What's your point?tiassa said:
Gun control: the results are in?
- Thread starter Nasor
- Start date
- Status
He is probably one of those people who cleans his fingernails with a katana.
Stokes Pennwalt said:
Odd that, my father, who was a smalls arms instuctor in the military at one point, taught me to shoot (and I got my marksman's badge aged 14) said quite the opposite. You should never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to kill someone, and _never_ get into a stand off. Draw, shoot, and pick the pieces up afterwards. All of this 'put the gun down man' stuff is pure Hollywood.
It's not ignorance that causes people to want guns restricted or licensed always. In my case, far from it. I've shot a lot of different types of firearm for a civilian in a country with strict gun licensing. I have no fear of guns as objects. My fear, is people's easy and anonymous access to them.
Blah. The bottom line is that there are no documented cases of restrictive gun laws having any significant effect on the murder rate, in any of the many countries that have tried them. This is strong evidence that restrictive gun laws are not an effective way to lower crime rates.
Phlogistician: if tough gun laws are so great, then why didn't we see fewer murders in Canada after they enacted tough gun licensing laws? I've brought this up before, but you've never given me an answer. Since the Canadian gun licensing laws have failed to reduce crime, it would seem to me that they have been nothing but a total waste of time and money, and a needless restriction on the liberties of Canadian citizens. If you think that gun control laws lower crime, then why didn't they work in England, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Thailand...I could go on and on. Would you like to give your counter-list of countries in which gun control laws have lowered the murder rate? Oh wait, you can't, because there aren't any!
This is the 'dirty secret' that gun control advocates always try to sweep under the rug. Instead of making up theoretical arguments for why gun control would lower crime, why don't the gun control proponents say thing like “Look at England – they took away everyone's handguns and the murder rate went down!” Or “See how well licensing worked in Canada?” In fact, you almost never hear a gun control advocate mention gun control programs in other countries, unless they're making some sort of specious argument like “England has gun control laws and low crime rates, so gun control must work,” in which they conveniently ignore the fact that the murder rates actually went up after the gun control laws were passed. Or sometimes if they're feeling particularly devious they'll point out countries where the rate of gun murders went down, but conveniently ignore the fact that murder with other types of weapons went up and the overall rate stayed the same.
Phlogistician: if tough gun laws are so great, then why didn't we see fewer murders in Canada after they enacted tough gun licensing laws? I've brought this up before, but you've never given me an answer. Since the Canadian gun licensing laws have failed to reduce crime, it would seem to me that they have been nothing but a total waste of time and money, and a needless restriction on the liberties of Canadian citizens. If you think that gun control laws lower crime, then why didn't they work in England, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Thailand...I could go on and on. Would you like to give your counter-list of countries in which gun control laws have lowered the murder rate? Oh wait, you can't, because there aren't any!
This is the 'dirty secret' that gun control advocates always try to sweep under the rug. Instead of making up theoretical arguments for why gun control would lower crime, why don't the gun control proponents say thing like “Look at England – they took away everyone's handguns and the murder rate went down!” Or “See how well licensing worked in Canada?” In fact, you almost never hear a gun control advocate mention gun control programs in other countries, unless they're making some sort of specious argument like “England has gun control laws and low crime rates, so gun control must work,” in which they conveniently ignore the fact that the murder rates actually went up after the gun control laws were passed. Or sometimes if they're feeling particularly devious they'll point out countries where the rate of gun murders went down, but conveniently ignore the fact that murder with other types of weapons went up and the overall rate stayed the same.
Last edited:
Why?
Because Guns have created a culture, you by your own admission agree that America is overtly violent. This is where I can make a case against guns. Here in Canada we have more guns per capita then you do, yet I feel significantly safer here then anywhere in the US. You know why? It is because here in Canada we understand that we have responsibilities with guns, and you have to go through a process that lasts longer then 2 hours, you have to have license and register your gun. Yet here in Canada we have a significantly lower crime rate, and death rate then in the US. The easy access to guns in the US has allowed the masses to collect the most malicious weapons that a person could acquire, at your local fucking Wal-Mart! Does this not sound oddly discomforting? Gun violence is now extolled as a virtue by American popular culture, and the way sex is liberalized in Europe, violence is liberalized in the US. This creates the mentality of crime, and of recklessness. How many times do you see rappers or other such dignified members of society carrying around spoons for so called “self-defense”? Yet people from the ghetto’s must be considered “responsible” until it’s too late. That is fucking retarded.
