More guns = more homicides

[Bryan]

If banning drugs doesn't work, why do you think banning guns will?

Just because one thing isn't being restricted consistently enough, doesn't mean nothing can/should be restricted.

Besides, anyone can grow/make drugs in their basement with little to no previous knowledge of them.

[Wilber]

Just because one thing isn't being restricted consistently enough, doesn't mean nothing can/should be restricted.

Besides, anyone can grow/make drugs in their basement with little to no previous knowledge of them.

Guns are already restricted and some of them are banned.

How much heroin and cocaine is produced in Canada?

[Topaz]

I'm going to say something that some on here won't like but I believe its the truth. I think ALL Americans should have a registered, concealed license because they live in a very violent country or should I say live with very mentally ill people. Now having said that, if we look at other countries, say Europe, they do ban guns and their shootings are low except that one in Norway. So what is the answer, ban the guns or ban the people from getting the guns? I'm surprised no one have tried to sue the gun manufactures for producting something that kills.

[Canuckistani]

I'm going to say something that some on here won't like but I believe its the truth. I think ALL Americans should have a registered, concealed license because they live in a very violent country or should I say live with very mentally ill people. Now having said that, if we look at other countries, say Europe, they do ban guns and their shootings are low except that one in Norway. So what is the answer, ban the guns or ban the people from getting the guns? I'm surprised no one have tried to sue the gun manufactures for producting something that kills.

Norway gun crime is also very low. You can't base it on one aberration.

[Canuckistani]

Guns are already restricted and some of them are banned.

How much heroin and cocaine is produced in Canada?

Lots of X tho. Fair amount of crystal meth too, I bet.

[gunrutz]

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...

As i said, you aren't worth the bother, i have spent a lot of time looking at the statistics, if you want details, feel free to look for yourself, you seem at least capable of that.

[The_Squid]

As i said, you aren't worth the bother, i have spent a lot of time looking at the statistics, if you want details, feel free to look for yourself, you seem at least capable of that.

Statistics show that more guns equates to more gun homicides/deaths. You may be looking at statistics, but you are also ignoring them to satisfy your own pro-gun political viewpoint.

[GostHacked]

Statistics show that more guns equates to more gun homicides/deaths. You may be looking at statistics, but you are also ignoring them to satisfy your own pro-gun political viewpoint.

Ignore the fact that there are a lot more people on the planet than before. More people also will equate to more killings. As long as there are humans on the planet that kill each other, banning all weapons will not prevent killings from happening. How have we killed each other in the past? Sure guns make it easier, but if not a gun, someone will use something else to kill.

[The_Squid]

Ignore the fact that there are a lot more people on the planet than before. More people also will equate to more killings.

These are per capita comparisons.

As long as there are humans on the planet that kill each other, banning all weapons will not prevent killings from happening. How have we killed each other in the past? Sure guns make it easier, but if not a gun, someone will use something else to kill.

Guns make it easier. Therefor, should we not impose stricter regulations to make it a bit more difficult?

[GostHacked]

These are per capita comparisons.

Now compare incidents of legit gun owners to illegitimate gun owners.

Guns make it easier. Therefor, should we not impose stricter regulations to make it a bit more difficult?

Ask yourself this. Why would you need to have more restrictions in place when the government has been caught running guns into Mexico going to the drug cartels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF allowed guns to be bought by suspected straw purchasers, who were believed to be working on behalf of Mexican drug cartel arms traffickers ("gunrunners").[7]

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, monitored the sale of over 2,000 firearms, of which nearly 700 were recovered as of October 20, 2011.[15] A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[7]

Let's give them weapons so we can track where the weapons went. Comes at a time when the UN is looking at some global gun policy as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/

UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Sorry this might be a better reply for the colorado shooting ....

Edited July 23, 2012 by GostHacked

[The_Squid]

Now compare incidents of legit gun owners to illegitimate gun owners.

These numbers are of legit guns. The more there are, the worse gun violence is.

Ask yourself this. Why would you need to have more restrictions in place when the government has been caught running guns into Mexico going to the drug cartels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Let's give them weapons so we can track where the weapons went. Comes at a time when the UN is looking at some global gun policy as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/

The furor over an operation by American law enforcement during GW Bush has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herring.

Sorry this might be a better reply for the colorado shooting ....

International treaties that regulate weapons distribution are a good step. NRA paranoia and political grandstanding has no bearing on whether it is a good idea or not.

[GostHacked]

These numbers are of legit guns. The more there are, the worse gun violence is.

And the numbers of deaths for these kinds of shootings compared to something like those killed by drunk drivers is a drop in the cosmic ocean. Why have we not banned cars or alcohol?

The furor over an operation by American law enforcement during GW Bush has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herring.

It's not a red herring. If the government is caught gun running, why should legit gun owners in the US, be punished for what others do with the firearms?

The Iran-Contra Affair is also in the same vein. The government goes the illegal gun running things while telling the citizens of the country that it governs that they cannot have guns.

