When will it end?!

[goergen1]

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

You seem to have trouble grasping the idea that a country can have the right to own guns, while having a low gun crime rate.

I never stated the US was a good example. I am merely stating that there are other options aside from a ban that would be successful.

- 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% )

That is the first time you posted numbers for Toronto. So it is not a recap.

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.

I brought up the Swiss to illustrate that there are other options, as opposed to banning, that can solve the firearm violence issue. I never said that -

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 am stating that there are obviously solutions that will work other than a straight gun ban. I do not understand why you are having such a hard time accepting that there is more than one solution to the problem.

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 more reasons. Chicago has long been associated with gangs. Starting with the mistakes the city made when it came to urban projects. Gang activity is very high in the poor area of Chicago. (as is true for most other American cities as well)

Since gun violence and gang activity are significantly tied to the low income class of people, the start of a solution would be decreasing the number of lower class citizens.

Reform of the welfare system here would be a start. Even here in Columbia, SC there is a bad situation when it comes to welfare. Parents in the poor areas of town tell their children to start having kids and to have as may as possible. (since the more you have the more money you get, kids start having kids as young as 12, 13, and 14) Even worse, they get more money if the father is not around. So they purposefully have children and the father needs to stay away.

Not exactly an environment that breeds success. This is also a situation where gang activity and gun violence is high. Another "benefit" of the federal government "helping" people have better lives.

The above is the first situation that needs to be addressed.

Education on firearms is the second thing that needs to happen. Kids whose parents have guns, and are taught gun safety and etiquette by the parents, have accounted for 0% of gun violence. (when tracked, interesting that kids who are taught to use and respect a weapon are least likely to use that weapon in a violent act)



I am sure there are more options. These are the two that I believe are the most important.

As it is Wrangell I am not sure this post will do any good. You have taken much of what I have stated out of context. Based upon your previous post, I believe that you want the only solution to be a ban on guns and that you are not open to any other solution.

As it is I am opposed to gun bans, and any other type of ban. I believe there are issues in all cases that provide solutions without banning. If others choose to be closed minded on the subject and demand bans, good for them. That does not make it the best option.

 

[matt182]

I thought this was to do with the ever consistant school shootings. Woulds bans not be the only logical solution to reduce/stop these occurances? - disregarding any inconvenience to the public or affects on crime.

 

[SKMMAN]

This gun control argument is getting boring. As tony said : "When is this **** gonna stop?" :yelrotflmao:

 

[matt182]

* yawnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[2bBuff]

I thought this was to do with the ever consistant school shootings. Woulds bans not be the only logical solution to reduce/stop these occurances? - disregarding any inconvenience to the public or affects on crime.

I'm not sure about only or logical here, but I can't help but wonder why we should (or would) "disregard any inconvenience to the public". Government is here for the many, not for the few.

There will always be tragedy, that's pretty much a guarantee. However, there is no guarantee of always having freedom (personal or national).

We could be arguing about alcohol bans here. Some people can’t control their use of the substance and therefore we should ban it “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or knives… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or cars… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or household chemicals… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or BIG MUSCLES… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Etc…etc…etc…

Point being, why pick and choose the things to ban based on the needs of the very few? I don’t understand that mentality.

 

[Typhon]

We could be arguing about alcohol bans here. Some people can’t control their use of the substance and therefore we should ban it “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or knives… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or cars… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or household chemicals… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or BIG MUSCLES… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Etc…etc…etc…

Point being, why pick and choose the things to ban based on the needs of the very few? I don’t understand that mentality.

I'm not going to start arguing again on either side here but I have to say that you can't use any of the examples above in your arguement. The things you listed all have legitimate purposes other than killing. For example, cars - without them how would you get to work?, household chemicals - needed to clean etc.. If you were to ban guns it shouldn't affect the average persons everyday life.

Again, I'm not bothered about the arguement, I do think they should be banned but I understand the 'home protection' arguement too and I also think firearms might be so common in the US now that a ban could prove unenforceable

 

[Wrangell]

Or cars… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or household chemicals… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

Or BIG MUSCLES… some people can’t control their use them and therefore we should ban them “disregarding any inconvenience to the public”.

