When will it end?!

[Wrangell]

Nope. It's that you're objectively wrong. To the extent that I believe in an "objective wrong", which honestly isn't very far, I'll give you that. You set the metric by which correctness is evaluated: sound reasoning, and yours is lacking. In that context, you are "wrong". Knowledge is, after all, contextual.

Well, I don't think I'm wrong at all - for the reasons I've already outlined.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this particular point and move on.

That's an interesting distinction, but still the same failing logic.

Again, it's not the case IMO - so we'll have to agree to disagree again.

Any object possesses lethal potentiality. Do you want to ban them all?

Not at all.

For example, I see no reason to ban things like pencils, scissors, baseball bats etc. etc. from normal locations in which things like these might normally be found - i.e a primary school setting - even though all of these things " possesses lethal potentiality " in extreme and atypical cases.

Bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors, and acids in science lab could all be used as forms of weapons and all of them could be be used to harm someone even though they've all got some other primary and legitimate purpose / function.

I mean, I could kill you with a shoe if I wanted to (or I guess you would call it the shoe killing you). Do you want to ban shoes? At what point do you draw the line in terms of lethal potential ?

While a shoe could theoretically be used harm kids in school (again, using my earlier example ), it's not in keeping with it's primary distinct purpose ....as being an article of clothing IMO.

If some kid brought a 22. cal pistol to school, I suppose one question would be to determine what the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of a 22. cal pistol might be.

A car is an extremely dangerous object. In terms of mass slaughter, I would say that a car has much more potential than a gun.

What would you say the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of a car is in your view ?

Are you going to ban automated vehicles? What about a welding torch and a couple tanks of propane gas? Should we ban mechanical tools and barbecues?

I would no more ban these items as I would not ban bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors, and acids in science lab in schools.

As I was saying to matt in the other line of argument, it's not the ease with which you can do the thing, it's the fact that you can do it at all.

In my view, the primary and legitimate purpose / function of things like vehicles, a welding torch, mechanical tools and barbecues, bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors etc. are inuitively self evident to most people.

Same for a a 22. cal pistol being maintained and ready for use ( outside of a sporting context of course ) - it's primary and legitimate purpose / function is to kill a human being.

You call saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," an equivocation. I find that pretty humorously ironic, given the existential clause inherent to the expression of the sort of killing action in question. Why? Because a human being was involved, and responsible. It's not "Yesterday at ________ School a gun murdered a bunch of innocent children. It's "Yesterday at _________ School a man/woman shot a bunch of people." There's a reason for that. A gun is just the weapon of choice. And as I said above, I'm glad people are so unimaginative as to stick with guns for this sort of thing. It could be much worse.

Again, one more time. Guns " kill " as a means of their simple functionality and people intend to " kill " as it pertains to motivation - thus the double meaning .......and the equivocation.

Now we get to the real issue. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who believe the way you do

You got that partly right IMO...I'd say " fortunately " not " unfortunately "

But believe me, the day they begin to take your liberties from you, and in my opinion that day was quite a while ago if you live in almost any part of the world, will start the countdown on your reversal of opinion on this matter.

I happen to think you're dead wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.

What happens when the police of your suddenly totalitarian government

I've made no predictions or claims about any totalitarian government.

If you want to drink up on the the totalitarian government rhetoric, then I suggest you ask Phate89.

invade your home with the intent to execute because say, you, your relatives, your wife, or one of your children did or said something they didn't like? Humor me and imagine it briefly (God forbid that it should actually happen, I would never wish that on anyone). How would you feel about it then?

Again, I don't make the argument that removing handguns from private citizens will result in the adverse consequences you've outlined above.

I suspect it may be closer to Phate89's position so you may want to run it by him instead.

You're correct in saying that the only reason guns exist is for the application of violent force (for the purpose of argument, I can come up with other reasons such as deterrence, but let's not get into that), this is true (once again just for simplification). However, how you can believe that only those already in power have the right to express this force baffles me.

I simply can't think of any compelling reason for any private citizens to claim that not only is owning a handgun is some form of ' God given ' right, but that there is any compelling reason / need for a private citizen for owning a handgun ( outside of a sporting context of course )

I can argue the point ad nauseam, but honestly, if you want to trade away your freedom for slavery just to avoid a very small chance of some kids getting shot at a school, well, that's up to you.

