The_Squid Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 More guns equates to more deaths by gun violence. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html The pro-gun lobby is completely wrong and should be ignored when it comes to making policy about gun control. Scientific studies have shown that if a society has more guns then there will be more gun violence and death by guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 More guns equates to more deaths by gun violence. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html The pro-gun lobby is completely wrong and should be ignored when it comes to making policy about gun control. Scientific studies have shown that if a society has more guns then there will be more gun violence and death by guns. More gun violence, but less freedom. Anyways, the pro-gun lobby has the constitution on their side. If you don't like it, move to another country. Oh wait, you don't live there anyways. Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 More gun violence, but less freedom. Anyways, the pro-gun lobby has the constitution on their side. If you don't like it, move to another country. Oh wait, you don't live there anyways. Good. I wasn't talking about a specific country. Canada too. Anywhere there is gun violence. More guns equates to more violence. The proof is irrefutable. Now..... What do we do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I wasn't talking about a specific country. Canada too. Anywhere there is gun violence. More guns equates to more violence. The proof is irrefutable. Now..... What do we do about it? We are aware that people shoot each other, the availability of any weapon surely allows more use of that weapon, but it doesn't really mean that there wouldn't be violence by some other means in the first place, nor does it mean that many people aren't protected from violence by the presence of firearms. So in the end that study means nothing, the ban wagon leads nowhere. If i dont have a gun i cant shoot someone, but i could stab them, which happens more often than shootings anyway, but once again some are only concerned about killing when it happens to several people at once, or when it happens to women, or etc etc etc. At that point it becomes sensational, it becomes a cause, over and over we here how low our crime rate is, how we shouldn't concern ourselves with crime perpetuated by certain segments of society because the statistics simply don't add up, but when it's about guns it's emotion first, numbers later. The gun registry was the perfect example of that, and it doesn't matter how many time we say it, you simply won't listen, so i fully expect that handguns will be banned at some point and the registry will be back. What will you blame after that proves to have been a fruitless exercise, and it will be, it's inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 nor does it mean that many people aren't protected from violence by the presence of firearms. Yes, studies show that more guns equates to less safe. So in the end that study means nothing Why would these studies mean nothing? Studies should inform public policy. Unless of course you don't care about what the studies say and want to stick to your guns regardless of how wrong you are. but when it's about guns it's emotion first, numbers later. Studies showing more guns equates to more violence are based upon emotion? Hardly. They are based of the numbers. Just what you said the arguments should be based upon. The gun registry was the perfect example of that, and it doesn't matter how many time we say it, you simply won't listen I always thought that the registry was bad policy. It was designed to be seen to be doing something. So your argument holds no water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 ...Studies showing more guns equates to more violence are based upon emotion? Hardly. They are based of the numbers. Just what you said the arguments should be based upon. The numbers also say that violent crime rates are down...way down...even as millions of guns are added to the mix each year. Homicide rates are down in several nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 More gun violence, but less freedom. Anyways, the pro-gun lobby has the constitution on their side. If you don't like it, move to another country. Oh wait, you don't live there anyways. Good.Our Constitution says nothing about guns. What are you talking about?Oh wait... you're talking about American politics outside the US forums. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 The numbers also say that violent crime rates are down...way down...even as millions of guns are added to the mix each year. Homicide rates are down in several nations. That's a good point. And yet the perception is that things are continually getting worse. I suspect that a major part of this is due to our instantaneous access to the media. Today we can quickly find out about anything that happens, anywhere in the world, while in the olden days people would hear about violent crimes mainly within their local area. The second thing that this media does to exacerbate the problem is, it gives a ready platform for crazy assholes to become internationally infamous. They use such sensationalism to broadcast their "message". And that leads to copy-cat violence, as other cellar-dwellers resonate with that message and get inspired to step up and do their own, horrific acts. Such events are isolated, few in number but sensationalized by the world wide web, a ring of mass murderers, snuff killers and child pornographers. Because of the internet, I tell you, because of the damned internet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 The shooting in Toronto, one guy did have a gun and he shot back and he ended up in jail and charge with an unregistered weapon and I think he also belonged to a gang, but he wasn't doing anything wrong at the time the shooting started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 The shooting in Toronto, one guy did have a gun and he shot back and he ended up in jail and charge with an unregistered weapon and I think he also belonged to a gang, but he wasn't doing anything wrong at the time the shooting started. 