put, I'd rather have a gun than hope that the other guy doesn't want to kill me.

StarCecil:

farson135:
snip

I'd also like to add that, all things considered, it's easier for the common man to defend himself against any attacker with a firearm than it is to defend himself unarmed or with a knife against any other threat.

When we went through MCMAP they told us that going hand-to-hand against a knife-wielding attacker meant that you will be injured, no matter what. I don't know of any martial art that teaches one how to completely prevent injury from a knife - but I do know that several teach how to reduce injury.

Simply put, I'd rather have a gun than hope that the other guy doesn't want to kill me.

The arguement of owning a gun for self defense kinda falls apart when you consider that statistically your gun is more likely to kill you, a family member or an innocent bystander than an attacker....

burnt.hair:

StarCecil:

farson135:
snip

I'd also like to add that, all things considered, it's easier for the common man to defend himself against any attacker with a firearm than it is to defend himself unarmed or with a knife against any other threat.

When we went through MCMAP they told us that going hand-to-hand against a knife-wielding attacker meant that you will be injured, no matter what. I don't know of any martial art that teaches one how to completely prevent injury from a knife - but I do know that several teach how to reduce injury.

Simply put, I'd rather have a gun than hope that the other guy doesn't want to kill me.

The arguement of owning a gun for self defense kinda falls apart when you consider that statistically your gun is more likely to kill you, a family member or an innocent bystander than an attacker....

And then we throw out the statistic about how many crimes were deterred by gun ownership, or about how many people were saved.

And Usmarine4160 with the Godwin!!

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolf Hitler, 1935

usmarine4160:
And Usmarine4160 with the Godwin!!

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolf Hitler, 1935

Whelp. Godiwn's law has been evoked. There's no point in going on with this thread now, my friends.

Do you know who else wore pants? HITLER.

Joking aside, please don't do that again, my friend.

CM156:

burnt.hair:

StarCecil:

I'd also like to add that, all things considered, it's easier for the common man to defend himself against any attacker with a firearm than it is to defend himself unarmed or with a knife against any other threat.

When we went through MCMAP they told us that going hand-to-hand against a knife-wielding attacker meant that you will be injured, no matter what. I don't know of any martial art that teaches one how to completely prevent injury from a knife - but I do know that several teach how to reduce injury.

Simply put, I'd rather have a gun than hope that the other guy doesn't want to kill me.

The arguement of owning a gun for self defense kinda falls apart when you consider that statistically your gun is more likely to kill you, a family member or an innocent bystander than an attacker....

And then we throw out the statistic about how many crimes were deterred by gun ownership, or about how many people were saved.

apart from the fact that it is very hard to track that stat we do have some statistic that you can draw a conclusion that your opinion that guns prevent crime is completely unfounded.

lets start with america having a far higher homicide rate then any other developed country, (australia 1.2 per 100000, usa 5 per 100000 in 2009 for example). firearms were used in just 11% of homicide in australia for 2007-2008. in america 2010 67.5 of all homicides involved a firearm... yep guns sure as hell dont cause homicide

if you want more proof i can give it, but crime statistics do get a bit hazy across different countries, that is why i used homicide, since its kinda similar no matter where you are.

farson135:

I am guessing you have never had any hand-to-hand combat training correct? I am far from an expert but I have been training in self defense both armed and unarmed.

First of all killing with a knife is easier and faster than killing with a gun.

you clearly are obviously not an expert

lets completely forget about the psychological differences between killing with a gun vs a knife and just talk medical.

it is hard to get actual statistics since rates very so much just from hospital to hospital. however it is very much considered fact that you are far more likely to die from a gunshot then a stab wound. again statistics are hard to give but generally something like a stab or a shot to the heart is 3 times more fatal for the gun shot. there is of course the issue that a lot of the recorded statistics only include people who get to hospital. as we know from the above numbers far more people are murdered by guns in america then anything else yet far more people are stabbed.

