assault weapons

[Batman]

Oh, I'd ignore Repubteen's links if I were you...I checked them out and they give no facts of Amrica's or Canada's deaths by gun violence each year. That's why I researched to see if he was just lying and yes, he was. The fact is that proportionally we have more gun deaths in the USA than in Canada. The question is why.

What? I provided that link, not Repubteen.
Here's the text since you can't follow along:

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada. SOURCE

Odd how something that disagrees with your viewpoint is a "lie."

 

[anomaly]

What? I provided that link, not Repubteen.
Here's the text since you can't follow along:

Odd how something that disagrees with your viewpoint is a "lie."

Sorry for the mistake. It is still undeniable fact that we have many more deaths by gun violence here than in Canada. That is fact enough, and regardless of how fast their's is changing (it would take them atleast another decade to catch up to our assuming this pace continues...which it probably will not), the question remains: why do we have more gun violence in the USA? It obviously cannot be those gun control laws, according to you, so what is it? That's what I want to know.

 

[gypsy0032]

Sorry for the mistake. It is still undeniable fact that we have many more deaths by gun violence here than in Canada. That is fact enough, and regardless of how fast their's is changing (it would take them atleast another decade to catch up to our assuming this pace continues...which it probably will not), the question remains: why do we have more gun violence in the USA? It obviously cannot be those gun control laws, according to you, so what is it? That's what I want to know.

You can't compare the USA and Canada. Canada has what, 1/10th the population size of the USA.

 

[anomaly]

You can't compare the USA and Canada. Canada has what, 1/10th the population size of the USA.

I actually did a little research...here's what I found from it (links, if you wish to see them, are in post 30 of this thread)..."Canada has just over 1,000 deaths by guns a year, the USA 28,000. This means that in Canada 1/32,000 people die as a result of gun violence. In the USA, meanwhile, 1/10,000 die as a result of gun violence. We, proprtionally, have more gun violence here. You, therefore, have no argument."-from my previous post.

The USA has roughly 28,000 gun deaths/year. Canada has roughly 1,000. You'll see that when you compare this number with the respective countries, the USA has more gun deaths, proportionally, per year then Canada does. The argument you cite here is not valid. Think of a nw one. The question, actually, is now that we all know this info, why does the US have more gun deaths than Canada? Are any gun control bills the Canadians may have passed actually working (I do not know the answer to this)? If that's not it, then why, why does the USA have so much more gun deaths?

 

[akyron]

Are any gun control bills the Canadians may have passed actually working (I do not know the answer to this)? If that's not it, then why, why does the USA have so much more gun deaths?

Maybe its a combination of the population discrepancy and the number of guns involved. Canadian gun control has not been going over that well or having much effect according to some of the literature.


"Nobody really knows how many guns exist in either country, but one estimate for Canada is 21 million guns owned by a population of 30 million people. In the United States, we have over 200 million guns and a population of 273 million."

from:
Gun lessons from the North

By Dr. Michael S. Brown
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

 

[anomaly]

Maybe its a combination of the population discrepancy and the number of guns involved. Canadian gun control has not been going over that well or having much effect according to some of the literature.


"Nobody really knows how many guns exist in either country, but one estimate for Canada is 21 million guns owned by a population of 30 million people. In the United States, we have over 200 million guns and a population of 273 million."

from:
Gun lessons from the North

By Dr. Michael S. Brown
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

As I've said before, the population difference has nothing to do with the population discrepancy, as proportionally we have more gun deaths than Canada does. As for the number of guns, that comes out to 3% more guns in the USA, relative to the population, than in Canada (73% of people in USA could own a gun, to 70% in Canda). Maybe we're just wild about guns, as no other explanation seems to work.

 

[akyron]

As I've said before, the population difference has nothing to do with the population discrepancy, as proportionally we have more gun deaths than Canada does. As for the number of guns, that comes out to 3% more guns in the USA, relative to the population, than in Canada (73% of people in USA could own a gun, to 70% in Canda). Maybe we're just wild about guns, as no other explanation seems to work.

Canada Population Density: 3 people per square kilometre
USA Population Density: 29 people per square kilometre


So if 70 percent of the people within Canada went psycho they could handily kill 2 people. (Assuming they dont commit suicide as well)

By contrast 20.3 people in the US could start firing at someone else within a kilo on average.

We just got more people with more guns living close enough to get on each others nerves.


Source:
http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/country/index.htm

 

[stephan]

Garza UK
I think that if you examine statistics, you will find that as gun control laws increase, so does crime. All gun control does is give the criminals a monopoly on guns, rendering innocent citizens, particularly women, defenseless. In places with no gun control, there is generally very little crime. That's because criminals don't like being shot.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Chris Rock had an incredibly clever argument for how we might solve this problem. Charge 5,000 dollars per gun. So when you go to shoot someone you make darn sure they're worth killing and that there are no innocent bystanders. And even on the remote chance some one is hit by a stray, they will not need a surgeon to remove it, cause the shooter would come and get it for themself.