1. Unregistered weapon will land you in jail 2. Carrying said weapon without an ATT will land you in jail 3. Carrying said weapon concealed will land you in jail 4. Carrying said weapon loaded will land you in jail 5. Having said weapon without a RPAL will land you in jail And that's before he even pointed it at someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) We are aware that people shoot each other, the availability of any weapon surely allows more use of that weapon, but it doesn't really mean that there wouldn't be violence by some other means in the first place, nor does it mean that many people aren't protected from violence by the presence of firearms. So in the end that study means nothing, the ban wagon leads nowhere. If i dont have a gun i cant shoot someone, but i could stab them, which happens more often than shootings anyway, but once again some are only concerned about killing when it happens to several people at once, or when it happens to women, or etc etc etc. At that point it becomes sensational, it becomes a cause, over and over we here how low our crime rate is, how we shouldn't concern ourselves with crime perpetuated by certain segments of society because the statistics simply don't add up, but when it's about guns it's emotion first, numbers later. The gun registry was the perfect example of that, and it doesn't matter how many time we say it, you simply won't listen, so i fully expect that handguns will be banned at some point and the registry will be back. What will you blame after that proves to have been a fruitless exercise, and it will be, it's inevitable. your logic is astounding, even without doing a simple internet search anyone can see how ridiculous your argument is...34% of all homicides in canada are gun deaths... slightly less 33.5% are knife deaths... there are 1.8 million legal gun owners in canada... if we count only the adults there are 17 million knife owners... I know it may be a brain twister for you but the flaws in your logic should be apparent to anyone.... if knife and gun deaths were equally easy to commit knife deaths should be roughly 8 times that of guns based on per capita ownership... and both lead beating deaths even though although all 34 million of us has a set of fists and feet... gun attacks are three times as likely to cause death than knife attacks and many many more times than physical attacks why?...because physically beating someone to death is very personal, and a knife only slightly less so...humans by nature can be violent but killing another human is not easily done even when they're strangers, guns depersonalize the killing by removing physical contact with the other person... statistics back up the finding that more guns increase homicide rates, it isn't debatable... next time you go spouting statistics you should actual try look them up and try understand them first... Edited July 22, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 1. Unregistered weapon will land you in jail 2. Carrying said weapon without an ATT will land you in jail 3. Carrying said weapon concealed will land you in jail 4. Carrying said weapon loaded will land you in jail 5. Having said weapon without a RPAL will land you in jail And that's before he even pointed it at someone. and IMO when someone who would never be given a permit to carry a concealed, loaded, unregistered handgun in canada has on he has only one intent, and that's murder...the minimum sentence for committing this offense 3 years...when compared to the minimum for growing 6 pot plants is ludicrous, how many canadians are beaten to death to death with pot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I think our gun laws are fine the way they are. The biggest problem is the way they are enforced. As long as sentences for the illegal possession or use of firearms are a joke, the problem will just get worse. Seems to me that many who are championing a total ban on firearms are also arguing that drug prohibitions don't work. What sort of logic is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) your logic is astounding, even without doing a simple internet search anyone can see how ridiculous your argument is... 34% of all homicides in canada are gun deaths... slightly less 33.5% are knife deaths... there are 1.8 million legal gun owners in canada... if we count only the adults there are 17 million knife owners... I know it may be a brain twister for you but the flaws in your logic should be apparent to anyone.... if knife and gun deaths were equally easy to commit knife deaths should be roughly 8 times that of guns based on per capita ownership... and both lead beating deaths even though although all 34 million of us has a set of fists and feet... gun attacks are three times as likely to cause death than knife attacks and many many more times than physical attacks why?...because physically beating someone to death is very personal, and a knife only slightly less so...humans by nature can be violent but killing another human is not easily done even when they're strangers, guns depersonalize the killing by removing physical contact with the other person... statistics back up the finding that more guns increase homicide rates, it isn't debatable... next time you go spouting statistics you should actual try look them up and try understand them first... I was only going to reply to the first part of your message, simply because i don't want to waste my time, but there are more STABBINGS then SHOOTINGS in Canada, which is exactly what i said, i didn't say knife homicides. Btw a couple of years ago there were actually more knife homicides than gun homicides, so get off your high horse, you don't want to get into an argument over numbers, ill bury you in them. How about the fact that of all gun homicides we spent a billion or so focusing on about 2% of them with the long gun registry. Anyway, if you can't manage to actually read what i wrote before responding and attacking an argument i didn't make with an all of 0.5% difference in percentages you really aren't worth the bother. Btw you numbers of knife owners vs gun owners is more bullshit, unless you are silly enough to believe that the presence of a weapon somehow forces a person to use that weapon, here we go again with the mystical powers of inanimate objects. Also there are other countries where the homicide rate is lower with more guns and higher with less, and one more thing, the governments gun ownership numbers aren't close, it is much higher. The vast majority of those being long guns, which aren't used very often at all in homicides and the vast majority of those forearms