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

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Ridiculous comparison.

Anyone can grow weed. Making guns and ammunition is a little more specialized.

People consume weed. They buy it, smoke it and then buy more. Selling it is an on going profitable venture.

Most sane people aren't going to be buying guns on a regular basis. Selling guns is not an on going profitable venture unless you can recruit new customers on a regular basis.

And from your logic, I'd assume that you feel other things like child pornography should be legalized as well since we can't stop it from being bought and sold?

So you are saying that gun running isn't an ongoing, profitable venture? Why do people do it then? Sounds like you are just making another illogical argument here. What T99 is saying is that there is a market for firearms. Simply making firearms illegal does not kill off this market. Exact same thing goes for any illegal substance. If there are people that are willing to pay for it, then you will have people that are willing to sell it illegally.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Azure

Their low rate of gun crime suggests that proper training results in lower gun crime.

Which is exactly what I've been saying for the past 30 threads we've had on guns here on CP.

In the last gun debate we had here, I was on the same side of the fence. Personally, I don't feel the need to own a gun (so I won't) but I've never been for making them completely illegal. Harder to get, and things like proper annual training and strict regulation would cut down on accidental injury/death.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So you are saying that gun running isn't an ongoing, profitable venture? Why do people do it then? Sounds like you are just making another illogical argument here. What T99 is saying is that there is a market for firearms. Simply making firearms illegal does not kill off this market. Exact same thing goes for any illegal substance. If there are people that are willing to pay for it, then you will have people that are willing to sell it illegally.

Realistically if you ban guns in the US there would be a period of several years to a decade where the old supply of guns was still being held sold illegally, as the supply of guns dwindled as the police confiscated them during arrests, amnesties etc eventually the price of guns would rocket beyond the ability of most criminals to get them and they would be restricted to 'high end' criminals, your mobsters and upper level drug lords.

There would always be some guns, as there are in the UK, but they would be so limited in numbers they would become desperatly expensive and precious in the black market.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Realistically if you ban guns in the US there would be a period of several years to a decade where the old supply of guns was still being held sold illegally, as the supply of guns dwindled as the police confiscated them during arrests, amnesties etc eventually the price of guns would rocket beyond the ability of most criminals to get them and they would be restricted to 'high end' criminals, your mobsters and upper level drug lords.

There would always be some guns, as there are in the UK, but they would be so limited in numbers they would become desperatly expensive and precious in the black market.

If you banned guns in the US, they would simply get smuggled in from south of their boarder. All this would ensure is that, eventually, law abiding citizens would not have guns any longer. I know that for those on the anti-gun side of this argument, the terms "law abiding citizen" and "gun owner" can't possibly be synonymous, but I digress. As long as there is a market for something, people will find a way to get it. The real question now becomes, would a ban on firearms be enough to sway the American culture away from being pro-gun? If so, then that market decreases and you've now made some serious headway. On the other hand, if it doesn't, you've done nothing in hindering criminals, and only succeeded in pissing off a bunch of honest, law abiding citizens.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by driveway

Statistics prove you wrong:



New York actually has the 5th LOWEST rate of gun-death per 100,000 people at 5.20 per 100,000.

linkys: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...5011209186884/

http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Also, stats for 2009 gun murders - not just deaths - can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-us-state#data

Where you'll find your home state of Alabama is the 3rd most dangerous state for gun-murders in America with a rate of 8.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Top two were DC at a staggering 18.84 gun homicides per 100,000 and Louisiana with 10.46.

The national average was 2.98/100,000 and those three particular states you mention, Iowa, Montana and Minnesota had rates of 0.40, 4.94 and 5.64 respectively.

All studies that I can find show a direct correlation between higher rates of gun ownership and both gun-deaths and gun-murders.

Also, if you consider that in America the gun-murder rate is 2.98/100,000 and the gun-death rate is 10.32/100,000 that means the rate of self-inflicted or accidental gun-death is 7.34/100,000.

More guns means more people get killed by guns, period.