 

[GarzaUK]

Garza UK
I think that if you examine statistics, you will find that as gun control laws increase, so does crime. All gun control does is give the criminals a monopoly on guns, rendering innocent citizens, particularly women, defenseless. In places with no gun control, there is generally very little crime. That's because criminals don't like being shot.

If guns made society a safer place to live, America would be the safest place in the world - it isn't. :roll:

Sebastian, is it not $5000 per bullet?

 

[stephan]

Garza UK,
So how do you explain why crime is high in American cities with very high gun control, but low in areas that have no gun control? How do you explain that Switzerland is the safest place in the word, and that owning a gun is mandatory?

 

[GarzaUK]

Canadians have gun control, we Brits have gun control - yet we are not shooting each other up.
I would like to see your facts please from a source. At the minute you haven't given me any evidence to back up your logic.

The Question maybe you should asking is why America has tens of thousands of gun deaths, while other countries with guns has less than 1000? Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada all have forms of gun control compared to the United States, yet they all have less deaths.

The question maybe is "Why are Americans so different?"

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Canadians have gun control, we Brits have gun control - yet we are not shooting each other up.
I would like to see your facts please from a source. At the minute you haven't given me any evidence to back up your logic.

The Question maybe you should asking is why America has tens of thousands of gun deaths, while other countries with guns has less than 1000? Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada all have forms of gun control compared to the United States, yet they all have less deaths.

The question maybe is "Why are Americans so different?"

The argument of Bowling for Columbine. But my problem with the film, and again my problem with your question is that there is no suggestion of why or how that might be fixed. Stating a problem and giving no options of solution is not productive.

 

[GarzaUK]

A few suggestions.

1. Ban all automatic weapons, heavy weapons and explosives (grenades)
2. Ban all handguns in private property (since they have no game purposes)
3. Handguns can be kept in a private locker in a gun club or firing range
4. Rifle and Shotguns allowed in house, annual regestration of all of these weapons to a body (e.g. police). ~ In Britain rifles and shotguns must be kept in gunclub, but I know how much you guys love you guns and are paranoid about your neighbourhood.

These are all sensible suggestions, however must Americans will disagree with them. I can't understand how a modern society needs guns in their home, unless the country is in anarchy or the crime is really really bad, that the police force is so useless it can't deal with it. If that how it is, how can USA be the best place to live in the world?

BTW my Dad had a handgun in our house when I was a kid, but that is only because a terrorist organization was out to kill him. I got a hold of this loaded weapon when I was 6, I think it is better to leave a gun away from home.
How many school shootings have been caused by their father's guns?

 

[stephan]

GarzaUK,
So, if I understand you correctly,
1. you want a government monopoly on handguns
2. the government should have a database of armed citizens
3. you generally believe that citizens shouldn't be able to defend themselves against criminals who disregard gun control laws, unless the citizen finds out in advance that somebody is after them.
4. America has tens of thousands of gun deaths, but we should only have guns in our homes if the crime is really really bad.

 

[CSA_TX]

GARZAUK while you have the right to your opinion and thoughts, you are not a US citizen. You do not have the constitution rights that we in this country do so I don't beleive you have a realistic view of what the right to keep and bear arms means to the average US citizen. If the US government tried to pass gun reform like was done in your country it would not work. The average citizen would not comply. Haven't crime rates gone up in the UK since they passed the gun control laws.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

A few suggestions.

1. Ban all automatic weapons, heavy weapons and explosives (grenades)
2. Ban all handguns in private property (since they have no game purposes)
3. Handguns can be kept in a private locker in a gun club or firing range
4. Rifle and Shotguns allowed in house, annual regestration of all of these weapons to a body (e.g. police). ~ In Britain rifles and shotguns must be kept in gunclub, but I know how much you guys love you guns and are paranoid about your neighbourhood.

Let me begin by saying I would LOVE to see this happen. I see absolutely no good reason for guns to ever be created. They are instruments of death and are meant for no other purpose but to , kill.
However, as in the case of abolition, if you outlaw guns, the only ones who hold them are criminals and that presents a horrible problem of inability to protect one's self if it comes to that.
It would be a lovely idea, I just don't think that those methods will work in coming to that.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

We've been fortunate in this country. 200+ years of democracy and stablity. But if one takes a long view of history, he/she will see that democracies and republics have not traditionally lasted too long.

Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment in an America that had an armed populace. How else would we have been able to throw off the yoke of British rule?

Without an armed citizenry to serve as a check on government, what will happen if some opportunist takes advantage of (or invents) some crisis in order to seize power? You may say that this scenario is far fetched, but the founding fathers had the same fear.

