Living with the threat of gun violence

[X Factor]

Ok, yes, because I live in a country where keeping and owning guns is a right, the chances of me, or anyone else, getting shot is greater than in countries where guns are banned or are severely restricted. Having acknowledged this, I truly don’t understand why this is some type of argument in favor of gun control. By living in a city in this country, I also have a greater risk of being hit by a car. I mean, think how much safer we’d all be if we had no other option but to walk (horses and bikes can be dangerous too) but that doesn’t mean I want to live somewhere where I can’t have a car, would you? . By living here, we’re also at a greater risk of eating ourselves to death. Does that mean we should restrict the availability of food or prefer living somewhere where famine is prevalent?

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, yes, because I live in a country where keeping and owning guns is a right, the chances of me, or anyone else, getting shot is greater than in countries where guns are banned or are severely restricted. Having acknowledged this, I truly don’t understand why this is some type of argument in favor of gun control. By living in a city in this country, I also have a greater risk of being hit by a car. I mean, think how much safer we’d all be if we had no other option but to walk (horses and bikes can be dangerous too) but that doesn’t mean I want to live somewhere where I can’t have a car, would you? . By living here, we’re also at a greater risk of eating ourselves to death. Does that mean we should restrict the availability of food or prefer living somewhere where famine is prevalent?

its a rational question but it requires those who want to ban guns and work for said bans, being truly motivated by such fears. since almost every avid gun banner is not so motivated, you won't get much in the way of a responsive answer by a gun banner

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

In the US you have regulations on the types of cars, where the cars can go, along with registration of them

In the US you have regulations the are designed to ensure food safety. Commercial food sellers are regulated and inspected to ensure the safety of the food they produce and sell to the general public.

I would say both are poor examples to use when discussing gun control, where the majority of people who want it want registration and regulation not a total ban

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Freedom is risky.

 

[Gaius46]

Freedom is risky.

And it isn't free.

 

[Gaius46]

Ok, yes, because I live in a country where keeping and owning guns is a right, the chances of me, or anyone else, getting shot is greater than in countries where guns are banned or are severely restricted. Having acknowledged this, I truly don’t understand why this is some type of argument in favor of gun control. By living in a city in this country, I also have a greater risk of being hit by a car. I mean, think how much safer we’d all be if we had no other option but to walk (horses and bikes can be dangerous too) but that doesn’t mean I want to live somewhere where I can’t have a car, would you? . By living here, we’re also at a greater risk of eating ourselves to death. Does that mean we should restrict the availability of food or prefer living somewhere where famine is prevalent?

What threat? I don't walk out of my house every morning worrying that I'm gonna be shot. If you don't engage in criminal activities and don't decide to kill yourself your chances of getting shot are pretty remote.

I worry about taxis and buses in lower Manhattan.

 

[X Factor]

In the US you have regulations on the types of cars, where the cars can go, along with registration of them

In the US you have regulations the are designed to ensure food safety. Commercial food sellers are regulated and inspected to ensure the safety of the food they produce and sell to the general public.

I would say both are poor examples to use when discussing gun control, where the majority of people who want it want registration and regulation not a total ban

No, no. My OP is not about comparing guns to cars or anything like that. This is specifically addressing those who post that there is greater risk of being shot in the US as some sort of valid argument for restricting gun rights. Why else even bring that up unless the implication is that we’d be better off emulating those countries?

 

[TurtleDude]

In the US you have regulations on the types of cars, where the cars can go, along with registration of them

In the US you have regulations the are designed to ensure food safety. Commercial food sellers are regulated and inspected to ensure the safety of the food they produce and sell to the general public.

I would say both are poor examples to use when discussing gun control, where the majority of people who want it want registration and regulation not a total ban

1) yet when those are passed the same people start pushing for more restrictions

2) once you claim the way to disarm criminals is to pass laws that limit what law abiding citizens can own, you have accepted the premise of gun banning

3) given how politically unpalatable gun banning is-why would a gun banner do anything but push for the next step towards a ban?

 

[PleasantValley]

Ok, yes, because I live in a country where keeping and owning guns is a right, the chances of me, or anyone else, getting shot is greater than in countries where guns are banned or are severely restricted. Having acknowledged this, I truly don’t understand why this is some type of argument in favor of gun control. By living in a city in this country, I also have a greater risk of being hit by a car. I mean, think how much safer we’d all be if we had no other option but to walk (horses and bikes can be dangerous too) but that doesn’t mean I want to live somewhere where I can’t have a car, would you? . By living here, we’re also at a greater risk of eating ourselves to death. Does that mean we should restrict the availability of food or prefer living somewhere where famine is prevalent?

but...but...what about the children. :2mad:
Think of the children.