Well, I don't think I'm trading away my freedom for slavery - again, guess we disagree once more.

btw - do you think all university students ( who are over 16 ) should be able to carry a firearm into class lectures, to all university venues ( bars ) etc. ?

Do you have any problem with possibly over 300 students of a first year BIO class bringing over 300 revolvers to a lecture ?

 

[[Focus]]

For example, I see no reason to ban things like pencils, scissors, baseball bats etc. etc. from normal locations in which things like these might normally be found - i.e a primary school setting - even though all of these things " possesses lethal potentiality " in extreme and atypical cases.

Bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors, and acids in science lab could all be used as forms of weapons and all of them could be be used to harm someone even though they've all got some other primary and legitimate purpose / function.

While a shoe could theoretically be used harm kids in school (again, using my earlier example ), it's not in keeping with it's primary distinct purpose ....as being an article of clothing IMO.

If some kid brought a 22. cal pistol to school, I suppose one question would be to determine what the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of a 22. cal pistol might be.

Fair enough. My answer: its primary application is that of violent force (hopefully in self-defense). How does this make it less legitimate than any of those other objects?

What would you say the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of a car is in your view ?

This is something else that I might contend. Why should it be my view? I am, as far as I know, a rational, non-hostile individual. But in the view of say, Theodore Kaczynski, it's primary purpose may be the concealment of large quantities of explosives. Or an environmentalist might say that it's primary purpose is to ruin our planet.

How many people die in traffic accidents versus mass shootings (or simply shootings if you prefer)? Again, I ask, why should the primary function of an object be more heavily factored than its actual big picture results? I'm pretty sure banning automobiles would have much more of an impact on the number of senseless deaths in America than banning guns would. Do automobiles get a free ticket because they have a "legitimate" purpose? What does that even mean?

I've made no predictions or claims about any totalitarian government.
...
I simply can't think of any compelling reason for any private citizens to claim that not only is owning a handgun is some form of ' God given ' right, but that there is any compelling reason / need for a private citizen for owning a handgun ( outside of a sporting context of course )

I think I already made my thoughts on this quite clear. A dismissive, "Oh, that will never happen," doesn't constitute a counter. It has happened in other places, and will happen again. The situation may not have been the same, but human nature remains so.

In addition to the government there are also criminals, foreign nationals, terrorists, crazy people, and a number of others a citizen might need protecting from. I really don't think you understood that line about the militia you cited earlier. I'm quite sure I'll end up explaining it soon, but not just yet.

Well, I don't think I'm trading away my freedom for slavery - again, guess we disagree once more.

I haven't agreed to disagree with anything. What I haven't addressed here I've simply given up on, having met no sufficient opposition. But I suppose it's friendlier if we call it that.

Anyway, what else would you call trading away your constitutional right to armament (see: Votive Justice) just because a statistically insignificant number of people die in shootings? As has been mentioned by others, the biggest impact banning guns will have is to take them out of the hands of those who own them for so called "legitimate" purposes. I mean, seriously, how would you even determine whether a person is going to use a gun for hunting Elk or people?

btw - do you think all university students ( who are over 16 ) should be able to carry a firearm into class lectures, to all university venues ( bars ) etc. ?

Do you have any problem with possibly over 300 students of a first year BIO class bringing over 300 revolvers to a lecture ?

Not over 16. If we're delving into the theoretical realm of what I think would be best, well, that's a whole different animal. I think no one who isn't a true citizen should be allowed a gun. And believe me there would be a test. 80% or more of the population would fail it, and for good reason: most people aren't very good citizens, by almost any rigorous standard.

Should you be a citizen, and over the age of 21 (which would also be the driving age, if I had any say in it), you would be required to carry a weapon. Not allowed, required. You would also be required to maintain a certain degree of facility with it (tested regularly) in order to retain your citizenship.

But then that leads into all sorts of interesting questions re: who is designing these tests and making these decisions. Then you start to realize I'm no advocate of democracy. I think it's a fantasy system. Completely impractical in the real world, as many people now consider communism.

Getting back to your question, though, essentially, yes. So long as access is denied to no one, everyone should be permitted. How many people do you think would have been injured or killed had such been the case? I'm guessing significantly less. matt spoke of deterring a would-be wolf - I can't imagine any better deterrent than the knowledge that every one of the sheep is armed and dangerous. Of course, as I mentioned, this sort of thing might lead to something rather more insidious than simple shootings. Misanthropic youths might suddenly take up poisoning water supplies or detonating nuclear bombs at major population centres.