that are are illegally obtained, mostly via smuggling, though no one really knows that true numbers. But you can be sure that new laws will not make illegal guns anymore illegal. Edited July 22, 2012 by gunrutz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 and IMO when someone who would never be given a permit to carry a concealed, loaded, unregistered handgun in canada has on he has only one intent, and that's murder...the minimum sentence for committing this offense 3 years...when compared to the minimum for growing 6 pot plants is ludicrous, how many canadians are beaten to death to death with pot.... Irrelevant to the topic at hand, go lobby the government for stiffer penalties for gun use and less for pot use, i will support you. Btw a couple of weeks ago a judge refused to give someone the minimum sentence for a gun offense calling it unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html I know, i know, the source is bad, the numbers are wrong, the numbers are being twisted, it has to work because you say it will, the uk has a more violent culture, etc etc etc. Doesn't work, never will, you can't put this genie back into the bottle. And as terrible as it all is, crime rates, and homicide rates are down, except for some of our more culturally vibrant enclaves in our largest city and a few other areas, it's funny how hand gun violence isn't such a big deal in rural areas where there are a lot more hunting and shooting enthusiasts. Ever hear of a party being shot up in a rural area with 25 people injured? It isnt the guns no matter how badly you want it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 and IMO when someone who would never be given a permit to carry a concealed, loaded, unregistered handgun in canada has on he has only one intent, and that's murder...the minimum sentence for committing this offense 3 years...when compared to the minimum for growing 6 pot plants is ludicrous, how many canadians are beaten to death to death with pot.... Reductio ad cannabidium... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 And as terrible as it all is, crime rates, and homicide rates are down Yes, that's true. And to briefly deviate from the subject...would someone please inform the Harper Government of this interesting and quite positive fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Canada's gun laws seem to be doing fine. Not sure why we'd be discussing making changes to them. Also, not sure why this would be in the health/science/technology forum anyway. Reductio ad cannabidium... I love it. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 It isnt the guns no matter how badly you want it to be. No, it isn't. Some people might argue that Canada's gun laws are too stringent. I don't know about that. But I do feel that they're not too weak, which appears to be more of a (small 'l') liberal stance than a conservative one. And it could well be that liberals are more boneheaded on this subject than conservatives are. (You appreciate that I don't make such suggestions lightly! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Canada's gun laws seem to be doing fine. Not sure why we'd be discussing making changes to them. Why not? Healthy debate and all that. Things could always be improved. Also, not sure why this would be in the health/science/technology forum anyway. I love it. -k It's a public health issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I was only going to reply to the first part of your message, simply because i don't want to waste my time, but there are more STABBINGS then SHOOTINGS in Canada, which is exactly what i said, i didn't say knife homicides. Btw a couple of years ago there were actually more knife homicides than gun homicides, so get off your high horse, you don't want to get into an argument over numbers, ill bury you in them. How about the fact that of all gun homicides we spent a billion or so focusing on about 2% of them with the long gun registry. Anyway, if you can't manage to actually read what i wrote before responding and attacking an argument i didn't make with an all of 0.5% difference in percentages you really aren't worth the bother. Btw you numbers of knife owners vs gun owners is more bullshit, unless you are silly enough to believe that the presence of a weapon somehow forces a person to use that weapon, here we go again with the mystical powers of inanimate objects. Also there are other countries where the homicide rate is lower with more guns and higher with less, and one more thing, the governments gun ownership numbers aren't close, it is much higher. The vast majority of those being long guns, which aren't used very often at all in homicides and the vast majority of those forearms that are are illegally obtained, mostly via smuggling, though no one really knows that true numbers. But you can be sure that new laws will not make illegal guns anymore illegal. bury me in numbers? highly doubtful you have yet to produce any the best you've managed "a couple of years ago"... and you misinterpret any you've come across coming up totally illogical conclusions from them...your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction based on guesswork and superficial knowledge... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 bury me in numbers? highly doubtful you have yet to produce any the best you've managed "a couple of years ago"... and you misinterpret any you've come across coming up totally illogical conclusions from them...your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction based on guesswork and superficial knowledge... isn't that the only way the right wing nuts can argue wyly. these people don't deal with facts. ban guns legalize all drugs and watch crime evaporate. my home is a gun free home and i'm proud to have that sign displayed in my window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 isn't that the only way the right wing nuts can argue wyly. these people don't deal with facts. ban guns legalize all drugs and watch crime evaporate. my home is a gun free home and i'm proud to have that sign displayed in my window. If banning drugs doesn't work, why do you think banning guns will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Here is a good graphic that shows the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. http://www.copinthehood.com/2008/08/more-guns-more-deaths.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.