International treaties that regulate weapons distribution are a good step. NRA paranoia and political grandstanding has no bearing on whether it is a good idea or not.

I live in Canada and should no way adhere to anything by the UN that goes against the rules within Canada. And this gun treaty puts the American 2nd Amendment directly under fire. The Americans started a civil war over this once, they WILL do it again.

Just another chip away at national sovereignty.

Edited July 23, 2012 by GostHacked

[The_Squid]

And the numbers of deaths for these kinds of shootings compared to something like those killed by drunk drivers is a drop in the cosmic ocean. Why have we not banned cars or alcohol?

You are a fish monger!! You deal in red herrings!

You think gun deaths aren't important? Or are a drop in the bucket? There are a lot of preventable deaths by gun violence. Why shouldn't we try and address this? Because drunks kill people, therefor we should ignore gun violence? And ban cars? This is just a silly notion.

It's not a red herring. If the government is caught gun running, why should legit gun owners in the US, be punished for what others do with the firearms?

The Iran-Contra Affair is also in the same vein. The government goes the illegal gun running things while telling the citizens of the country that it governs that they cannot have guns.

Let us assume that someone in government is doing something illegal. Running guns. By your logic, all gun laws are now null and void because someone in government is doing something shady??? That's your argument against gun control??

I live in Canada and should no way adhere to anything by the UN that goes against the rules within Canada. And this gun treaty puts the American 2nd Amendment directly under fire. The Americans started a civil war over this once, they WILL do it again.

Just another chip away at national sovereignty.

You do know that the UN cannot impose anything, right? That a treaty is something that is signed on to, not imposed? So if you want to buy into NRA craziness, I would encourage you to write to your government with your crazy, paranoid concerns. Maybe they will have the same concerns and won't sign the treaty!

[Wilber]

You think gun deaths aren't important? Or are a drop in the bucket? There are a lot of preventable deaths by gun violence. Why shouldn't we try and address this? Because drunks kill people, therefor we should ignore gun violence? And ban cars? This is just a silly notion.

Of course gun deaths are important, so are all deaths by misadventure. Lets ban everything that kills people. Cars, motorcycles, jet ski's, snow ski's, snow boards, bath tubs, the list goes on. Who needs jet ski's snow ski's, snow boards or bath tubs. Only take showers, tubs are too dangerous. Just because you have no desire or use for a gun, you believe no one else should either.

[The_Squid]

Of course gun deaths are important, so are all deaths by misadventure. Lets ban everything that kills people. Cars, motorcycles, jet ski's, snow ski's, snow boards, bath tubs, the list goes on. Who needs jet ski's snow ski's, snow boards or bath tubs. Only take showers, tubs are too dangerous. Just because you have no desire or use for a gun, you believe no one else should either.

Your comparison of guns to cars is silly. No, we do not need to ban cars, however, they could be made even safer.

I do not advocate banning guns. Perhaps hand guns, but this should be debated. If they can be made safer, then that should be done. Further restrictions may work.

I hunt. Rifles are a tool. Handguns are not.

[Wilber]

Your comparison of guns to cars is silly. No, we do not need to ban cars, however, they could be made even safer.

I do not advocate banning guns. Perhaps hand guns, but this should be debated. If they can be made safer, then that should be done. Further restrictions may work.

I hunt. Rifles are a tool. Handguns are not.

Why not cars? How about just high performance cars? Who needs them? All guns are a tool. Rifles come in all shapes and sizes, then there are shotguns. I have four torque wrenches in my tool box, they are all tools but not used for the same job.

The primary problem related to handguns in this country is not related to legally obtained weapons so I don't see how banning them would do much good.

[The_Squid]

Why not cars? How about just high performance cars? Who needs them? All guns are a tool. Rifles come in all shapes and sizes, then there are shotguns. I have four torque wrenches in my tool box, they are all tools but not used for the same job.

Cars are not the same as guns. The comparison is silly. Let's ban hammers. Let's ban fast cars. Let's ban screwdrivers and knives.

None of these are the same as guns. Apples/oranges.

Handguns are not a tool. They are not used for anything other than to shoot at paper targets or people.

The primary problem related to handguns in this country is not related to legally obtained weapons so I don't see how banning them would do much good.

Actually it would. Stemming the manufacture, importation and sale of handguns would certainly cut down on how many are available. Many legal guns eventually become illegal guns. Plus stepped up enforcement at the border would help.

[Wilber]

Cars are not the same as guns. The comparison is silly. Let's ban hammers. Let's ban fast cars. Let's ban screwdrivers and knives.

None of these are the same as guns. Apples/oranges.

Handguns are not a tool. They are not used for anything other than to shoot at paper targets or people.