of course your assumption that knives do more damage is also wrong. a single stab wound is far less damaging then a single gunshot. a stab wound only damages the area it cuts, even if the attacker removes the knife in a violent manner the area it covers is much smaller then even a small caliber gunshot. you have to remember a bullet generally makes a much bigger channel of damage then the actual size of the bullet when its sitting in your hand. there is also the fact that a bullet is far more likely to break bones, fragment and of course simple stay in your body in a nasty position, which is also why you are far more likely to have some sort of disability or function decrease after being shot compared to being stabbed. there is also of course that is almost impossible to instantly incapacitate someone by stabbing, even if you manage to close the 20 feet and stab the person holding the gun, they still get plenty of time to shoot you. on the other hand a single shot to the head or the femur makes for either a very dead/unconcious person or a person on the ground crying in agony

basically to say a knife is easier to kill with then a gun pretty much ignores not only psychological evidence but medical evidence as well.

reonhato:

apart from the fact that it is very hard to track that stat we do have some statistic that you can draw a conclusion that your opinion that guns prevent crime is completely unfounded.

lets start with america having a far higher homicide rate then any other developed country, (australia 1.2 per 100000, usa 5 per 100000 in 2009 for example). firearms were used in just 11% of homicide in australia for 2007-2008. in america 2010 67.5 of all homicides involved a firearm... yep guns sure as hell dont cause homicide

if you want more proof i can give it, but crime statistics do get a bit hazy across different countries, that is why i used homicide, since its kinda similar no matter where you are.

Not to be rude, but Ignoratio elenchi

Did I say that they "prevent" crime? No. Did I say that they "deter" crime. Perhaps. And the number of homicides that occur isn't a relevant point to how often guns are used in matters of self defense or castle doctrine cases.

CM156:

reonhato:

apart from the fact that it is very hard to track that stat we do have some statistic that you can draw a conclusion that your opinion that guns prevent crime is completely unfounded.

lets start with america having a far higher homicide rate then any other developed country, (australia 1.2 per 100000, usa 5 per 100000 in 2009 for example). firearms were used in just 11% of homicide in australia for 2007-2008. in america 2010 67.5 of all homicides involved a firearm... yep guns sure as hell dont cause homicide

if you want more proof i can give it, but crime statistics do get a bit hazy across different countries, that is why i used homicide, since its kinda similar no matter where you are.

Not to be rude, but Ignoratio elenchi

Did I say that they "prevent" crime? No. Did I say that they "deter" crime. Perhaps. And the number of homicides that occur isn't a relevant point to how often guns are used in matters of self defense or castle doctrine cases.

well apart from the fact that so many people would not need to use a gun for self defense if so many people did not have easy access to them we also have the fact that self defense DOES NOT count as homicide, neither does castle doctrine cases.... which by the way as already mentioned i do believe result in far more family members being killed then actual intruders

as for the deter/prevent. you claim guns deter crime, if a crime does not happen because there was a deterrent it is therefor prevented. if guns were a deterrent we would see a much lower crime rate in america, something that does not exist

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

apart from the fact that it is very hard to track that stat we do have some statistic that you can draw a conclusion that your opinion that guns prevent crime is completely unfounded.

lets start with america having a far higher homicide rate then any other developed country, (australia 1.2 per 100000, usa 5 per 100000 in 2009 for example). firearms were used in just 11% of homicide in australia for 2007-2008. in america 2010 67.5 of all homicides involved a firearm... yep guns sure as hell dont cause homicide

if you want more proof i can give it, but crime statistics do get a bit hazy across different countries, that is why i used homicide, since its kinda similar no matter where you are.

Not to be rude, but Ignoratio elenchi

Did I say that they "prevent" crime? No. Did I say that they "deter" crime. Perhaps. And the number of homicides that occur isn't a relevant point to how often guns are used in matters of self defense or castle doctrine cases.

well apart from the fact that so many people would not need to use a gun for self defense if so many people did not have easy access to them we also have the fact that self defense DOES NOT count as homicide, neither does castle doctrine cases.... which by the way as already mentioned i do believe result in far more family members being killed then actual intruders

Firstly, are we arguing from US or Canadian standards? Because if it's the former, I can talk about it. If it's the latter, then I don't have the numbers.

However, have you ever read "More Guns Less Crime"? Basically, guns are used every day to scare away muggers and criminals. The actual numbers are vague, as many go unreported.

CM156:

reonhato:

CM156:

Not to be rude, but Ignoratio elenchi

Did I say that they "prevent" crime? No. Did I say that they "deter" crime. Perhaps. And the number of homicides that occur isn't a relevant point to how often guns are used in matters of self defense or castle doctrine cases.

well apart from the fact that so many people would not need to use a gun for self defense if so many people did not have easy access to them we also have the fact that self defense DOES NOT count as homicide, neither does castle doctrine cases.... which by the way as already mentioned i do believe result in far more family members being killed then actual intruders

Firstly, are we arguing from US or Canadian standards? Because if it's the former, I can talk about it. If it's the latter, then I don't have the numbers.