You can't? In my experiences (as a CCW holder who routinely carries a Steyr M .40 with him) concealing a weapon is quite easy. Please explain how it is not.
Can you stick a gun up your anus? Can you get through a metal detector with a gun? In a simple search you don’t think the police wouldn’t find a large metallic object in your pants? At least with drugs you can hide it very well indeed, and only a cavity search would yield results. Alas you stokes are talking as they say... “smack”.
Ignoring your spitballing, why are you posting in this thread?
Feeling threatened are we? If not, then this question is irrelevant.
So? Guns are not designed to kill you either.
Ok tell me then, what are they designed for? Hmmm…?
Understood and incorrect. The gun is not going to load itself, aim itself, and go through the firing process, unless there is somebody manipulating it to do so.
I would buy this nonsense if the gun had a dualistic purpose, which it doesn’t. The mere fact that the gun goes through a process to get to it’s purpose of shooting and killing/injuring someone indicates its purpose.
You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
Using your logic I should not fear a land mine, it is not doing anything either. It only becomes a weapon when an “idiot” steps on it. But of course we shouldn’t ban the land mines, it’s the victims fault. I don't fault you for your ignorance.
Just like the ban of cocaine production keeps it off our streets, am I right?
Unlike Cocaine the production of guns is not done organically and production of guns requires factories that could be easily be found, manufacturing guns requires commodities like metal which could relatively easily be traced. Unlike cocaine guns are heavy, and their street value are not worth the price in which it would be produced, thus “gun dealers” would actually lose money. Welcome to a little something called capitalism.
I do not support the current drug policy. Decriminalization of some and legalization of others would both cut down drastically on organized crime and subsequently increase overall public safety.
So you would ok with a crack house opening up next door hmmm…? I know you would love to entertain some of those crack whores, of the $5 ones at least hmmm…? Because I assume you also believe that prostitution laws are also folly.
The 2nd Ammendment has not been in good health since 1934. Any infringement upon it is fascist.
Not if it done by the legislative branch, your lack of knowledge of fascism is overtly obvious.
But your assertion that "most Americans favor gun control", is false.
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=790
Is it?
Protect right of Americans to own guns:
June 2003: Yes: 42%,
Control gun ownership:
June 2003: Yes: 54%
That’s merely one poll, done by Pew, please stop lying to yourself Stokes, it’s really quite sad.
No dice. I own my guns legally, and use them responsibly.
For now, and again you are only considered responsible until you use them inappropriately, if your comfortable with idiocy all the power to you. Hey why don’t we let NK have nuclear weapons they are responsible…unless of course Tokyo is burning.
Really? Would you be willing to bet your family's lives on your lofty academic credentials? I wouldn't.
I assume you lack the lofty academic credentials to make such decisions.
I could go on.
I’m sadly aware, where are the cases in which a father killed his son by mistake thinking he was a “burglar”, or where kids used guns to play around with then they really got a nice bang-bang, in their head. Oh but the politics of ignorance shows its ugly head.
If you are so passive that you would bend over and take it up the keister from an invader, I advise you to move next door to a police department.
The whole point is that I shouldn’t have to, there shouldn’t be the threat of a gun in the first place.
So you'd be dead. Very compelling reasoning.
Most Canadians then would be dead as well…unlike you we trust other people. Here is a synopsis of Canada’s position:
No wonder Canadians regularly beat Americans in educational tests…
How was I complacent?
By allowing that maniac to have a gun when your actions could have been proactive and prevented that man from threatening you and your family.
Irrelevant.
No it’s not, you have to quantify your stance that cocaine and gun manufacture are one in the same. Nice try, but its become increasingly obvious that your appeals to emotion isn’t working.
what
Can you read?
Very well. I emplore you to explain how a gun presents an intrinsic hazard lying on a tabletop, unloaded, then.
Because of the potential for it to be used, guns are not manufactured to be in that state. So please get a real argument.
Well, if you expect anybody to take you seriously on this issue, it behooves you to obtain more than a tacit understanding of the specifics involved. Otherwise you just come off as a pompous and uninformed windbag.
You think that writing words on a screen somehow invalidates my argument. Tell me if I am wrong or not:
I want to experience the joys of being held at gun point by someone. Oh the joy! Please…I don’t need to experience a wax, I know it hurts.