 

[LeiYunFat]

I don't have a strong opinion on this subject but I will say that your "theoretical realm" as you call it sounds pretty interesting. Not right, not wrong, just interesting. I'd love to hear about it more...perhaps another time.

 

[Wrangell]

Fair enough. My answer: its primary application is that of violent force (hopefully in self-defense). How does this make it less legitimate than any of those other objects?

Those other objects - bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors, acids in science lab, vehicles, a welding torch, mechanical tools and barbecues - all have a " primary and legitimate purpose / function " that does not involve inflicting injury, violence, death etc.on another human being...as a handgun does. So, a handgun is not a legitimate tool of non-violence IMO.

In that respect and context, I would view the ' lethality ' of a handgun as being the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of its' existence - materially different and entirely unlike / distinct from those other objects i noted above. So, I'd say the inherent distinction in terms of the nature of the ' intent of use ' between a handgun and bread knives, pens, baseball bats, compasses, scissors, acids in science lab, vehicles, a welding torch, mechanical tools and barbecues is inuitively self evident IMO.

This is something else that I might contend. Why should it be my view? I am, as far as I know, a rational, non-hostile individual.

Since I don't know you personally, I really can't comment either way - as I have no way of knowing if you are a " rational, non-hostile individual " or not.

And, you said...

" A car is an extremely dangerous object. In terms of mass slaughter, I would say that a car has much more potential than a gun "​

So, my question to you ( in response to above ) simply was " What would you say the " primary and legitimate purpose / function " of a car is in your view ? ". While a car may be used to kill people intentionally ( as a gun is used ), i view the primary and legitimate purpose / function of a car as being a primary means of transportation and not a primary means of intentionally killing another human being.

But in the view of say, Theodore Kaczynski, it's primary purpose may be the concealment of large quantities of explosives. Or an environmentalist might say that it's primary purpose is to ruin our planet..

Well, I think the vast majority of people would simply say that the primary and legitimate purpose / function of a car is that of being a primary means of transportation and not a primary means of intentionally killing another human being.

How many people die in traffic accidents versus mass shootings (or simply shootings if you prefer)?

People who control cars are not using cars intentionally in traffic accidents to kill other people - that's why they are called accidents IMO.

People who control firearms are using firearms in mass shooting / shootings to
intentionally kill other humans. Mass shooting / shootings are premeditated acts in which firearms are being used in accordance with their primary and legitimate purpose / function - and that is, to kill people.

Again, I ask, why should the primary function of an object be more heavily factored than its actual big picture results? I'm pretty sure banning automobiles would have much more of an impact on the number of senseless deaths in America than banning guns would. Do automobiles get a free ticket because they have a "legitimate" purpose? What does that even mean?

The primary and legitimate purpose / function of a car is to serve as a means of transportation IMO.

The primary and legitimate purpose / function of a handgun is to serve as a means of killing another human being IMO.

That is why I don't think the is any need to ban the use of cars by private citizens but there is some merit in banning the use of handguns by private citizens.

I think I already made my thoughts on this quite clear. A dismissive, "Oh, that will never happen," doesn't constitute a counter. It has happened in other places, and will happen again. The situation may not have been the same, but human nature remains so.

What can I say, our prediction of the societal consequences stemming from a handgun ban for private citizens obviously differs. Once again, we disagree.

We simply have different crystal balls that result in us having different opinions on potential outcomes. I respect your opinion on this - i just don't happen to share it.

In addition to the government there are also criminals, foreign nationals, terrorists, crazy people, and a number of others a citizen might need protecting from.

I don't need to own a handgun to afford me level of protection I need from these elements of society you noted above.

However, if you feel you need a handgun or some other firearm to deal with these sorts of potential threats, fair enough - I respect your opinion. Arm yourself to the teeth.

I really don't think you understood that line about the militia you cited earlier. I'm quite sure I'll end up explaining it soon, but not just yet.

I agree - that's why I asked about the militia.

I haven't agreed to disagree with anything. What I haven't addressed here I've simply given up on, having met no sufficient opposition. But I suppose it's friendlier if we call it that..

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing.

Anyway, what else would you call trading away your constitutional right to armament (see: Votive Justice) just because a statistically insignificant number of people die in shootings?

