[worth]

Originally Posted by Sparks

I think there are a few more issues here, Thunderball. Do you really think that all murders (via firearms) are committed by people who purchase a gun with the intent to kill someone? I would suspect that many of the gun-related homicides in the States (or Canada, for that matter) are committed by people who just snap. They have a gun, they lose their job, they aren't as mentally stable as you or I - you never know. Not to mention accidental shootings (eg. people shooting their family members at night, because they think they're an intruder instead, or kids playing with Dad's guns).

In terms of people "just snapping" you might argue that they could use a knife instead. Well, it's obviously much easier to kill someone with a gun, and in the heat of the moment and just a simple pull of a trigger, someone gets shot.

I also completely fail to see the possibility that "more guns" is a better or equal state of affairs than "less guns."

I'm trying to find the statistic, but in the US if you apply for a permit in some states, you can carry a concealed weapon on your person. Basically, what the statistics said is that thousands of permits are issues, and thousands of guns are registered to people who carry their weapons, but the number of permits that are being revoked ie: unauthorized use of force, inappropriate use of a weapon etc. are almost negligable.

I'm a staunch supporter of gun rights for those who follow the law. I'm a gun owner. All of my guns are registered. I pay the government and take courses to get my Posession and Acquisition license. I'm a regular person like you. I have a Business Degree and hold down a good gob. And I shoot guns. I don't feel as if I should be lumped into the category with those who go and shoot up schools.

People who follow the rules and collect guns, target shoot or hunt are not the ones to go after in these cases. Banning more guns or increasing gun control hurts only the people that are willing to follow the law. Law abiding target shooters and hunters have to spend hundreds of dollars to comply, all along the guy who wants to go and shoot up the school can get a gun on the street in 5 minutes. This includes Canada.

Infact, I may even go so far as to advocate the ability to carry a concealed weapon in Canada. Perhaps if one of the kids in the VT shooting was allowed to carry a legal concealed weapon, he could have stopped the murdering of 32 innocent people and the injurys suffered by many more. But because the people are supposed to trust their security to the police force, we no longer, especially in Canada, have the right to defend ourselves.

Edit:

Here's some stuff off Wiki, although this isn't the report I was trying to find, it gives a general idea:

The numbers of permit revocations are small; North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers.[citation needed] Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction, and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI.[citation needed] Similarly, Of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.[citation needed]

So really, I don't see guns in the hands of responsible law abiding people as a problem at all.

Perhaps efforts should go toward collecting illegal weapons, and identifying those who may be prone to voilence so we can get them the help they need in order to prevent things like this from happening.