However, have you ever read "More Guns Less Crime"? Basically, guns are used every day to scare away muggers and criminals. The actual numbers are vague, as many go unreported.

mainly talking about america, but it can apply to any country. why is it america seems to be the only place in the world where hardly anyone understands guns=crime

like i said if guns meant less crime we would see the statistical evidence of this, instead what we see is pretty much the opposite.

as for reading more guns less crime, no i have not read it. i did however look it up and i did find something interesting.... a long list of studies that show its complete baloney

loosening gun laws can almost never be a good thing. there is a reason gun violence in australia is extremely low. i actually remember a thread that brought up gun violence a while ago, for some reason we were talking about law enforcement, a little digging showed more police officers were killed by guns in america in the last 2 years then in the last 110 years in australia.

guns kill people, guns cause crime. sure the thought of hey we shouldnt mess with that guy he might have a gun probably stops some crime in america. the issue is of course that it causes more crime then it prevents, especially when it comes to the death of humans, that alone is enough to legitimize the control of gun ownership amongst civilians.

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

well apart from the fact that so many people would not need to use a gun for self defense if so many people did not have easy access to them we also have the fact that self defense DOES NOT count as homicide, neither does castle doctrine cases.... which by the way as already mentioned i do believe result in far more family members being killed then actual intruders

Firstly, are we arguing from US or Canadian standards? Because if it's the former, I can talk about it. If it's the latter, then I don't have the numbers.

However, have you ever read "More Guns Less Crime"? Basically, guns are used every day to scare away muggers and criminals. The actual numbers are vague, as many go unreported.

mainly talking about america, but it can apply to any country. why is it america seems to be the only place in the world where hardly anyone understands guns=crime

like i said if guns meant less crime we would see the statistical evidence of this, instead what we see is pretty much the opposite.

as for reading more guns less crime, no i have not read it. i did however look it up and i did find something interesting.... a long list of studies that show its complete baloney

I'm sorry, did you say "Guns=crime"? I have several million gun owners who didn't commit a crime in the past year who would just LOVE to talk with you.

My friend, there is a difference between thug culture and gun culture. Guess which ones are criminals. Here's a hint: It's not from legal gun ownership.

CM156:

reonhato:

CM156:

Firstly, are we arguing from US or Canadian standards? Because if it's the former, I can talk about it. If it's the latter, then I don't have the numbers.

However, have you ever read "More Guns Less Crime"? Basically, guns are used every day to scare away muggers and criminals. The actual numbers are vague, as many go unreported.

mainly talking about america, but it can apply to any country. why is it america seems to be the only place in the world where hardly anyone understands guns=crime

like i said if guns meant less crime we would see the statistical evidence of this, instead what we see is pretty much the opposite.

as for reading more guns less crime, no i have not read it. i did however look it up and i did find something interesting.... a long list of studies that show its complete baloney

I'm sorry, did you say "Guns=crime"? I have several million gun owners who didn't commit a crime in the past year who would just LOVE to talk with you.

My friend, there is a difference between thug culture and gun culture. Guess which ones are criminals. Here's a hint: It's not from legal gun ownership.

well apart from the fact that i very much doubt you have not committed a crime in the last year, hell ive committed several crimes today. what you want to say is that you have not committed a serious crime.

anyway, how many homicides in america do you think would not have happened if it were not for the fact that guns are easy to get. killing someone is often a crime of passion, it is not committed in a calculated way, a gun makes it very quick and easy to do this. how about gang shootings.

in america gangs are often armed to the teeth, why is it countries with strict gun control have far less gang related shootings.

and finally i will bring up the homicide rate in america again. strict gun laws reduce homicide rates, this is not opinion this is fact. if getting rid of guns reduces crime one can only assume that the cause of the crime in the first place was the gun

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

mainly talking about america, but it can apply to any country. why is it america seems to be the only place in the world where hardly anyone understands guns=crime

like i said if guns meant less crime we would see the statistical evidence of this, instead what we see is pretty much the opposite.

as for reading more guns less crime, no i have not read it. i did however look it up and i did find something interesting.... a long list of studies that show its complete baloney

I'm sorry, did you say "Guns=crime"? I have several million gun owners who didn't commit a crime in the past year who would just LOVE to talk with you.