That's per capita though, Birmingham has more people than the whole state of Montana so the numbers will be scewed.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by driveway

Statistics prove you wrong:



New York actually has the 5th LOWEST rate of gun-death per 100,000 people at 5.20 per 100,000.

linkys: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...5011209186884/

http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Also, stats for 2009 gun murders - not just deaths - can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-us-state#data

Where you'll find your home state of Alabama is the 3rd most dangerous state for gun-murders in America with a rate of 8.02 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Top two were DC at a staggering 18.84 gun homicides per 100,000 and Louisiana with 10.46.

The national average was 2.98/100,000 and those three particular states you mention, Iowa, Montana and Minnesota had rates of 0.40, 4.94 and 5.64 respectively.

All studies that I can find show a direct correlation between higher rates of gun ownership and both gun-deaths and gun-murders.

Also, if you consider that in America the gun-murder rate is 2.98/100,000 and the gun-death rate is 10.32/100,000 that means the rate of self-inflicted or accidental gun-death is 7.34/100,000.

More guns means more people get killed by guns, period.

Just wondering if you happened to see the documentary Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. He had a piece in the documentary that had his crew go into a supposed Canadian gun shop and buy whatever they wanted that day. His point was that there were just as many guns which were just as easy to get in Canada than there are (per capita) in the US, and that the phenomenon of 'shooting people' was just a US problem (because Canadians have just as many guns but they don't shoot one another). I think Moore is full of it, but your comments reminded me of that part of the documentary.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If you banned guns in the US, they would simply get smuggled in from south of their boarder. All this would ensure is that, eventually, law abiding citizens would not have guns any longer. I know that for those on the anti-gun side of this argument, the terms "law abiding citizen" and "gun owner" can't possibly be synonymous, but I digress. As long as there is a market for something, people will find a way to get it. The real question now becomes, would a ban on firearms be enough to sway the American culture away from being pro-gun? If so, then that market decreases and you've now made some serious headway. On the other hand, if it doesn't, you've done nothing in hindering criminals, and only succeeded in pissing off a bunch of honest, law abiding citizens.

Mexico has no gun industry, and recieves its arms from the US, guns in Mexico would be come as rare and expensive as in the US almost as quickly, as they would in Canada.

There is only one source of guns, they are all made legally and enter the market legally, if you stop that source criminals will eventually loose access. I would guess other than the very occasional theft from the armed forces or police, there will be no other source.

I fact the worlds production of civilian guns is virtually a product of the US market, if the US banned guns the better part of the worlds gun makers would close down due to a lack of a market, there would likely be only a few that stayed in production to feed the goverment demand.

In most of the western world the price of legal guns would rise so high as to make gun ownership incrediably limited.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Just wondering if you happened to see the documentary Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. He had a piece in the documentary that had his crew go into a supposed Canadian gun shop and buy whatever they wanted that day. His point was that there were just as many guns which were just as easy to get in Canada than there are (per capita) in the US, and that the phenomenon of 'shooting people' was just a US problem (because Canadians have just as many guns but they don't shoot one another). I think Moore is full of it, but your comments reminded me of that part of the documentary.

Yeah, that was when Moore went into a Canadian Walmart and bought ammunition.

The Canadian Government responded to that clip and accused him of basically faking it

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian government info site) it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, that was when Moore went into a Canadian Walmart and bought ammunition.

The Canadian Government responded to that clip and accused him of basically faking it

It was funny, when I was getting my graduate degree it was required that I take a US political science class here, and so I took it. The professor showed 'Bowling for Columbine' and based her whole lecture one day (3 hours) on how it was so easy for Canadians to get guns (basically talked about the theory that Canadians have no more difficult of a time getting guns than Americans do, so why so much violence in the US opposed to Canada, etc) She pretty much told everyone it must be true if Michael Moore said so. I was stunned.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

It was funny, when I was getting my graduate degree it was required that I take a US political science class here, and so I took it. The professor showed 'Bowling for Columbine' and based her whole lecture one day (3 hours) on how it was so easy for Canadians to get guns (basically talked about the theory that Canadians have no more difficult of a time getting guns than Americans do, so why so much violence in the US opposed to Canada, etc) She pretty much told everyone it must be true if Michael Moore said so. I was stunned.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Now here is the kicker; Most of the people I know who challenged the non-restricted PAL decided while they were there to challenge the restricted PAL as well. It is easily 95% the same test. I'm sure it was the same everywhere. If you have to go through the trouble for one why not grab the restricted as well. Most of them ended up buying a pistol for target practice afterwards. After all it's easy once you got the licence.