What would you say is the ' the " primary and legitimate purpose / function ' of a ...

- revolver ?
- car ?
- household chemical ?

 

[2bBuff]

The things you listed all have legitimate purposes other than killing.

Don't guns have a legitimate purpose other than killing? Matt has even mentioned sport shooters. Isn't that legitimate?

Only people who are CRAZY (I like to capitalize that word, I think it holds more meaning that way) see guns only as killing devices.

I know the items on my list above shouldn't be banned, but I don't see a distinct line between "ban-able" items and "unban-able" items. It's more of a spectrum ranging from "of course those things should be banned" (like personally owned nuclear devices) and "of course those things shouldn't be banned" (like bleach) even though the "shouldn't be banned" items can be used to harm or kill people.

A little more on topic...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The people who perform these school shootings are CRAZY. They are not the average individual. They do not represent the average american in any way (other than pimples most the time). These are kids who have had a hard life and most even have mental disorders. Let's not judge (or make law for) a nation based on the attitude and actions of a few unrepresentative people.

 

[Typhon]

Don't guns have a legitimate purpose other than killing? Matt has even mentioned sport shooters. Isn't that legitimate?

Only people who are CRAZY (I like to capitalize that word, I think it holds more meaning that way) see guns only as killing devices.

We have 'sports shooting' here too, the guns never leave the club and live rounds don't need to be used so it isn't a public safety issue

And using capitalization like that doesn't make your point any more meaningful, it just makes you sound like a angry teenager that can't get his point across properly. Guns were invented to kill, even sports shooting is a way of simulating the process of killing something in a safe environment.

Like I said before though, my views on this aren't all that strong, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Americans having guns because I don't live there, I was just pointing out that the arguement you used above was severely flawed

If you want to argue on the side of needing a handgun for protection then fine, there's logic in that, just don't try arguing that if guns were banned then why not ban cars, cleaning agents, lager etc.. It sounds like a childish argument

 

[Dallen]

How come whenever something like this happens all we talk about banning guns, increasing security, etc, etc, etc?

At my university, the president wrote a letter to the students explaining how she would increase security and all that crap. I don't understand. After the VA Tech thing, they implemented a emergency broadcast thing that sends text messages to your cell phone. Why do we have to live in constant fear?

A cop cannot even enforce the law anymore. We constantly see on the news of videos of cops doing "bad" things but they never explain the other side of the story. Instead of praising the protectors of our community, we shun them.

Even more so, children cannot even be children anymore. If a child find a subject boring, he has ADD and be placed on a list. If a small kindergarten child had a fuss over toys with another child, both of the children are expelled from school.

What's even more scary is that now schools actually have drills when there's a shooting. It's like it's expected like an earthquake or some natural disaster. I remember we practiced this once a while back. Holding a desk up to the door and hiding behind a desk. It's like, "Hey, your child can die here, just like your child can die from a hurricane, or earthquake, or whatever, so we have to prepare ourselves because there's nothing we can do about 'Acts of God.'"

I'm thinking the book Starship Troopers was right about many things. Instead of immediately punishing the puppy when it does bad, we instead punish it later when it doesn't understand why. Then when it did too much of the bad, we simply shoot it - as in kick them out of the norm - the puppy dies not knowing what it did was wrong. Instead of punishing when punishment is due, we wait. Instead of explaining why we're punishing, we wait. Instead of explaining what is the correct way, we wait. We wait until it's so late, that the puppy is now a full grown dog and the only way to correct it is to kill it.

 

[Big_Idiot]

Is this same argument still going on.......?

 

[2bBuff]

And using capitalization like that doesn't make your point any more meaningful, it just makes you sound like a angry teenager that can't get his point across properly.

The capitalization was more for humor than anything. I'm actually not angry at all over this subject. I'm currently getting what I believe in (freedom) and don't currently have any worries it will change.