My friend, there is a difference between thug culture and gun culture. Guess which ones are criminals. Here's a hint: It's not from legal gun ownership.

well apart from the fact that i very much doubt you have not committed a crime in the last year, hell ive committed several crimes today. what you want to say is that you have not committed a serious crime.

anyway, how many homicides in america do you think would not have happened if it were not for the fact that guns are easy to get. killing someone is often a crime of passion, it is not committed in a calculated way, a gun makes it very quick and easy to do this. how about gang shootings.

in america gangs are often armed to the teeth, why is it countries with strict gun control have far less gang related shootings.

and finally i will bring up the homicide rate in america again. strict gun laws reduce homicide rates, this is not opinion this is fact. if getting rid of guns reduces crime one can only assume that the cause of the crime in the first place was the gun

Let me rephrase that then: They didn't commit crimes with guns.

Second: Guns aren't easy to get in several states. In fact, California has a lot of gun crime. Yet they scored an 80 on the Brady scorecard... How was it that strict gun laws reduce homicides?

Thirdly, Correlation and causation. Violent crime in the states has been on a decline (For several years now), but gun sales have gone up. How do you explain that?

reonhato:

guns kill people, guns cause crime.

Which is why you so often hear about shootings at gun shows. If guns cause crime, why were there no school shootings back when anyone could buy a gun without any waiting period? Furthermore, I did the math. Only .01% of guns are used in murders every year. And yet they cause crime.....

that alone is enough to legitimize the control of gun ownership amongst civilians.

Good. F*cking. Luck. Do you have any idea how "outgunned" you are on that issue in the states? I'm not trying to argue that it makes it right (That would be ad populum) It's just you have next to no chance.

I'm not a gun owner yet, but I plan to be. So in short: "From my cold, dead hands." And I mean that without hyperbole.

EDIT: Arguing against gun prohibition is my vice. I'll admit to that.

CM156:

reonhato:

CM156:

I'm sorry, did you say "Guns=crime"? I have several million gun owners who didn't commit a crime in the past year who would just LOVE to talk with you.

My friend, there is a difference between thug culture and gun culture. Guess which ones are criminals. Here's a hint: It's not from legal gun ownership.

well apart from the fact that i very much doubt you have not committed a crime in the last year, hell ive committed several crimes today. what you want to say is that you have not committed a serious crime.

anyway, how many homicides in america do you think would not have happened if it were not for the fact that guns are easy to get. killing someone is often a crime of passion, it is not committed in a calculated way, a gun makes it very quick and easy to do this. how about gang shootings.

in america gangs are often armed to the teeth, why is it countries with strict gun control have far less gang related shootings.

and finally i will bring up the homicide rate in america again. strict gun laws reduce homicide rates, this is not opinion this is fact. if getting rid of guns reduces crime one can only assume that the cause of the crime in the first place was the gun

Let me rephrase that then: They didn't commit crimes with guns.

Second: Guns aren't easy to get in several states. In fact, California has a lot of gun crime. Yet they scored an 80 on the Brady scorecard... How was it that strict gun laws reduce homicides?

Thirdly, Correlation and causation. Violent crime in the states has been on a decline (For several years now), but gun sales have gone up. How do you explain that?

reonhato:

guns kill people, guns cause crime.

Which is why you so often hear about shootings at gun shows. If guns cause crime, why were there no school shootings back when anyone could buy a gun without any waiting period? Furthermore, I did the math. Only .01% of guns are used in murders every year. And yet they cause crime.....

that alone is enough to legitimize the control of gun ownership amongst civilians.

Good. F*cking. Luck. Do you have any idea how "outgunned" you are on that issue in the states? I'm not trying to argue that it makes it right (That would be ad populum) It's just you have next to no chance.

I'm not a gun owner yet, but I plan to be. So in short: "From my cold, dead hands." And I mean that without hyperbole.