So this is what the long gun registry accomplished in Canada:

1. Took long rifles out of the hands of mainly elderly Canadians who didn't want the fuss and intrusion of getting a POL.

2. Made other Canadians criminals because they refused to trust the government's intent enough to registry their firearms and themselves. Many who registered their favourite hunting rifle chose not to registry the shotgun they keep for defence.

3. Pushed a lot of Canadians who only had their Grandfathers old 22 rifle into a position where they got their PAL and now own a few more.

4. Increased the number of people who can own a restricted weapon in Canada.

5. Almost certainly more Canadians own and use restricted weapons today then before the law went in.

Just so we're clear: are you now arguing that because increased ownership of restricted and unrestricted weapons is bad, the long gun registry is bad? Or that because increased ownership of restricted weapons is good, the long gun registry is good?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

Just so we're clear: are you now arguing that because increased ownership of restricted and unrestricted weapons is bad, the long gun registry is bad? Or that because increased ownership of restricted weapons is good, the long gun registry is good?

The long gun registry is bad because it does absolutely nothing but waste tax payer money.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Just so we're clear: are you now arguing that because increased ownership of restricted and unrestricted weapons is bad, the long gun registry is bad? Or that because increased ownership of restricted weapons is good, the long gun registry is good?

I was stating that as a result of the long gun registry there are probably more Canadians who possess restricted firearms. That, no doubt, was not the intent of those who pushed for the law.

I am personally opposed to the registry. It provides little benefit and is intrusive on law abiding Canadians. Its benefits aren't worth the costs.

Firearn ownership and hunting has long been part of the culture of rural Canadians. It was insulting of the Liberals to pretend that it had no place in Canadian history. They seem more than willing to protect and fund cultural diversity when it comes to immigrants but, somehow they think all Canadians should fit into their cookie cutter of what a Canadian is and values.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Ridiculous comparison.

Anyone can grow weed. Making guns and ammunition is a little more specialized.

People consume weed. They buy it, smoke it and then buy more. Selling it is an on going profitable venture.

Most sane people aren't going to be buying guns on a regular basis. Selling guns is not an on going profitable venture unless you can recruit new customers on a regular basis.

And from your logic, I'd assume that you feel other things like child pornography should be legalized as well since we can't stop it from being bought and sold?

I never said any of it should be legalized...but it would be a hell of a point had i done so.

Child porn? Honestly....beyond this... I will not dignify with an answer.
Stupid is as stupid does.


But as to the first bold...are you freaking kidding? Selling guns has been going on all over the world for 200+ years...no need to "recruit" anyone to do so. and it suggests you have a very narrow view of the planet. That just shows you have no idea about anything you speak on this subject and likely many others.

[Calgaryborn]

Here is an interesting look on the source of weapons in Mexico:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110...0-percent-myth

I would suggest that although America contributes to Mexico's gun problems there is ample evidence that their problems would continue unabated if America stopped producing guns.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Mexico has no gun industry, and recieves its arms from the US, guns in Mexico would be come as rare and expensive as in the US almost as quickly, as they would in Canada.

Got any proof of this? You seem to just be stating your own personal opinions as fact here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

It was funny, when I was getting my graduate degree it was required that I take a US political science class here, and so I took it. The professor showed 'Bowling for Columbine' and based her whole lecture one day (3 hours) on how it was so easy for Canadians to get guns (basically talked about the theory that Canadians have no more difficult of a time getting guns than Americans do, so why so much violence in the US opposed to Canada, etc) She pretty much told everyone it must be true if Michael Moore said so. I was stunned.

I hate to derail this thread, but are you telling me that you have a graduate degree and you aren't sure that Osama bin Laden was actually killed? mind=blown

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Slava

I hate to derail this thread, but are you telling me that you have a graduate degree and you aren't sure that Osama bin Laden was actually killed? mind=blown

It was probably Hamburger U.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I hate to derail this thread, but are you telling me that you have a graduate degree and you aren't sure that Osama bin Laden was actually killed? mind=blown

No, I was simply questioning the story given by the government, which I had every right to do. I said the initial reports sounded suspicious and I was right.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It was probably Hamburger U.

Better than University of Creepy.