Am I wrong? Do I want to be held up would you? How about Stokes when you don’t carry a gun, for instance when you go to a ATM, and some gangster comes and put a gun in your back. I want to see you have all those pseudo-balls you have here on sci.
However, there is simply no way to remove the gun from the hands of the criminal without also removing it from the hands of the private citizen.
Get rid of the cause (criminals and guns), get rid of the effect (civilians and guns), simple logic that exists all over the universe.
Because you cannot punish the innocent for the crimes of others.
This is the basis of much of our law.
Your proposal is expensive and ineffective. Not to mention a blatant infringement on human and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.
The UN seems to disagree and so do most Americans. My proposal is effective because it stops the manufacture of guns, once it’s over it’s over. What’s more effective then a “final solution” to guns. Think about the concept of complete and utter destruction.
Because Guns have created a culture, you by your own admission agree that America is overtly violent. This is where I can make a case against guns. Here in Canada we have more guns per capita then you do, yet I feel significantly safer here then anywhere in the US. You know why? It is because here in Canada we understand that we have responsibilities with guns, and you have to go through a process that lasts longer then 2 hours, you have to have license and register your gun. Yet here in Canada we have a significantly lower crime rate, and death rate then in the US. The easy access to guns in the US has allowed the masses to collect the most malicious weapons that a person could acquire, at your local fucking Wal-Mart! Does this not sound oddly discomforting? Gun violence is now extolled as a virtue by American popular culture, and the way sex is liberalized in Europe, violence is liberalized in the US. This creates the mentality of crime, and of recklessness. How many times do you see rappers or other such dignified members of society carrying around spoons for so called “self-defense”? Yet people from the ghetto’s must be considered “responsible” until it’s too late. That is fucking retarded.
You can't? In my experiences (as a CCW holder who routinely carries a Steyr M .40 with him) concealing a weapon is quite easy. Please explain how it is not.
Can you stick a gun up your anus? Can you get through a metal detector with a gun? In a simple search you don’t think the police wouldn’t find a large metallic object in your pants? At least with drugs you can hide it very well indeed, and only a cavity search would yield results. Alas you stokes are talking as they say... “smack”.
Ignoring your spitballing, why are you posting in this thread?
Feeling threatened are we? If not, then this question is irrelevant.
So? Guns are not designed to kill you either.
Ok tell me then, what are they designed for? Hmmm…?
Understood and incorrect. The gun is not going to load itself, aim itself, and go through the firing process, unless there is somebody manipulating it to do so.
I would buy this nonsense if the gun had a dualistic purpose, which it doesn’t. The mere fact that the gun goes through a process to get to it’s purpose of shooting and killing/injuring someone indicates its purpose.
You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.
Using your logic I should not fear a land mine, it is not doing anything either. It only becomes a weapon when an “idiot” steps on it. But of course we shouldn’t ban the land mines, it’s the victims fault. I don't fault you for your ignorance.
Just like the ban of cocaine production keeps it off our streets, am I right?
Unlike Cocaine the production of guns is not done organically and production of guns requires factories that could be easily be found, manufacturing guns requires commodities like metal which could relatively easily be traced. Unlike cocaine guns are heavy, and their street value are not worth the price in which it would be produced, thus “gun dealers” would actually lose money. Welcome to a little something called capitalism.
I do not support the current drug policy. Decriminalization of some and legalization of others would both cut down drastically on organized crime and subsequently increase overall public safety.
So you would ok with a crack house opening up next door hmmm…? I know you would love to entertain some of those crack whores, of the $5 ones at least hmmm…? Because I assume you also believe that prostitution laws are also folly.
The 2nd Ammendment has not been in good health since 1934. Any infringement upon it is fascist.
Not if it done by the legislative branch, your lack of knowledge of fascism is overtly obvious.
But your assertion that "most Americans favor gun control", is false.
http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=790
Is it?
Protect right of Americans to own guns:
June 2003: Yes: 42%,
Control gun ownership:
June 2003: Yes: 54%
That’s merely one poll, done by Pew, please stop lying to yourself Stokes, it’s really quite sad.
No dice. I own my guns legally, and use them responsibly.
For now, and again you are only considered responsible until you use them inappropriately, if your comfortable with idiocy all the power to you. Hey why don’t we let NK have nuclear weapons they are responsible…unless of course Tokyo is burning.