I simply can't think of any compelling reason for any private citizens to claim that not only is owning a handgun is some form of ' God given ' right, but that there is any compelling reason / need for a private citizen for owning a handgun ( outside of a sporting context of course )

As has been mentioned by others, the biggest impact banning guns will have is to take them out of the hands of those who own them for so called "legitimate" purposes. I mean, seriously, how would you even determine whether a person is going to use a gun for hunting Elk or people?.

My issue is more with handguns as I don't think pistols were designed or are usually the norm of firearm used for hunting large game like elk.

And as far as hunting game simply for the ' sport ' or ' fun of it ' goes ...I see no ' sport ' or need for that either.

Not over 16. If we're delving into the theoretical realm of what I think would be best, well, that's a whole different animal. I think no one who isn't a true citizen should be allowed a gun.And believe me there would be a test. 80% or more of the population would fail it, and for good reason: most people aren't very good citizens, by almost any rigorous standard.Should you be a citizen, and over the age of 21 (which would also be the driving age, if I had any say in it), you would be required to carry a weapon. Not allowed, required. You would also be required to maintain a certain degree of facility with it (tested regularly) in order to retain your citizenship.

But then that leads into all sorts of interesting questions re: who is designing these tests and making these decisions. Then you start to realize I'm no advocate of democracy. I think it's a fantasy system. Completely impractical in the real world, as many people now consider communism..

If, as some on the forum suggest, it is a ' right ' for someone to own a gun in the U.S. how could " 80% or more of the population would fail " to be eligible for a gun.

Are you suggesting gun ownership should be viewed more as a ' privilege ' - like a drivers license - than a ' right ' ?

 

[2bBuff]

A couple things:

1. Kids/people who have done these school shootings are not only suicidal; they are also homicidal. Their primary purpose isn’t to kill themselves; it is to get “pay back” for how they believe they have been wronged in life. Guns happen to be the “thing” to do right now. If they didn’t have guns they would find another way (whether it be another way that kills more or less people, they don’t care). The people that use guns in this way are not “normal”. They are actually the people that our screwed up judicial system would allow off the hook by pleading insanity.

2. Why would guns be allowed for sporting purposes? What about a crazy kid who’s dad is a sport shooter? He/she could still carry out just as bad of a shooting. Is that not a problem in your mind? Seems you may have interest in this exception to the rule.

 

[matt182]

Buff firstly, none of them would get off insanity almost all of them a clearly pre-meditated.

What makes you think if guns are not available they'll still carry out an attack perhaps even worse. I strongly dont think this is the case. Guns let them incurr enourmous damage quickly and personally, with a quick relief of suicide.

The fact is, we dont see sport shooters consistantly terrorise schools killing innocent students.

I really believe that it begins with an idea or image, because guns ARE available it becomes a reality and begins to manifest their mind. hows this analogy. Imagine your an average joe walking down the street and you see the hottest supermodel youve ever seen, you take a good look and imagine being her gf, then continue what your doing as if that even never happened. However, if you were told by her friend a bit later she really liked you, then you gonna persue that idea because its actually possible. The key factor here is reality. You get kids with screwed up head everywhere, so i dont want to hear "they would find some other way" because it is very unlikely, you only have to study other countries to figure it out..

 

[2bBuff]

Don’t think that I can’t see your point. I certainly do, and I don’t think it’s even 100% wrong (as I hope you don’t think it’s 100% right). What you have to remember is that anything can look good for a given amount of time. Even communist countries can have their good times. Think about the cold war and how much trouble the Soviet Union was for the U.S. then. That still doesn’t mean communism is a good choice of government even though not all things about it are bad. The problem we have is we don’t know how banning guns will turn out in the end. The thing that scares most people is that banning guns puts them (us) in a place where we cannot defend ourselves. Even if defending myself would be futile, I’d rather die fighting than just lay down in defeat.

Remember that having citizens with weapons would also make it more difficult for a foreign nation to just walk in and take over. I know, the U.S. military is a powerhouse and all so this is a bit less applicable in modern times.

Buff firstly, none of them would get off insanity almost all of them a clearly pre-meditated.

Well, we may never know since they all keep killing themselves, but they would at least have a loooooooong drawn out case which at the end leaves the tax payer footing the bill for the rest of their life. Their “insanity” would at least keep them out of the death penalty.

What makes you think if guns are not available they'll still carry out an attack perhaps even worse. I strongly dont think this is the case.

I don’t know what makes me think that. I guess because they’re CRAZY. You can’t predict what someone who is crazy will do.