I'm also not a teenager (I'm 26 with two kids)...go figure right? I don't mean to sound like one of those angry teenagers. They are the ones who are CRAZY and might carry out one of these shootings one day.

Guns were invented to kill, even sports shooting is a way of simulating the process of killing something in a safe environment.

As are video games. Should they be banned? At least violent video games? Please say no. I like to mess around with them sometimes. (I'm putting the lid back on that can of worms now.)

Like I said before though, my views on this aren't all that strong, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Americans having guns…

That’s good because most of us don’t lose sleep over it either. That would be bad for our fitness goals don’t you think?

I was just pointing out that the arguement you used above was severely flawed

It was sarcasm, not flawed. I don’t think anyone can make a conclusive argument that will change others’ opinions in a forum anyway. I guess with that said we’re all just being bull-headed and stubborn practicing an act of futility.

just don't try arguing that if guns were banned then why not ban cars, cleaning agents, lager etc.. It sounds like a childish argument

Yeah it’s kind of childish, but more just for fun. Do you at least see the point behind the extreme (or extremely stupid) list I made? It just doesn’t seem cut and dry to me either way. Without guns we couldn’t shoot anything (except those who get them illegally which is how a lot of shootings occur now anyway), but also we give up freedom. I’d rather keep the freedom.

Opinion and generalizations to follow…
It probably has a lot to do with the family here in America. The family is becoming less and less important while individuals are becoming more and more selfish (think about road rage for example). How is the family in other countries? It seems like Canada would have a pretty strong concept of family. Maybe that leads to more respect and care for others and less selfishness. Or maybe it just helps you remember the things in life that are most important. I don’t know. That’s the kind of thing that starts to get under my skin. Why can’t people just raise their kids to be good people?

 

[Typhon]

I don’t think anyone can make a conclusive argument that will change others’ opinions in a forum anyway. I guess with that said we’re all just being bull-headed and stubborn practicing an act of futility.

Yeah I guess, but it's good to sometimes challenge your own views and try to justify why you hold them every now and again though isn't it

This thread hasn't changed the side of the fence I stand on but I have gained a bit more understanding about the other side of the arguement and that's a pretty good achievement for a thread on a website IMO

 

[theGOOCH]

I just sold a gun to my brother to buy a pair of new running shoes. I'm so white trash! LOL

 

[2bBuff]

Yeah I guess, but it's good to sometimes challenge your own views and try to justify why you hold them every now and again though isn't it

Now that's something we totally agree on.

 

[2bBuff]

I just sold a gun to my brother to buy a pair of new running shoes. I'm so white trash! LOL

Hmmm, quite possibly. Using your gun stockpile to fund other hobbies. Of course, your brother is now the one with another (or first) gun. Maybe you're transforming from white trash into a hip urbanite. Are you going to start running with an iPod strapped to your bicep? That would be the complete transformation.

Disclaimer: There is nothing wrong with iPods or strapping them to your bicep. I'm just jealous and wish I had one.

 

[Kraken]

I hunt and fish. I view guns as a food gathering tool.

I don't thinking arming society is the answer but at the same time I feel we need to protect our right to hunt and own guns.

 

[Wrangell]

We have 'sports shooting' here too, the guns never leave the club and live rounds don't need to be used so it isn't a public safety issue

When is comes to handguns, I don't think many people would have an issue with it being ' legal ' for handguns to be used by the military, by various forms of law enforcement and for ' sports shooting ' purposes. Beyond that - and this is my own personal opinion, mind you - I see no ' need ' for private citizens to be armed with handguns.

 

[Wrangell]

I hunt and fish. I view guns as a food gathering tool.

I don't thinking arming society is the answer but at the same time I feel we need to protect our right to hunt and own guns.

I assume that you use a rifle to hunt - instead of a handgun / revolver ?

And, when it comes to hunting with a rifle, I think if it's done for the primary purpose of obtaining food I might see some merit in that.

But when some weekend warriors grab a scoped .30-30 Winchester that'll send a bullet at 2,300 fps from 250 yards slamming into the side of an innocent animal - not for food - but simply for " fun "or the "sport " of it...I just don't get that.