Are you Democrat or Republican?? Take the Quiz.

[kaneada]

Michael-5 said:

kaneada said:

Michael-5 said:

 

LOL, I'm just saying there is no need for Handguns. Whatever someones reason is to own a handgun, it's less important then potentially a human life. It might not make a difference in the USA, but it would probably cut 30/100 homicides a year out in Toronto, and that's just swell.

I also said "I think" It's opinion.

I think you need to research the impact of prohibition in American Culture then revist your assumption. Taking away a service or good that is desired by the people will result in far more insidious group of people creating a market for that service or good which ensures that only non-law biding citizens will seek out said service or good. You'd probably see a rise in violent hand gun crimes as a result of the people that would buy and sell them, much like alcohol, drugs, and prostitution. 

There are many other sociological reasons for violent crimes in society that are a result of the direction we have progressed as a culture, but we will never examine them because it requires that we take responsiblity for society rather than government doing so.

A. I argue band hand guns, not all guns. If you're going to compare this to alcohol, my suggested method of gun control already applies to alcohol. I argue to ban the most dangerous guns, guess what type of alcohol is banned in the USA and Canada? Anything above 40%, stronger alcohol, alcohol which serves no purpose like handguns, and is only detrimental to society.

B. Prohibition is for alcohol, alcohol clearly has a use. Many countries band guns and have completly healthy economies (Japan and Korea), many others heavily restrict them (Singapore, Mongolia and much of Eastern Europe) and again perfectly reasonable economies. I'm not aware of any developed country which bans alcohol and is doing well.

What's your point in your last sentence, what do you expect society to do to prevent criminals from becoming criminals? I agree here, but you shouldn't put the onus on either party, government and society should be resposible for creating organizations which teach people good morals

A. You're wrong. 95.6% is the highest alcohol content legal in liquor in the USA under federal law the highest being Everclear, which is banned in some states, but not under Federal Law. 

B. Hand guns do have a use, self protection...which is a legal right in this country. 

C. How are handguns more dangerous than assult rifles? I'd argue that both are equally dangerous in the wrong hands. After all, assult rifles were used in the Columbine shooting. If you're going for the concealment factor, Rifles are harder to conceal, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination. Live in the deep south for 14 years and you learn a thing or to about how to handle and properly conceal weapons.

D. Respsonible gun owners are not detrimental to society. I own two. To this day I've never had to shoot anyone or even threaten anyone with a gun.

E. Prohibiting guns, all or in part, would largely have the same consequences as alcohol prohibition in the states. You don't give society a freedom and then take it away, then expect there not to be public outcry, especially when that largely removes ones freedom to protect oneself. As for your argument against gun ownership in Asia, China is restricted to Military and Law Enforcement. Japan is Rifles only for hunting and heavy permitting is required. In Korea it is flat out illegal for civilians to own guns. Those societies have always been heavily regulated and they do not have a tradition of gun personal gun ownership. What this should tell us is that this has never been a demand of the citzens and therefore has always been a non-issue. In America on the other hand, we've always had this tradtion of personal gun ownership, trying to take that away, once again creates a need for private illegal markets, where  far worse people would maintain possession and sale and we would therefore would increase crime, hence the prohibition comparison.

F. Clairifying my last sentence. I am rerfering to American culture as being the source that produces criminals. For example, poor people tend to fight over resouces espeically income producing ones, which is why poorer neighborhoods tend to have organized gangs that deal weapons and drugs and will commonly fight for territory in order to improve buisness for themselves. Another example would be the bullying that goes on in primarily middle class societies. This one is slightly more complicated, not only because of the causes for the violence, but also the violence itself varies. There are many studies that exist that bring many possible and not necessarily mutually exclusive reasons for such behavior. 

Essentially your proposal only addresses a symptom and does so poorly...The cause for the violent mis-use of weapons exists in the injustices produced by our society not our laws or rights.