Should we Ban Guns?

[Michael-5]

Kasz216 said:

Michael-5 said:

People in Canadian Cities would be better off if we could carry guns? Why, have to been to Canada? We keep our doors unlocked because we feel safe, why would be pack a gun?

By telling me to look at the facts, you're being a bit of a hippocrite. Youre entire arguement to this point, from my recolection, whs that guns do not affect the homicide rates of countries. You can say that Mexio and Russia have high homicide rates and correlate that to strict gun regulations, but that's a poor correlation because Canada, Japan, and South Korea have stricter, or as strict gun regulations, and a significantly lower homicide rate.

So telling me Canada would be better off with guns, is contradictary to your entire arguement. USA being worse off with guns in comparision to Canada, and your own facts just burn that in. So please don't even suggest people in Canada start to carry guns, that's just crazy.

Currently, only 3% of Torontonians (which is 20% of Canada) only carry a gun, if anything the most logical course of action is to remove that 3% then add 50% more to it.


As for house robberies, you realize armed robberies don't really happen that frequently in Canada (Theft, with a gun, with people present). You're including your own thoughts into the matter instead of facts.

People here don't care if you own a gun or not, generall house robberies are done when people aren't home. Heck, a 10lb dog will be moe of a deterant then anything because neighbours will hear the dog bark.

Is USA that different from Canada, where people in Canada would get a dog (Doesn't even have to be an intimidating one), or an alarm system for home security, and Americans would take it upon themselves and buy a gun?

 

 

Just wow.....

3% legally carry guns... that has nothing to do with criminals.  I think you keep underestimating how many illegal guns are in circulation and how they get in circulation.

and as for Canada.... any actual proof on that?   Because it certaintly happens a lot in Britain.

 

Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, wrote in his 1991 book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, that only 13 percent of burglaries in America occur when the occupant is home. In Britain, so-called hot burglaries account for about 45 percent of all break-ins. Kleck and others attribute America’s low rate of occupied-home burglaries to fear among criminals that homeowners might be armed. (A survey of almost 2,000 convicted U.S. felons, conducted by the criminologists Peter Rossi and James D. Wright in the late ’80s, concluded that burglars are more afraid of armed homeowners than they are of arrest by the police.)

 

A large problem with this arguement seems to be that you don't have the requistite understanding of statistics to even understand what the facts say...  So let me break it down for y ou.

When you look at the changes in gun legislation from country to country, like the UK above, you see absoluteley zero change in homicide.  Which means... no difference.

To use Canada as an example....

 

Long Gun Registry implemented.... no effect on crime murder rates.  Well large increase in youth deaths but that's probably incidental.  This means that, basically the gun law had no effect.  There could be other factors involved, however this seems highly unlikely since this is a trend you see over and over and over again.   UK, Canada, Austraila etc.

 

 

Your whole arguement boils down to "Hey everybody these countries with gun control that had lower homicide rates then the US still have lower homicide rates then the US after gun control.  So it must work, despite the fact that murder rates have essentially stayed exactly the same."

 

My arguement is, there is no statistical proof that there gun legislation stops homicides at all (As can be seen by the above, the UK data, and pretty much all data everywhere.)  Where if anything there is a SLIGHT increase in deaths after gun bans.  As illustrated in the above Youth Homicde rate.   (Which is higher then adult homicide rate?  Seriously?)  Additionally the presence of guns prevents numerous crimes just by being a possibility.  (See the above quote.)

 

Or if you want a longer look.

 

Compaired to the Canada the US has actually have done a better job then Canada at reducing homicides since the 1960's. (manslaughter only accounting for between 0.1 and .03 of the numbers.   If all that was different was gun control measures it would mean that gun control has a negative effect. (Which of course it isn't, but again the all statistics are pointing in the opposite direction.)

I mean, what about that can't you understand?  Your claims fall flat because homicde rates in Canada were lower BEFORE the gun ban?  it's no different then me going to Canada passing a law saying you can't chew bubblegum on tuesdays and claiming THAT lowers homicides, because the US is lower then Canada.  (Despite Canada sorta jutst being around where it's been homicide wise since 1960 seeing no real change and the US homicde rate being lower.)

 

And that's not even counting the fact that the US homicide rate counts far more then just Murder and Manslaughter, meaning Canada's homicde rate is actually a lot closer to the US homicde rate then you realize or are probably comfortable with.

In short...  again you have zero statistisc or facts to back up your point.  The fact that you think you do only stems from a lack of knowledge on statistics and statistical comparisons.

First of all, why are you so damn pro-gun, when you yourself used to argue that gun/no guns - homicide rates are the same? I left this thread for days, and you're still here trying to pursuade people.

3% - Handguns, not all guns. A lot of rednecks outside the city own rifles and hunt deer,

As for whatever claims you're acusing me of, your twisting my words....and then telling me that I lack an understanding of statistics.

Canada has always had strong gun control, even before the 2 day wait period. Most homicides in Canada are not gun related (like the USA), so why would stricter regulations reduce gun related violence? The fact that were strict about guns obviously reduces our homicide rates, but at the same time we've reached that stable equlibrium where whatever homicides which are gun related do occer, occur because of illegally smuggled weapons. This is where USA poor gun controls hurt us.

You know....if you read my post you quoted......, I called you a hypocrite for arguing that gun control doesn't change homicide rates, and then telling me that "people in Canadian cities would be better off if they could carry guns." <- This statement is completely false.

You're arguing with yourself at this point, and your so set on convincing people that guns are good, that your blind to what other people are telling you, and what you yourself are arguing.


As for USA doing a better Job... Look at your own Data. Canada's data only goes back two decades, but even then we see a 33% reduction in the homicide rate (2.7 in 1991 to 1.8 in 2006). USA followed a similar trend. This implies that the reduction in homicide rates in both our countries, is probably not related to gun laws, and related to other factors (Maybe immigrants coming in are calming people down somehow).

So if you're going to quote me again, read my quote before you call me an idiot, because this arguement you just brought up had nothing to do with what you're quoting me for. And still you havenm't stood up for yourself on my acusation of you being a hypocrite.

You're pro-gun, despite statistics (your own statistics) showing you otherwise, and you hide your bias by trying to argue that gun laws do nothing.

If gun laws do nothing, then who cares if they are passed or not? Why is this thread such a big deal for you? If homicide rates in USA stay the same despite gun ownership, then why not remove them? It would be a hell lot less intimidating for tourists, it might make mass shootings less likely to occur, and you won't have to freak out when you go to Wal-Mart and you forgot your gun at home. If homicide rates stay the same, with or without guns, why are you trying to convince people not to ban guns? It's pointless (again using your own data).