Cars kill far more people than handguns or guns in general. If a rifle is a tool and a handgun isn't then a cooking sedan is a tool and a Porsche Carrera S isn't. After all, high powered cars are poportionaly involved in more fatal accidents than regular cars. Same goes for crotch rockets versus cruising bikes so ban all high performance cars and bikes. By your definition, they are not tools. No one needs them to get from A to B.

[The_Squid]

Cars kill far more people than handguns or guns in general. If a rifle is a tool and a handgun isn't then a cooking sedan is a tool and a Porsche Carrera S isn't. After all, high powered cars are poportionaly involved in more fatal accidents than regular cars. Same goes for crotch rockets versus cruising bikes so ban all high performance cars and bikes. By your definition, they are not tools. No one needs them to get from A to B.

Cars are not the same as guns. You can keep harping on that, but it doesn't make your argument any more sensible.

Let's get back on topic of the OP and stop the car banning silliness.

[Wilber]

Cars are not the same as guns. You can keep harping on that, but it doesn't make your argument any more sensible.

Let's get back on topic of the OP and stop the car banning silliness.

How are they different? Your argument just consists of saying so. There many dangerous activities that humans indulge in which could be considered useless so why don't we ban all of them?

[Spiderfish]

Cars are not the same as guns. You can keep harping on that, but it doesn't make your argument any more sensible.

Let's get back on topic of the OP and stop the car banning silliness.

You're right, cars are not the same as guns, but the careless use of either has the same basic outcome, so the comparison is valid. Someone who is improperly trained or who is careless or has violent motives is a potential threat to safety with either a car or a gun. If someone had homicidal tendencies, it could actually be easier to simply point their vehicle at their target and hit the accelerator than it would be to obtain a gun and ammunition and take care of things that way.

Guns are an easy target in a debate like this. They get the headlines, but it's unrealistic to think that someone with murderous intentions is going to go to the trouble of obtaining a firearms license, waiting 2 to 3 months for their application to process, then purchasing and registering a gun, and then going out and commiting crimes with this registered weapon. You want to call an idea silly, that's silly. Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, so the rules only penalize the people who follow the rules and have no intention of ever using them for crime.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Spiderfish

[The_Squid]

If someone had homicidal tendencies, it could actually be easier to simply point their vehicle at their target and hit the accelerator than it would be to obtain a gun and ammunition and take care of things that way.

Is that why murder by car is so common these days????? LOL

Easier than shooting someone!! Why haven't I heard about all the car murders by the gangbangers in Toronto on the news???

The cars are guns argument just hit a new level of absurdity!

[Spiderfish]

The cars are guns argument just hit a new level of absurdity!

I didn't say cars are guns. You can twist words and be as dismissive as you like, but you seem to be missing the point. Banning an item that has the potential to be used inappropriately to cause harm only serves to penalize people who will follow the rules.

It would seem that the disparity between our viewpoints stems from the fact that you want to blame guns for violence, and I blame the people with harmful motives for violence.

[Shakeyhands]

If you don't like it, move to another country. Oh wait, you don't live there anyways. Good.

Oh the hypocrisy

Says the ODS expert...

Shady

Group: Members

Active Posts:

10,355(4.04 per day)

Most Active In:

United States Politics (5584 posts)

When you moving big fella? I'll help.

[GostHacked]

You are a fish monger!! You deal in red herrings!

It's not red herring, it's called perspective. The fact is drunk driving kills more people a year than gun violence. Smoking kills more people than gun violence. Cancer kills more than all of that combined. So this is a tragedy, yes. But when you think about it, it's not a big concern.

You think gun deaths aren't important? Or are a drop in the bucket? There are a lot of preventable deaths by gun violence. Why shouldn't we try and address this? Because drunks kill people, therefor we should ignore gun violence? And ban cars? This is just a silly notion.

I did not say they were not important. It's just that there are other things that kill people more than guns. And more people have those items than guns.

Let us assume that someone in government is doing something illegal. Running guns. By your logic, all gun laws are now null and void because someone in government is doing something shady??? That's your argument against gun control??

The Attorney General of the USA is in hot water over gun running to gangs in Mexico. You think that legit gun owners are the problem? This is simply pretext for officials to cry for banning guns. It's a crisis that will not be wasted at all. You know it's a photo op when Obama shows up on the scene to console people. At the same time he is helping the UN bring the small arms treaty to the USA which will affect the 2nd Amendment. That 2nd Amendment is one of the key lines that made America what it used to be. Strong, free, confident. They fought off the British for that right. And it will happen again.

Firearms are well coveted by Americans, and seeing how the police are getting militarized from top to bottom, you'd want to be able to protect yourself from thugs AND police with a chip on their shoulder.

Why should you obey the law when those who made the laws don't follow them?

You do know that the UN cannot impose anything, right? That a treaty is something that is signed on to, not imposed? So if you want to buy into NRA craziness, I would encourage you to write to your government with your crazy, paranoid concerns. Maybe they will have the same concerns and won't sign the treaty!

The UN can impose more than you think. Think of some of the global entities like WHO, and WTO.