|
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).
|
I never called you an idiot? Just that you don't seem to understand the underlying statistics. Which you don't seem to.
Once again, if people in Canada started carrying guns i would work as a preventitive measure from things like home invasion has been shown. Not homicide. You may not lock your doors in Canada, but your also much more likely to be robbed by a stranger if the UK is any indication. Unlike the US where you actually don't need to lock your doors because nobody is going to break into your house unless you know they're gone. (In which case a lock is often a moot point.)
Outside which the two graphs in my post look the same... because they are the same, the second graph was Canada's murder rate from 1961 to 1971. The US Graph was refrencing a previous post
What's the big deal about gun laws if they do nothing? Well first off they don't do nothing, they prevent lesser crimes like home burgalaries... outside that, your talking about preventing people from doing something they want to do for literally no reason at all. It's the same reason why I think people who are against gay marriage are off base. To rob somebody of a right, or hell even just something they want to do, you should be forced to show real tangiable evidence for why that thing should be banned. Otherwise your just being a dick denying someone from something they want to do based on superstition and random guessing unsupported by statistics.
It'd make more sense to ban alchohol then it would guns. Hell it kills more people, ruins peoples lives, and has no practical use in life. (Outside hunting) and as you've already stated, MORE related to homicide then gun ownership. I'm guessing you'd be against that because you or your friends like to tip a few back... even though under your reasoning for banning guns, beer should be like triple illegal. (I don't think either should be banned personally.)