Never mind that 10x more die from downing.
It is only those that die from gunfire we care about.
Those other kids don't fit into our overall agenda.
You will never see us giving water safety lectures in school or passing out free life preservers to save 10X that number.

The GUNZ...Its all about the GUNZ!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No, no. My OP is not about comparing guns to cars or anything like that. This is specifically addressing those who post that there is greater risk of being shot in the US as some sort of valid argument for restricting gun rights. Why else even bring that up unless the implication is that we’d be better off emulating those countries?

Is it a bad idea to look at how other people, companies, states, countries do things to see if perhaps what is done by you, your company, your state or country could be improved?

Now lets look at the overall arguement

Canada and the US both regulate food and auto's for safety, some differences, and both are generally safe for people to eat, or be around in the case of cars. I expect overall death rates for Canadians and Americans when it comes to food and cars are generally the same

Canada has stricter gun regulations. You can get rifles and shotguns, go hunting with them without too much of an issue. Just get a license/permit requiring a fairly easy background check and pass a firearms course. There are restrictions on magazine size however, and if wanted you can get a tacticool AR15 with all the toys.

Handguns are more difficult, requiring a background check (that is actually checked) before being able to purchase one legally. The use of a handgun is quite restricted however, the carrying of one is generally limited to between your home and the gun range. When travelling with one it has to be in a locked case, and you have to take with you your approved route to the gun range. So stopping at Costco on the way home or to the range can get you in trouble.

Canada does have gun deaths and murders from guns, we have gangs in our cities (some of our smaller cities in Sask have very serious gang issues) but our overall violence from guns is much lower. Canadian culture is probably the most similar to that of the US. So comparing Can culture to that of the US is the most apt, if discussing cultural aspects of why gun violence.

So why not look at what make Canada's gun violence rate so much lower than that of the US, as a possible means to address the issue of gun violence in the US

 

[SheWolf]

Ok, yes, because I live in a country where keeping and owning guns is a right, the chances of me, or anyone else, getting shot is greater than in countries where guns are banned or are severely restricted. Having acknowledged this, I truly don’t understand why this is some type of argument in favor of gun control. By living in a city in this country, I also have a greater risk of being hit by a car. I mean, think how much safer we’d all be if we had no other option but to walk (horses and bikes can be dangerous too) but that doesn’t mean I want to live somewhere where I can’t have a car, would you? . By living here, we’re also at a greater risk of eating ourselves to death. Does that mean we should restrict the availability of food or prefer living somewhere where famine is prevalent?

So you're acknowledging that more and more guns does not make us safer.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

1) yet when those are passed the same people start pushing for more restrictions

2) once you claim the way to disarm criminals is to pass laws that limit what law abiding citizens can own, you have accepted the premise of gun banning

3) given how politically unpalatable gun banning is-why would a gun banner do anything but push for the next step towards a ban?

You realize that Canada has guns, lots of hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no political movement in Canada to have all guns taken away from Canadians.

I do not see why the US could not have a similar situation. Yes some would like to see all guns gone, but I expect that group is rather small compared to those who would like just a stronger level of control

 

[Rucker61]

Is it a bad idea to look at how other people, companies, states, countries do things to see if perhaps what is done by you, your company, your state or country could be improved?

Now lets look at the overall arguement

Canada and the US both regulate food and auto's for safety, some differences, and both are generally safe for people to eat, or be around in the case of cars. I expect overall death rates for Canadians and Americans when it comes to food and cars are generally the same

Canada has stricter gun regulations. You can get rifles and shotguns, go hunting with them without too much of an issue. Just get a license/permit requiring a fairly easy background check and pass a firearms course. There are restrictions on magazine size however, and if wanted you can get a tacticool AR15 with all the toys.

Handguns are more difficult, requiring a background check (that is actually checked) before being able to purchase one legally. The use of a handgun is quite restricted however, the carrying of one is generally limited to between your home and the gun range. When travelling with one it has to be in a locked case, and you have to take with you your approved route to the gun range. So stopping at Costco on the way home or to the range can get you in trouble.

Canada does have gun deaths and murders from guns, we have gangs in our cities (some of our smaller cities in Sask have very serious gang issues) but our overall violence from guns is much lower. Canadian culture is probably the most similar to that of the US. So comparing Can culture to that of the US is the most apt, if discussing cultural aspects of why gun violence.

