Are you Democrat or Republican?? Take the Quiz.

[Michael-5]

kaneada said:

Michael-5 said:

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.

A. In Canada it's 40%, I assumed it was the same in the USA. My bad, but hey, this is probably a big reason why the US homicide rate is that much higher in the USA then Canada.

B. Hand guns have a use for self protection? Against what other hand gun users? You can fit a Rifle in a car NP, and a Rifle is more intimidating for defence in the home.

C. Where do I argue hand guns being more dangerous then assault rifles? I correlated them because hand guns are the next one down due to their small size and conceilability. Yes Rifles are concealable, but it's more difficult to have one hidden and available for immediate use, and it's much harder to run with one in your pants, or down your back. With that in mind, it's much harder to surprise people, and rob a store, or shoot someone.

D. Gun owners in Toronto would be detrimental to society since very few people carry a weapon. I don't even think it's legal here, and I've never seen someone other then a cop carry a gun before, at least in Canada. In the states it's probably different because people are so desensitized to guns, but low crime rates due to intimidation over preventive means is not the way to go IMO.

E. No it won't, Alcohol is heavily prohibited here, we went through the same prohibition you did (except it was much shorter here), and were fine. The second amendment is so old, the fact that people hide behind that still is amazing. Yes you have the freedom to carry a gun, but others should be free to roam town without the fear of being shot. In the states people of minorities and gays are heavily oppressed, I'm sure many of them don't feel comfortable with groups of white people carrying handguns, loaded.

However I agree about taking guns away, a lot of people, people like you and others from the south, would heavily oppose it. I severly doubt you'll see people shooting each other to import illegal hand guns, but people won't accept it. This is why it's important to teach people that it's immoral to kill, so that over time people won't see a need for it. I mean people don't carry guns here for a reason in Canada, we don't need one for "protection."

F. I agree, but having hand guns readily available for people such as these is definatly not a smart idea. Could you imagine a gang war turf with rifles and knives? First of all, gangstas would have to disguard their weapons in order to run from cops on neighbouring gangs due to their size, and second they would be much easier to identify.

I 100% agree, banning hand guns is not as fundamental of a cause as helping those in poverty and teaching kids good morals from a young age. I would even argue that you guys in the states should teach kids that it's bad to use guns outside of hunting. However I see no positive with keeping handguns legal.

However keep in mind, I'm not from the southern states. I'm from Canada, out homicide rates are significantly lower despite population, geology, population dencity, ethnicity (Toronto is the most multicultural city in North America, with the highest gay population in any city in NA), or anything. Just the idea of needing a gun for "protection" is absurd to me. If your a vulnerable individual and you really want protection, get a taser gun, or mace, it works just as well.

Find me a study which says hand guns work better for self defence for rape victims then mace or taser guns. I garentee you that is not the case in Canada, but it could be in the states.

The idea just seems wack to me.