Really? Would you be willing to bet your family's lives on your lofty academic credentials? I wouldn't.
I assume you lack the lofty academic credentials to make such decisions.
I could go on.
I’m sadly aware, where are the cases in which a father killed his son by mistake thinking he was a “burglar”, or where kids used guns to play around with then they really got a nice bang-bang, in their head. Oh but the politics of ignorance shows its ugly head.
If you are so passive that you would bend over and take it up the keister from an invader, I advise you to move next door to a police department.
The whole point is that I shouldn’t have to, there shouldn’t be the threat of a gun in the first place.
So you'd be dead. Very compelling reasoning.
Most Canadians then would be dead as well…unlike you we trust other people. Here is a synopsis of Canada’s position:
No wonder Canadians regularly beat Americans in educational tests…
How was I complacent?
By allowing that maniac to have a gun when your actions could have been proactive and prevented that man from threatening you and your family.
Irrelevant.
No it’s not, you have to quantify your stance that cocaine and gun manufacture are one in the same. Nice try, but its become increasingly obvious that your appeals to emotion isn’t working.
what
Can you read?
Very well. I emplore you to explain how a gun presents an intrinsic hazard lying on a tabletop, unloaded, then.
Because of the potential for it to be used, guns are not manufactured to be in that state. So please get a real argument.
Well, if you expect anybody to take you seriously on this issue, it behooves you to obtain more than a tacit understanding of the specifics involved. Otherwise you just come off as a pompous and uninformed windbag.
You think that writing words on a screen somehow invalidates my argument. Tell me if I am wrong or not:
I want to experience the joys of being held at gun point by someone. Oh the joy! Please…I don’t need to experience a wax, I know it hurts.
Am I wrong? Do I want to be held up would you? How about Stokes when you don’t carry a gun, for instance when you go to a ATM, and some gangster comes and put a gun in your back. I want to see you have all those pseudo-balls you have here on sci.
However, there is simply no way to remove the gun from the hands of the criminal without also removing it from the hands of the private citizen.
Get rid of the cause (criminals and guns), get rid of the effect (civilians and guns), simple logic that exists all over the universe.
Because you cannot punish the innocent for the crimes of others.
This is the basis of much of our law.
Your proposal is expensive and ineffective. Not to mention a blatant infringement on human and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.
The UN seems to disagree and so do most Americans. My proposal is effective because it stops the manufacture of guns, once it’s over it’s over. What’s more effective then a “final solution” to guns. Think about the concept of complete and utter destruction.
Last edited:
Mod Hat - General request
I'm going to let "fucking retarded" and a couple of others stand. But the line about smack can be construed as a personal attack, and I would request that we settle back to relatively constructive discussion.
Which also speaks to the obfuscation of playing dumber than you are. If you don't go so far as to play the dolt, then people won't have cause to think of you as a dolt, which means that people won't have cause to treat you like a dolt, which keeps me from wearing my nifty green hat.
Thank you.
I'm going to let "fucking retarded" and a couple of others stand. But the line about smack can be construed as a personal attack, and I would request that we settle back to relatively constructive discussion.
Which also speaks to the obfuscation of playing dumber than you are. If you don't go so far as to play the dolt, then people won't have cause to think of you as a dolt, which means that people won't have cause to treat you like a dolt, which keeps me from wearing my nifty green hat.
Thank you.
Rhetorical question. You stated the obvious, and in so doing, added absolutely nothing to the discussion. A car isn't designed to cut your hair, either. Do you feel any more enlightened now?tiassa said:
Oh hey, I agree with you there. Military experience/reserve police officer/volunteer rangemaster here myself. But the argument I was addressing was that the gun exists simply to kill him, and thus, the existence or presence of a gun is a threat to his safety. If you ask me, 99.5% of Hollywood renditions are aberrations anyway.phlogistician said:
No. Do you? I was referring to your fallacious propaganda offering. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but those words are worthless if they're fallacious.
So it doesn't seem you're adding anything to the discussion by reducing it to cheap fallacies and propaganda. Was it a performance art piece? Were you demonstrating the simplicity of the typical gun-owner's mindset?
Hell, I hadn't realized you thought so little of your fellow gun owners. Thanks for the update.