EDIT: Arguing against gun prohibition is my vice. I'll admit to that.

you say 0.1% of guns are used in homicides... what about knifes. in 2008 13% of homicides in america were stabbing or cutting, now obviously not all of these would have been with a knife so lets just say 10%. know obviously its hard to say how many knives there are in america. personally in my house there are at least a dozen. now on average even with americas uber gun ownership you still have way less then 1 gun per person (im assuming your 0.1% comes from privatley owned guns, im giving you the benefit of not being a complete moron). i find it hard to believe their is less then 1 knife per person in america, it is much more likely we are looking at 10x more knives per person, and of course im not counting things like butter knives. so if we go on my pulled from thin air assumption of 10x as many knives we are looking at (using your number of 0.1% of guns used with 14299 homicides in 2008 as a base) a total of 0.001% of knives used in homicide.

so as you can see, just because 0.1% seems like a small number does not make it so. in comparison to other weapons used in homicide a gun is obviously used much more often.

btw i havnt even gotten to suicide. 50% of suicides in america are with firearms, obviously most of these people are troubled and need help. the chance of surviving a suicide attempt by firearms is much less then most of the common methods used in other countries. on a personal note, if i had access to a gun there is a very real possibility that i would not be typing this right now, i would have died many years ago.

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

well apart from the fact that i very much doubt you have not committed a crime in the last year, hell ive committed several crimes today. what you want to say is that you have not committed a serious crime.

anyway, how many homicides in america do you think would not have happened if it were not for the fact that guns are easy to get. killing someone is often a crime of passion, it is not committed in a calculated way, a gun makes it very quick and easy to do this. how about gang shootings.

in america gangs are often armed to the teeth, why is it countries with strict gun control have far less gang related shootings.

and finally i will bring up the homicide rate in america again. strict gun laws reduce homicide rates, this is not opinion this is fact. if getting rid of guns reduces crime one can only assume that the cause of the crime in the first place was the gun

Let me rephrase that then: They didn't commit crimes with guns.

Second: Guns aren't easy to get in several states. In fact, California has a lot of gun crime. Yet they scored an 80 on the Brady scorecard... How was it that strict gun laws reduce homicides?

Thirdly, Correlation and causation. Violent crime in the states has been on a decline (For several years now), but gun sales have gone up. How do you explain that?

reonhato:

guns kill people, guns cause crime.

Which is why you so often hear about shootings at gun shows. If guns cause crime, why were there no school shootings back when anyone could buy a gun without any waiting period? Furthermore, I did the math. Only .01% of guns are used in murders every year. And yet they cause crime.....

that alone is enough to legitimize the control of gun ownership amongst civilians.

Good. F*cking. Luck. Do you have any idea how "outgunned" you are on that issue in the states? I'm not trying to argue that it makes it right (That would be ad populum) It's just you have next to no chance.

I'm not a gun owner yet, but I plan to be. So in short: "From my cold, dead hands." And I mean that without hyperbole.

EDIT: Arguing against gun prohibition is my vice. I'll admit to that.

you say 0.1% of guns are used in homicides... what about knifes. in 2008 13% of homicides in america were stabbing or cutting, now obviously not all of these would have been with a knife so lets just say 10%. know obviously its hard to say how many knives there are in america. personally in my house there are at least a dozen. now on average even with americas uber gun ownership you still have way less then 1 gun per person (im assuming your 0.1% comes from privatley owned guns, im giving you the benefit of not being a complete moron). i find it hard to believe their is less then 1 knife per person in america, it is much more likely we are looking at 10x more knives per person, and of course im not counting things like butter knives. so if we go on my pulled from thin air assumption of 10x as many knives we are looking at (using your number of 0.1% of guns used with 14299 homicides in 2008 as a base) a total of 0.001% of knives used in homicide.

so as you can see, just because 0.1% seems like a small number does not make it so. in comparison to other weapons used in homicide a gun is obviously used much more often.

btw i havnt even gotten to suicide. 50% of suicides in america are with firearms, obviously most of these people are troubled and need help. the chance of surviving a suicide attempt by firearms is much less then most of the common methods used in other countries. on a personal note, if i had access to a gun there is a very real possibility that i would not be typing this right now, i would have died many years ago.

There are 500 million or so guns in the USA. The Brady people said that 9000 or so people were murdered with guns last year. I'm sorry, but that number out of percentages is astronomically small. Even smaller than I had counted. So guns aren't the problem.

You know what? Alcohol causes alcoholism. We tried getting rid of one to solve the problem of the other. Didn't work well.