So why not look at what make Canada's gun violence rate so much lower than that of the US, as a possible means to address the issue of gun violence in the US

"Canadian culture is probably the most similar to that of the US." This is an assumption that isn't proven.

We do look at what Canada has done. Much of what is done in Canada would be unconstitutional in the US.

Yes, you have laws about registering handguns, and not carrying them in public, and not allowing those that are small and concealable. What types of firearms are most used in Canadian armed violence, are they used by people who carried them concealed in public, and were they registered in accordance with the law?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

"Canadian culture is probably the most similar to that of the US." This is an assumption that isn't proven.

We do look at what Canada has done. Much of what is done in Canada would be unconstitutional in the US.

Yes, you have laws about registering handguns, and not carrying them in public, and not allowing those that are small and concealable. What types of firearms are most used in Canadian armed violence, are they used by people who carried them concealed in public, and were they registered in accordance with the law?

So in the world today, Canada is not the country that has the most similar culture to that of the US?

In rural area's rifles are often most used for crimes. Rifles currently are not required to be registered, but were for a period of time.

In the cities it is typically handguns that are used, generally stolen or smuggled in from the US. Excluding of course those that are used in domestic violence situations (ie shooting of spouses or the person cheating with the spouse)

 

[Rucker61]

So in the world today, Canada is not the country that has the most similar culture to that of the US?

In rural area's rifles are often most used for crimes. Rifles currently are not required to be registered, but were for a period of time.

In the cities it is typically handguns that are used, generally stolen or smuggled in from the US. Excluding of course those that are used in domestic violence situations (ie shooting of spouses or the person cheating with the spouse)

So the laws against criminals carrying easily concealable, unregistered handguns hasn't prevented criminals from carrying and using easily concealable unregistered handguns in sufficient numbers to prevent handguns from being the most commonly use firearm in homicides in Canada.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

No, no. My OP is not about comparing guns to cars or anything like that. This is specifically addressing those who post that there is greater risk of being shot in the US as some sort of valid argument for restricting gun rights. Why else even bring that up unless the implication is that we’d be better off emulating those countries?

How is that not a valid argument? We have absurd amounts of gun violence in this country. We have an absurd amount of guns, often with little to no regulations at all. These guns are killing many people. We have people mowing down innocent people randomly with high powered, military grade weapons. How is that not a good reason to be for gun control? That's addressing the problem. All you seem to do is say I don't get why people make this argument but you offer no argument as to why.

More guns= more gun related deaths and injuries. People in general are a holes, in the heat of the moment act like animals, not a good idea to now give them a weapon where a split second of anger could lead tot hem shooting someone. Then you have the stats that show by just owning a gun or having one in your house, you are are increased risk to be in a gun related incident. You are less safe statistically.

I'm all for people having guns in their homes. I'm not for anybody and everybody walking around in crowded places armed, its a recipe for disaster.

 

[VanceMack]

In the US you have regulations on the types of cars, where the cars can go, along with registration of them

In the US you have regulations the are designed to ensure food safety. Commercial food sellers are regulated and inspected to ensure the safety of the food they produce and sell to the general public.

I would say both are poor examples to use when discussing gun control, where the majority of people who want it want registration and regulation not a total ban

Auto regulation/registration is all about taxes and has absolutely squat to do with safety. Thats proven by the number of dead people every year attributed to driving be it by accidents,distracted driving, or substance use/abuse.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So the laws against criminals carrying easily concealable, unregistered handguns hasn't prevented criminals from carrying and using easily concealable unregistered handguns in sufficient numbers to prevent handguns from being the most commonly use firearm in homicides in Canada.

There are laws against speeding, they don't prevent people from speeding, yet I do not see many people wanting to get rid of all speed limits because they dont work 100%

 

[veritas1]

You realize that Canada has guns, lots of hunting rifles and shotguns. There is no political movement in Canada to have all guns taken away from Canadians.

I do not see why the US could not have a similar situation. Yes some would like to see all guns gone, but I expect that group is rather small compared to those who would like just a stronger level of control

Who is going to go around collecting all the handguns and semi auto weapons? How are they going to collect guns they have no record of? Who is going to collect them from criminals? Oh, and hunting rifles and shotguns are not good for self defense. So, the chances of the US being like Canada are zero.