Guns let them incurr enourmous damage quickly and personally…..

Enormous is a relative word. They could kill more if they put their mind to it.

…..with a quick relief of suicide.

Quick yes, bullets are pretty fast. But, if they were only looking for suicide there’s much easier and less painful ways.

The fact is, we dont see sport shooters consistantly terrorise schools killing innocent students.

In general, we don’t see “normal” people doing this. They’re all on medication or have some history of abuse or something. Can’t you agree that it’s only a very small small small minority of people who even have the capacity to carry out such a heinous act? Why take away the rights of many to protect a few? Should we all just live in a bullet-proof bubble?

I really believe that it begins with an idea or image, because guns ARE available it becomes a reality and begins to manifest their mind. hows this analogy. Imagine your an average joe walking down the street and you see the hottest supermodel youve ever seen, you take a good look and imagine being her gf, then continue what your doing as if that even never happened. However, if you were told by her friend a bit later she really liked you, then you gonna persue that idea because its actually possible. The key factor here is reality. You get kids with screwed up head everywhere, so i dont want to hear "they would find some other way" because it is very unlikely, you only have to study other countries to figure it out..

I can see the point here. But, all then it would take is one person carrying out an attack with a chemical weapon or explosive device to get that image in crazy people’s heads too. Wouldn’t you agree with that?

School shootings are not the basis for banning guns. I can understand people who do not see the utility of guns and do not wish to own them, but I can’t understand why they would like to take them away from everyone else. There are far worse things that kill many more people than guns in this nation. Why not start with banning those things first? I don’t agree with that either, but just making a point I guess.

On a good note (and something we can certainly agree on)...
I had a pretty good workout this morning. I'm on my way to being "buff" but got a long way to go. I'm still more "puff" than "buff" if ya know what I mean.

 

[Typhon]

I don't give a crap. I love guns. And I will keep my guns. No gun lover in America would ****ing stand and no politician would be stupid enough "to ban guns"

if someone came up to me trying to debate me guns should be banned id kick his ass and tell him to **** off to another country where guns are banned.

That's one scary post, you really shouldn't be allowed a gun if you say you love them, that's crossing a line into the unhealthy
Regardless of whether guns should be banned or not you need to see a mental health proffesional

 

[Phate89]

That's one scary post, you really shouldn't be allowed a gun if you say you love them, that's crossing a line into the unhealthy
Regardless of whether guns should be banned or not you need to see a mental health proffesional

 

[Typhon]

:yelrotflmao:

 

[goergen1]

Banning things is a bad idea in general. Be it guns, drugs, cigarettes, whatever. The more bans there are the more control the government has.

Every time a ban is passed, that makes it easier for the next ban. It is easy to rationalize guns, drugs, smoking. At some point we will get to legislating things that are really important. Like the ability of the government to take someones property for its own purposes, or greater redistribution of wealth. (things that are already happening)

Gun control is about just that, CONTROL. The more control we give a government the easier it becomes for a government to take more control.

Lets put this in perspective.

Gun deaths in America play out like this.

Total per year - 29,573

Accidental - 802

Homicide - 11,671

Suicide - 16,869

This is out of a population of over 300,000,000 people, or .009858%.

The question is, are we really ready to give up more power to the government for this?

Personally, I am not ready to do so.

I could go into more detail, but i think I got my point across.

 

[Typhon]

I could go into more detail, but i think I got my point across.

I think what you got across is that you're a little paranoid. What is it with Americans and a complete distrust of your government?

 

[Wrangell]

Every time a ban is passed, that makes it easier for the next ban. It is easy to rationalize guns, drugs, smoking. At some point we will get to legislating things that are really important. Like the ability of the government to take someones property for its own purposes, or greater redistribution of wealth. (things that are already happening)

Gun control is about just that, CONTROL. The more control we give a government the easier it becomes for a government to take more control.

Lets put this in perspective.

Gun deaths in America play out like this.

Total per year - 29,573

Accidental - 802

Homicide - 11,671

Suicide - 16,869

This is out of a population of over 300,000,000 people, or .009858%.s.

Another approach from a population perspective is to look at actual things like cities and murders - especially as it pertains to firearms and murders - between countries / cities with different gun cultures.

Take my city Toronto example, it has as population of about 2.5 million people in the city itself. Compare it to Chicago ( 500 miles away from Toronto ) with a population of 2.8 million people in the city itself etc. etc.