The problem I have with banning guns to curb violence is that it doesn't adress the root cause of the crime. We've failed this policy twice with drugs and alcohol.

Blablahb:
The article said that if anything, the registration is used to find the perpetrator of murders, because often, rifles are used to commit murder.

How anyone can be in favour in repealing such a registration in the light of that fact, is utterly beyond me. Is it a good thing people shoot and murder other people and then get away with it?

El Danny:
How the hell is this a good thing?

Think about this from the perspective of a police officer.

If you're going into a place to arrest a criminal, you look him up on the registry.

1. You see they have a long firearm. You proceed with extreme caution.
2. You do not see that they do not have a long firearm. You proceed with extreme caution.

If you're solving a crime I could see how the registry could be used to find a person nearby owning a gun with a matching calibre and power to the murder weapon but odds are that information would be pretty easy to obtain though other means. Like how about "Hey, this man was killed with a hunting rifle. This man connected to him is a known hunter with a motive." This information would be useful in the case of a deranged psycho who happened to own a long gun that no one knew about becasue he an introverted psycho but now we're gambling on long odds and putting forward hypotheticals. Why not have a giant anti-bear auto turret grid, there could be a bear infestation. Same type of logic.

The registry isn't useful. It doesn't save lives. It doesn't stop dangerous people from owning guns, there are already regulations in place for that. Liberals and New Deomocrats didn't think it was a good idea. The NDP had a big stink becasue their new leader after the old one died was threatening to bar members for voting with the conservative to remove it. I saw someone on the thread say that it isn't as expensive as it sounds but seven or eight or nine digits is still a lot of money, and could be used for better things.

I don't like the idea of destroying the data though. If it's already there might as well use it

EDIT: Woah, way too many spelling and grammar errors. Damn you, Skyrim, depriving me of sleep!

CM156:

reonhato:

CM156:

Let me rephrase that then: They didn't commit crimes with guns.

Second: Guns aren't easy to get in several states. In fact, California has a lot of gun crime. Yet they scored an 80 on the Brady scorecard... How was it that strict gun laws reduce homicides?

Thirdly, Correlation and causation. Violent crime in the states has been on a decline (For several years now), but gun sales have gone up. How do you explain that?

Which is why you so often hear about shootings at gun shows. If guns cause crime, why were there no school shootings back when anyone could buy a gun without any waiting period? Furthermore, I did the math. Only .01% of guns are used in murders every year. And yet they cause crime.....

Good. F*cking. Luck. Do you have any idea how "outgunned" you are on that issue in the states? I'm not trying to argue that it makes it right (That would be ad populum) It's just you have next to no chance.

I'm not a gun owner yet, but I plan to be. So in short: "From my cold, dead hands." And I mean that without hyperbole.

EDIT: Arguing against gun prohibition is my vice. I'll admit to that.

you say 0.1% of guns are used in homicides... what about knifes. in 2008 13% of homicides in america were stabbing or cutting, now obviously not all of these would have been with a knife so lets just say 10%. know obviously its hard to say how many knives there are in america. personally in my house there are at least a dozen. now on average even with americas uber gun ownership you still have way less then 1 gun per person (im assuming your 0.1% comes from privatley owned guns, im giving you the benefit of not being a complete moron). i find it hard to believe their is less then 1 knife per person in america, it is much more likely we are looking at 10x more knives per person, and of course im not counting things like butter knives. so if we go on my pulled from thin air assumption of 10x as many knives we are looking at (using your number of 0.1% of guns used with 14299 homicides in 2008 as a base) a total of 0.001% of knives used in homicide.

so as you can see, just because 0.1% seems like a small number does not make it so. in comparison to other weapons used in homicide a gun is obviously used much more often.

btw i havnt even gotten to suicide. 50% of suicides in america are with firearms, obviously most of these people are troubled and need help. the chance of surviving a suicide attempt by firearms is much less then most of the common methods used in other countries. on a personal note, if i had access to a gun there is a very real possibility that i would not be typing this right now, i would have died many years ago.

There are 500 million or so guns in the USA. The Brady people said that 9000 or so people were murdered with guns last year. I'm sorry, but that number out of percentages is astronomically small. Even smaller than I had counted. So guns aren't the problem.

You know what? Alcohol causes alcoholism. We tried getting rid of one to solve the problem of the other. Didn't work well.