What we can do is enforce the existing laws and actually do some policing when it comes to some of these mass shooters who take to social media to practically announce their plans. Will every one be stopped? No, but neither will they be stopped by passing a few more gun laws. This is the new reality. It is a difficult one and one for which too many people want an easy, feel good fix. It doesn't exist. On the plus side, overall gun violence has plummeted over the last 20 years or so.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Auto regulation/registration is all about taxes and has absolutely squat to do with safety. Thats proven by the number of dead people every year attributed to driving be it by accidents,distracted driving, or substance use/abuse.

So a drivers license, license plates, insurance etc have no part in helping keep US streets safer for drivers, pedestrians etc?

 

[X Factor]

Is it a bad idea to look at how other people, companies, states, countries do things to see if perhaps what is done by you, your company, your state or country could be improved?

Now lets look at the overall arguement

Canada and the US both regulate food and auto's for safety, some differences, and both are generally safe for people to eat, or be around in the case of cars. I expect overall death rates for Canadians and Americans when it comes to food and cars are generally the same

Canada has stricter gun regulations. You can get rifles and shotguns, go hunting with them without too much of an issue. Just get a license/permit requiring a fairly easy background check and pass a firearms course. There are restrictions on magazine size however, and if wanted you can get a tacticool AR15 with all the toys.

Handguns are more difficult, requiring a background check (that is actually checked) before being able to purchase one legally. The use of a handgun is quite restricted however, the carrying of one is generally limited to between your home and the gun range. When travelling with one it has to be in a locked case, and you have to take with you your approved route to the gun range. So stopping at Costco on the way home or to the range can get you in trouble.

Canada does have gun deaths and murders from guns, we have gangs in our cities (some of our smaller cities in Sask have very serious gang issues) but our overall violence from guns is much lower. Canadian culture is probably the most similar to that of the US. So comparing Can culture to that of the US is the most apt, if discussing cultural aspects of why gun violence.

So why not look at what make Canada's gun violence rate so much lower than that of the US, as a possible means to address the issue of gun violence in the US

And yet, I have the feeling this a one way street and there’s nothing from the US you feel Canada could learn from. Anyway, so then if we then compare Canada to some other country where there’s even fewer guns available and fewer gun related deaths, why are you uninterested in emulating them?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And yet, I have the feeling this a one way street and there’s nothing from the US you feel Canada should look to improve. Ok, so then if we then compare Canada to some other country where there’s even fewer guns available and fewer gun related deaths, why are you uninterested in emulating them?

Sure I do

I think Canada should lower corporate taxes, reduce some regulations. I would dearly love to see Canada slap some export tariff on raw crude to make it profitable to build more upgraders and refineries in Canada.

Overall Canada being right next to, exposed to the US on a daily basis, see's what seems to work and what does not seem to work in the US. If it works Canada likely has no issue in trying to adopt it

 

[veritas1]

So a drivers license, license plates, insurance etc have no part in helping keep US streets safer for drivers, pedestrians etc?

Not too much. There is no requirement for you to keep proving that you are competent to drive in most states as far as I know. Pass an eye exam and you get your license renewed. Whether your car is registered or insured doesn't make you a safer driver.

 

[X Factor]

How is that not a valid argument? We have absurd amounts of gun violence in this country. We have an absurd amount of guns, often with little to no regulations at all. These guns are killing many people. We have people mowing down innocent people randomly with high powered, military grade weapons. How is that not a good reason to be for gun control? That's addressing the problem. All you seem to do is say I don't get why people make this argument but you offer no argument as to why.

More guns= more gun related deaths and injuries. People in general are a holes, in the heat of the moment act like animals, not a good idea to now give them a weapon where a split second of anger could lead tot hem shooting someone. Then you have the stats that show by just owning a gun or having one in your house, you are are increased risk to be in a gun related incident. You are less safe statistically.

I'm all for people having guns in their homes. I'm not for anybody and everybody walking around in crowded places armed, its a recipe for disaster.

So by that same “logic”, should we restrict and severely limit the number of cars in the US? How many lives would that save?

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Auto regulation/registration is all about taxes and has absolutely squat to do with safety. Thats proven by the number of dead people every year attributed to driving be it by accidents,distracted driving, or substance use/abuse.

Accidents, distracted driving and substance use/abuse have absolutely nothing to do with auto registration. WTF are you talking about? People have to register their cars, and in some states, prove its safe to drive. The car must be identifiable with a license plate. Registration also helps enforce need for insurance. And htere are laws to protect against the 3 things you mention. The fact that it happens still means absolutely nothing. Every law is broken by someone