I said:
Sorry, but Canada is yet another example of the failure of gun control. Your government spent over a billion dollars on a gun licensing program that didn't have any effect on crime. Gee, I sure wish we could have a program like that.
Then Undecided provided a great example by saying:
Good lord, how many times does this ridiculous "Canada is safe because of gun registration" argument have to be shot down? The sad truth is that Canada's murder rate didn't change after their recent gun registration laws were enacted. Yeah, they have a low murder rate, but it was already low before the gun control laws were passed, and the gun laws seem to have had no effect.
Sorry, but Canada is yet another example of the failure of gun control. Your government spent over a billion dollars on a gun licensing program that didn't have any effect on crime. Gee, I sure wish we could have a program like that.
Last edited:
Since the largest argument from the gun-grabbers seems to be that it will reduce crime and/or increase their level of personal safety, let's inject some hard data in lieu of hollow rhetoric and fearmongering conjecture.
First, a look at countries that have already attempted stringent gun control legislation:
UK: Are Gun Laws Misfiring? (BBC, 29 JUL 2004)
UK: Gun Crime Continues To Rise (BBC, 16 OCT 2003)
UK: Muggings A Shock For England And Wales (BBC, 11 OCT 1998)
UK OP/ED: Why Britain Needs More Guns (BBC, 15 JAN 2003)
UK: "We are overrun by gun crime, says police chief" (Telegraph, 10 OCT 2003)
UK OP/ED: This Is What Happens When Governments Try To Ban Guns (BBC, 05 JAN 2003)
UK OP/ED: Yanks Are So Immune To Gun Crime, They Can Laugh About It (Daily Record, 27 JUL 2004)
Australia: "Sword Control" Proposed After Crime Involving Swords Skyrockets (WND, 11 JUN 2004)
Australia: Results Of Australian Gun Ban (G&C, 2001)
Canada: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Criminal Violence (Fraser) PDF version
Now, a look at the United States:
2001 Gun Control Fact Sheet (GOA, 2001)
Gun Control Laws Ineffective (CDC, 2003)
Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime (NCPA, 2001)
OP/ED: Why People Fear Guns (FNC, 2003)
OP/ED: Whither Gun Control (FNC, 2004)
The Lott/Mustard Gun Control Study This is the only comprehensive analysis that examines the correlation between gun laws and crime within the US. Also available in book form. Background commentary here.
I know many of you guys wish the 2nd Ammendment didn't exist and didn't guarantee us a right to arms, but let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't enough to do so. What basis do you have for your suggestions that further (if not existing) legislation would have a qualitative and quantitative benefit?
There's not been sufficient evidence to support the assertion that similar gun control methods would work in the United States, a society that is even less compatible with gun control than those where it has already been attempted in detail. Furthermore, it may sound far-off, but the 2nd Ammendment exists to ensure that our government continues to work for us. Not vice-versa.
Remember, saying You don't need X is never a valid reason for banning X.
First, a look at countries that have already attempted stringent gun control legislation:
UK: Are Gun Laws Misfiring? (BBC, 29 JUL 2004)
UK: Gun Crime Continues To Rise (BBC, 16 OCT 2003)
UK: Muggings A Shock For England And Wales (BBC, 11 OCT 1998)
UK OP/ED: Why Britain Needs More Guns (BBC, 15 JAN 2003)
UK: "We are overrun by gun crime, says police chief" (Telegraph, 10 OCT 2003)
UK OP/ED: This Is What Happens When Governments Try To Ban Guns (BBC, 05 JAN 2003)
UK OP/ED: Yanks Are So Immune To Gun Crime, They Can Laugh About It (Daily Record, 27 JUL 2004)
Australia: "Sword Control" Proposed After Crime Involving Swords Skyrockets (WND, 11 JUN 2004)
Australia: Results Of Australian Gun Ban (G&C, 2001)
Canada: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Criminal Violence (Fraser) PDF version
Now, a look at the United States:
2001 Gun Control Fact Sheet (GOA, 2001)
Gun Control Laws Ineffective (CDC, 2003)
Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime (NCPA, 2001)
OP/ED: Why People Fear Guns (FNC, 2003)
OP/ED: Whither Gun Control (FNC, 2004)
The Lott/Mustard Gun Control Study This is the only comprehensive analysis that examines the correlation between gun laws and crime within the US. Also available in book form. Background commentary here.
