Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

[Thor]

[tussery]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If guns are a good tool for self defence then obviously a country with the largest amount of guns in private hands will also be the safest with the lowest rate of murder or violent crime, no?

Which would be Switzerland, and the crime rate is pretty low there. The US may have the largest amount of privately owned guns, but not every household has a gun. Switzerland every household pretty much has to have a firearm.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah yeah yeah, but you didn't answer the question...



Is this conclusion wrong?

His conclusion is too general to matter. First off, not everybody has instances of physical violence scattered through out their life. Secondly, not everybody who resorts to violence does so with the intention of taking a life. If the first 2 premises is true for you then ya that gun you keep in the closet has a real chance of being used for violence.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by tussery

Which would be Switzerland, and the crime rate is pretty low there. The US may have the largest amount of privately owned guns, but not every household has a gun. Switzerland every household pretty much has to have a firearm.

They don't have to have a firearm. Most citizens keep their firearms after their service in the military. They have an option of keeping it or giving it back. When they do keep it, it's full-auto function is disabled. I also believe they are required to have yearly training.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thor

I don't get it, but that's not important. Who is that?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

The results aren't surprising considering that most gun owners are likely to be those idiots who oppose gun laws so of course they're likely to be used stupidly.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The results aren't surprising considering that most gun owners are likely to be those idiots who oppose gun laws so of course they're likely to be used stupidly.

According to this article the people who would use the gun in this fashion are not mentally stable and therefore lied on an ATF Form 4473 and were breaking the law to begin with...

Edit: I forget Canadians don't know what an ATF Form 4473 is...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The results aren't surprising considering that most gun owners are likely to be those idiots who oppose gun laws so of course they're likely to be used stupidly.

Im not sure what "gun laws" are being opposed ( other than the assault rifles which most agree with but the radical element of the NRA does not).

What most in the US oppose is the fact that making law abiding citizens have to adhere to a registry that does absolutely nothing to stem crime, while the lawbreakers do not, is both inherently unfair and costly and completely stupid.

Look at the soon to be dead Canadian registry...what good did it serve?

[tussery]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not sure what "gun laws" are being opposed ( other than the assault rifles which most agree with but the radical element of the NRA does not).

There are very few of those privately owned and all that are must be registered with the ATF. An assault weapon on the other hand is a blanket term that Liberals came up with to paint a rifle as "evil." An average person who believes that assault weapons should be banned when shown an AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 would say that the AR-15 is more dangerous just because of it's looks alone. Both fire a .223 round, both accept 30 round magazines, and both are semi-automatic firearms. Only one of the firearms would be effected by an assault weapons ban.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by tussery

There are very few of those privately owned and all that are must be registered with the ATF. An assault weapon on the other hand is a blanket term that Liberals came up with to paint a rifle as "evil." An average person who believes that assault weapons should be banned when shown an AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 would say that the AR-15 is more dangerous just because of it's looks alone. Both fire a .223 round, both accept 30 round magazines, and both are semi-automatic firearms. Only one of the firearms would be effected by an assault weapons ban.

My buddy has got a mini-14. They are a ton of fun at the range. I'd love to go shooting gophers with one in Alberta. Around here they protect them except for private land.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My buddy has got a mini-14. They are a ton of fun at the range. I'd love to go shooting gophers with one in Alberta. Around here they protect them except for private land.

I can see the thrill of shooting gophers for a 14 year old but a grown man doing it, you have to have a screw loose.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I can see the thrill of shooting gophers for a 14 year old but a grown man doing it, you have to have a screw loose.

Maybe. I didn't know there was a best before date. Tastes and interests change over time but, some things are always fun.

[THE SCUD]

Will be nice once the USA joins the developped world and regulates / bans gun ownership. There's no need in our society for them

If the sitting government/ military wants to overthrough the US's democracy, a handful of gun nuts with guns will be nothing but target practice for them. The requirement to defend ones country through the right to bear arms is archaic and needs to be removed from the US consitution.

Also, god is not capitalized, FYI. Only proper names, not made up ones.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Will be nice once the USA joins the developped world and regulates / bans gun ownership. There's no need in our society for them

Would be nice if some people could grasp that there is a huge illegal arms market in the USA that even regulation and banning would not stop. Again this goes back to why should I be punished for others wrong doings. I have never once used a firearm in anger, never once pointed a firearm at anything I did not intend to kill, and have overall been a safe and responsible gun owner. Why should I not be able to own a firearm to hunt or shoot recreationally? Because some silly Canadian says guns are bad? Go preach to your country and get all guns banned and removed from there first then come back and bark up my tree.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Will be nice once the USA joins the developped world and regulates / bans gun ownership. There's no need in our society for them

If the sitting government/ military wants to overthrough the US's democracy, a handful of gun nuts with guns will be nothing but target practice for them. The requirement to defend ones country through the right to bear arms is archaic and needs to be removed from the US consitution.

Also, god is not capitalized, FYI. Only proper names, not made up ones.

Is Canada part of this "developed" world you speak of?

...because we can get guns here.....

Also, an honorable military would never fire on it's own citizens.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Is Canada part of this "developed" world you speak of?

...because we can get guns here.....

Also, an honorable military would never fire on it's own citizens.

"4 Dead in Ohio"

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not sure what "gun laws" are being opposed ( other than the assault rifles which most agree with but the radical element of the NRA does not).

What most in the US oppose is the fact that making law abiding citizens have to adhere to a registry that does absolutely nothing to stem crime, while the lawbreakers do not, is both inherently unfair and costly and completely stupid.

Look at the soon to be dead Canadian registry...what good did it serve?

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm really on the fence as far as this issue goes....I don't own guns, have never fired one and so I'm not vested in that way. On the other hand some of my best friends are avid hunters and have dozens of guns. I know that people like that aren't using them illegally and shouldn't be treated as criminals.

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

[TopChed]

What are the requirements to own a gun these days anyways? Is it just walking into a store, picking one out, waiting a few days and registering it?

Obviously I know nothing about gun ownership, but what about a mandatory firearm training course before people can buy one legally? We make people pass an exam before driving a vehicle, why not do the same before you can own a gun?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm not much for guns, but I'd hope that the police are always careful about entering houses whether or not the registry shows there is a gun there.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Slava

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

Police and lawmakers were adamant in New York that every newly purchased handgun have fired shell casings filed and registered with the state. To this day it has solved 0 murders.