The problem I have with banning guns to curb violence is that it doesn't adress the root cause of the crime. We've failed this policy twice with drugs and alcohol.

i dont know where your numbers of guns came from but most estimates put it at the 300 million range, you know since guns arnt exactly tracked well in america.

anyway even if it was 9000 murders out of 500 million guns.... it still does not even come close to comparing with the billions of knives for substantially less murders.

look i know tightening gun control in america is not something that is likely to happen soon. it would be a very expensive and long process with a lot of opposition and with the NRA literally sitting on congress's shoulder its almost going to be impossible. (note i am using the word literally for its non literal meaning for emphasis, its hard to convey tone in text thus hard to show this is the way i am using it)

despite this i can still advocate my view, and in my view anyone arguing the guns do not cause the criminal death of many many people simply are ignorant. its almost like religion or climate change, no matter what evidence is put forth people will still believe what they want to.

btw i havnt even talked about suicide on this topic. about 50% of suicide in america a firearm is used. a firearm makes suicide far easier. you are far less likely to survive a gun shot to the head then, a drug overdose or even hanging ( about 85% of suicide attempts by firearm end in death, hanging is at about 70%)

as much as i would love to continue this discussion, i have dragons to slay

The "self defense" argument for guns does not stand up to facts. There is a classic study that shows for violent crimes, firearms were used as self defense in 0.83% of the cases. Whats more, around 20% of cases involved police officers. The reasoning for this is simple, most people do not carry their gun on them. The perpetrator of a violent crime is not just going to let you get up and go get your gun out of its locker. There is also the fact that a considerable number of violent crimes are committed by people that are known to the victim, as such they are taken unawares, once again without their gun on them to defend themselves.

When you take into account the fact that guns are rarely used as self defense and the chance of killing an innocent person is much higher than defending yourself there seems to be very little reason for guns.

Before you go and do what every pro-gun person does and cite the Kleck survey, may I remind you that according to that survey more people use a gun as self defense during a burglary then there are burglaries of homes with guns. So either there are serious problems with the numbers, or there are a hell of a lot of people defending themselves from imaginary burglars.

I am also going to add this. Defending yourself with a firearm goes against what law enforcement in most countries teach. In most countries citizens are taught that if you find yourself face to face with someone with a weapon then the best approach is to obey their commands. If you attempt to fight back then the chance of you being killed or wounded is increased substantially. Believe it or not if someone is out to kill you, the last thing they tend to do is approach you directly and give you a chance to defend yourself (this goes back to those self defense stats)

MoNKeyYy:
Think about this from the perspective of a police officer.

If you're going into a place to arrest a criminal, you look him up on the registry.
1. You see they have a long firearm. You proceed with extreme caution.
2. You do not see that they do not have a long firearm. You proceed with extreme caution.

Nice, but this is not relevant. I don't condone free firearm possession, so having a society so rife with guns and violence that officers always need to be paranoid, is a false dilemma. Now the gun lobby is something susceptible to that argument.
The more restrictions placed, the fewer problems they are. For instance the police in the UK. Forbidding firearms has created the situation where their policemen don't even need to carry guns. My own country has about 20 incidents a year involving police needing guns, on a population of almost 17 million. Now, converting that number to be able to compare populations: That is like there were only 367 incidents with guns in the United States in a whole year.

However, due to free firearms possesion, there are not 367 gun incidents a year in the US, but over 31.000 deaths because of guns in 2007, not even counting shootings that didn't claim lives, which are conventiently not registered.

Yes, that means free firearms possession has created well over a hundred times more gun violence in the US than in the Netherlands.

MoNKeyYy:
If you're solving a crime I could see how the registry could be used to find a person nearby owning a gun with a matching calibre and power to the murder weapon but odds are that information would be pretty easy to obtain though other means.

Yes, and we've seen with the murder of Troy Davis how foolproof that reasoning is... He also had a gun of the same calibre, and they killed him without even bothering to test for a match.

So that's why you have gun registrations, to avoid such things, because even the thickest of investigators, can look up a registry.

MoNKeyYy:
Why not have a giant anti-bear auto turret grid, there could be a bear infestation. Same type of logic.

You're seriously comparing shootings that kill dozens of people and injure even more, with a one-in-a-million chance bear attack?

pyrate:
or there are a hell of a lot of people defending themselves from imaginary burglars.