I know many of you guys wish the 2nd Ammendment didn't exist and didn't guarantee us a right to arms, but let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't enough to do so. What basis do you have for your suggestions that further (if not existing) legislation would have a qualitative and quantitative benefit?
There's not been sufficient evidence to support the assertion that similar gun control methods would work in the United States, a society that is even less compatible with gun control than those where it has already been attempted in detail. Furthermore, it may sound far-off, but the 2nd Ammendment exists to ensure that our government continues to work for us. Not vice-versa.
Remember, saying You don't need X is never a valid reason for banning X.
Care to explain what was fallacious about the picture I posted? Or should I expect you to merely sling another one of your tepid ad homs at me?tiassa said:
If I read the more recent posts I see the following conclusions.
The US is a violent society.
The US has a large amount of guns in circulation.
The US has a rather large amount of criminal and violent acts commited with guns.
Canada is not a violent society.
Canada has a large amount of guns in circulation.
Gun related crimes are rare compared to the US.
-------
Should we then not conclude then that US citizens are not fit to own guns based on their (above average - meaning that there are relatively more people present willing to use violence) violent nature?
The US is a violent society.
The US has a large amount of guns in circulation.
The US has a rather large amount of criminal and violent acts commited with guns.
Canada is not a violent society.
Canada has a large amount of guns in circulation.
Gun related crimes are rare compared to the US.
-------
Should we then not conclude then that US citizens are not fit to own guns based on their (above average - meaning that there are relatively more people present willing to use violence) violent nature?
Hey dude, I own 14 guns personally. I guess that makes me some kind of SUPER criminal!Nasor said:
In other news, DoJ: Gun Laws Go Unenforced:
- proving that even if gun laws did work, our government wouldn't be smart enough to enforce them. I guess the answer is more laws. Hooray for circular reasoning!
Edit: Quoted relevant portion so you guys don't have to register for their spam mail. I'll quote the rest if anyone wants it.
I already have. You seem to have some difficulty with it because it's obvious:
Stokes Pennwalt said:
Perhaps next time you'll place more value in the obvious.
You're right. I really shouldn't stoop so low as to attempt to speak to you in your own language.
Nasor said:
Yes, but based on that conclusion you would have to conclude that Americans should not be allowed near guns.
Nasor said:
It has to work instantaneously, or the plan is flawed? What utter crap. The UK has brought in incremental restrictions on firearms, it's taken decades to get to the position that we're in, with low gun crime. Give Canada a chance, eh?
BIG difference is that England already had incredibly low gun crime rates thanks to strict licensing and accountability, so maybe the USA should try that first. I'm not advocating taking people's guns away, just make them acountable for the ones they own, and make it harder for criminals to get hold of them. First thing, would be to introduce a Firearms Certificate like the UK had, and make sure guns don't disappear, they are always accounted for on an FAC until destroyed by a licensed dealer.
However you try and dodge and weave, the UK had low crimes rates thanks to strict licensing. If the USA never tries that option, it can never discount it as a method.
It does work, it's proven to work over here, but it took a long time and a lot of foresight to make it work. This point is unassailable.
And what about tooth decay and teenage pregnancy? Two other things that have nothing to do with gun crimes! It is absurd to expect to reduce the incidence of one event by placing restrictions on another, this is a straw man argument! One thing that IS clear though, is that if guns were to be banned and removed, them being the most used tool for homicide in the USA, those deaths would not be replaced 1:1 via other means, so _your_ crime rate would be reduced. It is not correct to apply the UK post 'handgun ban' statistics directly to the USA as we are starting from different position, and if you don't see that, you need to do some more research.
It seems you're just scared of life without a gun, and coming up with any argument to try and keep one. In the UK, we were never allowed to use them for self defense, just sport. If you yanks need a gun to feel safe, I pity you.
So how long do we have to wait before we see results? It's been six years. How long would we have to wait for gun licensing laws to work before we declare them a failure? Ten years? Twenty? A century? Forever?phlogistician said:
You keep making the same baseless statements over and over again, as if simply saying them made them true. Do you have any evidence that the gun control laws in England lowered crime there? I've already explained the causation/correlation fallacy to you, but you keep on making it.
How is it proven? Where is the proof? You still haven't provided any evidence. If you want to convince people that gun control laws lower the crime rate, you have provide examples of instances in which the crime rate went down after gun control laws were passed. Can you list any instances of that happening? Of course not, because there aren't any.