After all Caesar did it, so did Napoleon, Cromwell, Mao, Hitler, etc.

Friends, we as a people are not truly free unless we possess the means to defend our freedom.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

We've been fortunate in this country. 200+ years of democracy and stablity. But if one takes a long view of history, he/she will see that democracies and republics have not traditionally lasted too long.

Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment in an America that had an armed populace. How else would we have been able to throw off the yoke of British rule?

Without an armed citizenry to serve as a check on government, what will happen if some opportunist takes advantage of (or invents) some crisis in order to seize power? You may say that this scenario is far fetched, but the founding fathers had the same fear.

After all Caesar did it, so did Napoleon, Cromwell, Mao, Hitler, etc.

Friends, we as a people are not truly free unless we possess the means to defend our freedom.

Firstly, we have, arguably, the strongest army in the world at the moment. We also have a system in which we vote on our presidential nominee several times, and a system of checks and balances that ensures that there will not be a dictatorship as there was in the countries you mentioned. And even assuming there was such an incurection, do you really think your handgun is going to fight off an attacking army? Good luck with that. There is no necessity for our civilians to be armed at the moment. If things begin to change, there is always the alternative, but no militia is necessary or practical at this point in time.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Firstly, we have, arguably, the strongest army in the world at the moment.

By saying that, you made my point for me. If ever that army (as many others in the past have) would turn against our civilian government, which branch would be able to check and balance that overwhelming force?

do you really think your handgun is going to fight off an attacking army?

No. That's why "a well-regulated militia" should have access to assault weapons. Switzerland, as an example, is defended primarily by militia. I'm sure their government-issued weaponry goes well beyond the pea-shooters we're permitted to own.

If things begin to change, there is always the alternative, but no militia is necessary or practical at this point in time.

If things change, it's already too late.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

By saying that, you made my point for me. If ever that army (as many others in the past have) would turn against our civilian government, which branch would be able to check and balance that overwhelming force?

But we live in a country whose army is its people. Civilians are friends and wives/husbands our army. To pose that our army would turn on its civilians is to warn us that one day daddy might come home deciding that we had to die cause the government said so.

If things change, it's already too late.

So not only are you arguing that there is a possibility of our troups turning on us, but that it will happen in a course of time that would not allow us to arm ourselves or seek foriegn aid? Pose one possible scenerio in the next few years that might lead to such an insurrection that would pit our army against its friends and families?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

But we live in a country whose army is its people.

Wasn't the same true in Pre-Napoleonic France, Republican Rome, and in the countless third-world democracies that have come and gone?

Pose one possible scenerio in the next few years that might lead to such an insurrection that would pit our army against its friends and families?

First of all, when a coup d'etat occurs, the army does not go after the civilian population; their aim is to dismiss a sitting government. Nobody's mama is being killed. Things like that never happen in a vacuum, all you need is an environment of widespread paranoia or panic, and you'd see the civilian population being supportive of a coup, like a flinching reaction.

Here's a scenario (which obviously, I hope will never happen): what if the "war on terror" went badly? What if an increasing number of terrorist attacks on soft targets left the civilian population feeling very vulnerable? You'd start seeing an erosion of our civil rights, like due process. And if things were bad enough, you'd see martial law imposed at the behest of the civilian population. Only when the panic subsided would we bea able to ask ourselves, "what the hell did we allow to happen to us?"

You might say that I have a fertile imagination, but history is full of examples of crises / panic / revolution / regret.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Wasn't the same true in Pre-Napoleonic France, Republican Rome, and in the countless third-world democracies that have come and gone?

Okay, so you're suggesting that if each of those citizens had a gat that perhaps France on the Republic of Rome may still exist in a form?

Here's a scenario (which obviously, I hope will never happen): what if the "war on terror" went badly? What if an increasing number of terrorist attacks on soft targets left the civilian population feeling very vulnerable? You'd start seeing an erosion of our civil rights, like due process. And if things were bad enough, you'd see martial law imposed at the behest of the civilian population. Only when the panic subsided would we bea able to ask ourselves, "what the hell did we allow to happen to us?"

If you're fear is martial law, then how can you possibily be FOR automatic weapons. This would only give ammo to a rising coup that may or may not see families and friends as anything more than a hinderance in their higher cause. By wishing to keep such firepower around, you are only allowing any would be revolutionsists to have access to them.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't think terrorism will be solved with assault rifles or any sort of gun for that matter.

Those people need a revolution. And if the bombs would start falling for long enough, it would happen.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't think terrorism will be solved with assault rifles or any sort of gun for that matter.

Those people need a revolution. And if the bombs would start falling for long enough, it would happen.

*Correction - If the bombs would STOP falling for long enough...

The bombs have started falling just fine... quite a typo...