In 2006 Chicago had 467 murders - 385 as a result of firearms.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/06ARRev_2.pdf

Given the fact you guys have this 2nd amendment to support citizens efforts to not only bear but perhaps even ' want ' arms, if you had to hazard a guess, would you say Toronto would have about the same, significantly less or significantly more murders stemming for firearms in 2006 than Chicago ?

( Detroit is only about 250 miles away with only 900,000 people in the city itself ...but with over 400 murders in 2006, I didn't think that was a fair comparison )

Crime in Detroit, Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wrangell]

I think what you got across is that you're a little paranoid. What is it with Americans and a complete distrust of your government?

Watergate, Monica, FEMA / Katrina and those pesky ' non existent ' WMD certainly didn't help !

 

[Phate89]

I think what you got across is that you're a little paranoid. What is it with Americans and a complete distrust of your government?

The country started as a means to get a away from a powerful centralized government, its in the nations history to distrust big government.

 

[goergen1]

^^^^ Word Up. The US was founded because people wanted less government. Government should never be fully trusted. On any level.

Another approach from a population perspective is to look at actual things like cities and murders - especially as it pertains to firearms and murders - between countries / cities with different gun cultures.

OK. Lets look at a country with guns and a low gun crime rate.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun

It has to do with the mentality of people and how things are treated.

Gun crimes are also committed primarily by lower income people in lower income areas. Which brings about a different solution, or question rather. What would happen if we made an effort to decrease the size of the lower class economic group?

In 2006 Chicago had 467 murders - 385 as a result of firearms.

About 18% different. In my eyes that is not a big enough of a difference for a gun ban.

There are a lot of other, more viable and more successful, ways of dealing with gun crime than banning guns. It is just easiest to ban, so people go that route.

One thing I have learned is that the easiest way is never really the best way.

 

[goergen1]

If guns cause crime then women cause prostitution. :yelrotflmao:

 

[matt182]

I dont really care what they do, its up to them.

 

[Phate89]

^^^^ Word Up. The US was founded because people wanted less government. Government should never be fully trusted. On any level.



OK. Lets look at a country with guns and a low gun crime rate.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun

It has to do with the mentality of people and how things are treated.

Gun crimes are also committed primarily by lower income people in lower income areas. Which brings about a different solution, or question rather. What would happen if we made an effort to decrease the size of the lower class economic group?



About 18% different. In my eyes that is not a big enough of a difference for a gun ban.

There are a lot of other, more viable and more successful, ways of dealing with gun crime than banning guns. It is just easiest to ban, so people go that route.

One thing I have learned is that the easiest way is never really the best way.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Wrangell]

OK. Lets look at a country with guns and a low gun crime rate.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun

It has to do with the mentality of people and how things are treated.

I couldn't agree more . The Swiss - relatively speaking - seem to have a peaceful non violent " mentality ". The Swiss don't even show up on the radar when it comes to gun violence stats.

Then again, there is the case of the U.S., a country with guns, yet has a high gun crime rate.

About 18% different. In my eyes that is not a big enough of a difference for a gun ban.

Again, just to recap ( for 2006 )...

- Chicago...........2.8 million people.........467 murders......385 as a result of firearms ( 82% )

- Toronto...........2.5 million people..........69 murders.......29 as a result of firearms ( 42% )​

...seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Since you Yanks have a lot higher % of gun ownership than we do up here in Canada and much less stringent gun control measures than we do here, and if you think there is a strong possibility of an inverse relationship between the level of gun ownership / ease of gun ownership and the level of gun related violent crime ( i.e. as in the Swiss ), then ( at least on that basis alone ) you'd expect Toronto's gun related crime / murders to be about the same or maybe higher than Chicago's.

But as you say, there are likely other factors at play to explain why Chicago - which I would assume has a high % of gun ownership and less stringent gun control measures than Toronto - has 6X as many murders and over 10X as many gun related murders ( but to be fair, the year 2005 was called our ' year of the gun ' where the number of gun-related homicides in Toronto reached 52 out of 80 murders - 65% - in total that year ) Either way, and perhaps as you suggest, there may be a heck of a lot more lower income people in lower income areas in Chicago than in Toronto to account for the differences in murders and gun related murders.

There are a lot of other, more viable and more successful, ways of dealing with gun crime than banning guns. It is just easiest to ban, so people go that route.

" A lot " ?

Like what for example ?

https://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=66112