Am I reading this right? If it's absurd to expect to reduce the incidence of one event by placing restrictions on another, then isn't gun control pointless? The entire idea of gun control is that you can reduce one event (murder) by placing restrictions on another (people getting guns).
How do you know this? What makes you think that we won't end up like Mexico, where they have increasibly tough gun control laws but a murder rate that's three times higher than ours? Or like Taiwan, where the murder rate is 60% higher than in the U.S. but only one in ten murders involves a gun?
Actually, I don't have any guns. I just don't think people should make policy decisions without carefully examining the facts, and the facts all seem to indicate that gun control doesn't work. You can dance anround the issue as much as you want, but the bottom line is that gun control has failed to reduce crime in every single country that has tried it. If you want to prove me wrong about this, all you need to do is come up with some examples of countries where the crime rates went down after gun control laws were enacted. But I doubt you'll be able to find any.
Nasor
Good lord, how many times does this ridiculous "Canada is safe because of gun registration" argument have to be shot down?
I’ve never seen it “shot down”, I would love to see it shot down care to commence? Because according to my stats Canadian gun related crime has decreased:
Canada:
1999-165
2002- 149
%= 10% decrease
USA:
1999: 8,259
2002:10,800
%= 30% increase
The sad truth is that Canada's murder rate didn't change after their recent gun registration laws were enacted.
Hmmm….recent, think about that word for a while shall you?
Yeah, they have a low murder rate, but it was already low before the gun control laws were passed, and the gun laws seem to have had no effect.
I’d vouch for the opposite, how is it that Canada who has more guns per capita then the US has significantly lower death rate? I was thinking last night that Canadian numbers be misleading, see if we were to adjust the Canadian murder rate for population this is the way (roughly) how the Canadian murder rate would look like in the US:
149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than 10,800 in the United States
US population: 293 million
Canada’s population: 32 million
US population is 9% larger then Canada’s.
149 x 9= 1341murders adjusted for the population
10800/9 = 1200murders adjusted.
Thus the American death rate is 8x higher then the Canadian rate, yet we have more guns per capita then you do? IT is the Canadian mentality, and law that allows us to live in relative peace. Remember that hand guns are illegal here in Canada, and most of our guns are real guns, used for necessary, or recreational purposes. We are responsible Americans aren’t.
Sorry, but Canada is yet another example of the failure of gun control.
You’ve shown it, wow!
Your government spent over a billion dollars on a gun licensing program that didn't have any effect on crime. Gee, I sure wish we could have a program like that.
It was $2 billion thank you.
Stokes
My I wasn’t expecting a surrender so early!
Good lord, how many times does this ridiculous "Canada is safe because of gun registration" argument have to be shot down?
I’ve never seen it “shot down”, I would love to see it shot down care to commence? Because according to my stats Canadian gun related crime has decreased:
Canada:
1999-165
2002- 149
%= 10% decrease
USA:
1999: 8,259
2002:10,800
%= 30% increase
The sad truth is that Canada's murder rate didn't change after their recent gun registration laws were enacted.
Hmmm….recent, think about that word for a while shall you?
Yeah, they have a low murder rate, but it was already low before the gun control laws were passed, and the gun laws seem to have had no effect.
I’d vouch for the opposite, how is it that Canada who has more guns per capita then the US has significantly lower death rate? I was thinking last night that Canadian numbers be misleading, see if we were to adjust the Canadian murder rate for population this is the way (roughly) how the Canadian murder rate would look like in the US:
149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than 10,800 in the United States
US population: 293 million
Canada’s population: 32 million
US population is 9% larger then Canada’s.
149 x 9= 1341murders adjusted for the population
10800/9 = 1200murders adjusted.
Thus the American death rate is 8x higher then the Canadian rate, yet we have more guns per capita then you do? IT is the Canadian mentality, and law that allows us to live in relative peace. Remember that hand guns are illegal here in Canada, and most of our guns are real guns, used for necessary, or recreational purposes. We are responsible Americans aren’t.
Sorry, but Canada is yet another example of the failure of gun control.
You’ve shown it, wow!
Your government spent over a billion dollars on a gun licensing program that didn't have any effect on crime. Gee, I sure wish we could have a program like that.
It was $2 billion thank you.
Stokes
My I wasn’t expecting a surrender so early!
Last edited:
- Status