Well, what else is firearm ownership except a desperate attempt to put feelings of insecurity to rest without having to do actual thinking and gain some self-confidence? People just love to think of themselves as victims, victims of a multitude of imaginary threats.

JRslinger:
So you can tell me that billions of dollars spent and invading millions of peoples privacy is really worthwhile??????

How about you stick to the facts. The billion to start it up is a sunk cost. Cancelling or keeping the program doesn't change that. The cost to keep it is only a couple million a year, trivia. As for invading privacy, this no more invades privacy than having to license my pet or car. It's a silly argument.

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

you say 0.1% of guns are used in homicides... what about knifes. in 2008 13% of homicides in america were stabbing or cutting, now obviously not all of these would have been with a knife so lets just say 10%. know obviously its hard to say how many knives there are in america. personally in my house there are at least a dozen. now on average even with americas uber gun ownership you still have way less then 1 gun per person (im assuming your 0.1% comes from privatley owned guns, im giving you the benefit of not being a complete moron). i find it hard to believe their is less then 1 knife per person in america, it is much more likely we are looking at 10x more knives per person, and of course im not counting things like butter knives. so if we go on my pulled from thin air assumption of 10x as many knives we are looking at (using your number of 0.1% of guns used with 14299 homicides in 2008 as a base) a total of 0.001% of knives used in homicide.

so as you can see, just because 0.1% seems like a small number does not make it so. in comparison to other weapons used in homicide a gun is obviously used much more often.

btw i havnt even gotten to suicide. 50% of suicides in america are with firearms, obviously most of these people are troubled and need help. the chance of surviving a suicide attempt by firearms is much less then most of the common methods used in other countries. on a personal note, if i had access to a gun there is a very real possibility that i would not be typing this right now, i would have died many years ago.

There are 500 million or so guns in the USA. The Brady people said that 9000 or so people were murdered with guns last year. I'm sorry, but that number out of percentages is astronomically small. Even smaller than I had counted. So guns aren't the problem.

You know what? Alcohol causes alcoholism. We tried getting rid of one to solve the problem of the other. Didn't work well.

The problem I have with banning guns to curb violence is that it doesn't adress the root cause of the crime. We've failed this policy twice with drugs and alcohol.

i dont know where your numbers of guns came from but most estimates put it at the 300 million range, you know since guns arnt exactly tracked well in america.

anyway even if it was 9000 murders out of 500 million guns.... it still does not even come close to comparing with the billions of knives for substantially less murders.

look i know tightening gun control in america is not something that is likely to happen soon. it would be a very expensive and long process with a lot of opposition and with the NRA literally sitting on congress's shoulder its almost going to be impossible. (note i am using the word literally for its non literal meaning for emphasis, its hard to convey tone in text thus hard to show this is the way i am using it)

despite this i can still advocate my view, and in my view anyone arguing the guns do not cause the criminal death of many many people simply are ignorant. its almost like religion or climate change, no matter what evidence is put forth people will still believe what they want to.

btw i havnt even talked about suicide on this topic. about 50% of suicide in america a firearm is used. a firearm makes suicide far easier. you are far less likely to survive a gun shot to the head then, a drug overdose or even hanging ( about 85% of suicide attempts by firearm end in death, hanging is at about 70%)

as much as i would love to continue this discussion, i have dragons to slay

Right. So NEITHER cause murder. That's my point. Blaming either of them for crime is ignorant of the facts. I don't know what viewpoint you were trying to express there, my friend. You're helping to prove my point.

Secondly, yeah, you did mention suicide. And my point is that it is tragic. But restricting rights because some people kill themselves isn't addressing the underlying issue.

Regardless, good luck slaying dragons.

Anyone who thinks taking guns away from legal owners will solve anything, doesn't understand the problem. Illegal ownership is the root, not the gun itself. If guns kill people, then cars kill people, and alcohol kills people and the internet and Facebook even kills people. The rights of EVERYONE must be removed to save the few=) What a fantastic philosophy.

You can't remove guns from America. Its impossible without becoming a police state, unless our borders become airtight, which would be a nice start at curtailing the root of the problem...drugs, poverty and sadly minorities, since most gun related murders are related to those.

usmarine4160:
And Usmarine4160 with the Godwin!!

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolf Hitler, 1935

Wow, its true, Godwin really does prove the person using it has run out of arguments.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked