Should we Ban Guns?

[Michael-5]

Kasz216 said:

Michael-5 said:

Kasz216 said:

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.)

I never claimed that you called me an idiot, but it's clear that you have a huge ego if you think that anyone who has a grounded opinion which is different then yours is. Clearly you don't grasp the statistics if your statistics are showing one trend, but you're claiming another.

Everything you're saying now is opinion, and no longer based on statistics.

Canadians need guns to serve as a deterant? Says who? If we honestly had a home invasion issue, we would just lock our doors. If guns are such a good deterant, why do Canadians leave our doors unlocked, but Americans lock them? You're logic is flawed.

Guns prevent lesser crimes? Says who? When you rob someones house, you can't be certain that they have a gun until you see them firsthand. A Dog is a much better deterant against house robbery (At least here it is, I clearly don't understand how messed up it is in the USA).

As for a comparision to banning alcholol, that doesn't make sense either. Yes Alcohol is detremental to society, but banning alcohol has shown to give a very negative affect on society, where banning guns has not shown this. Regardless, since you want to compare this, my stance on alcohol is very similar to my stance on guns. No Alcohol in public, drinking should only be permitted in designated areas (bars/home), no drinking and driving, and if you're identified as an alcoholic, you should be banned or limited access to alcohol. In the same regard, people should not be able to carry weapons, weapons should only even be present in locations where they have use (a shooting range, hunting, and if you insist in the home, for house protection), weapons and ammo shouldn't be able to be carried at the same time (keep ammo at home, and the shooting/hunting range) and if you or any member of your family doesn't pass the psych test, you should be able to get a gun.

If USA limited their alcohol % to 40% like Canada, I'm sure we would see immediate positive affects in healthcare, manslaughter rates, and well anything you could mention.

While you may have shown that a gun ban wouldn't make much, if any difference to homicide rates, you're arguing that people should carry guns without solid reasoning. You're using you data, and arguing a different point, which is hypocritical. You're suggesting that countries with lower homicide rates should adopt legislations from countries with higher homicide rates only because you prefer it that way.

You can't seriously expect Aliens (the term for non Americans I believe) to adopt your nations policies, when the USA is the most problematic of all the developed countries (Highest Poverty/Homicide/Obesity rates, and I'm sure there are a ton more too).


----

Anyway, I stated this threat to get an idea of how Americans in General view gun regulations. I never realized how different, and how much scarier the american lifestyle is (Why would you want to risk your life, possibly kill or be killed in a gun fight, for property?). I won't pretend to know why the USA has so many issues compared to other developed nations, but I can honestly say that I am shocked at some of the attitudes and morals of Americans after reading this thread. Pro Gun or not, I think Americans need to become more tolorant to one another, and put more value on a life.

I can only say that I hope the US Police Force becomes more compitent in the future because to hear so many people from different states feel a lack of trust for their own law enforcement, is just plain disguisting. It gives me the image that America is run like some Russian Mob. Maybe once the police force actually do their job, and get illegal guns off the street, then maybe Americans can feel safe enough to go to Wal-Mart with the option to carry, instead of the need.

The probem is your opinion ISN'T grounded.  I've proved that.  All of the things i've stated are statistically proven and facts have been shown for each arguement, with all trends matching.

 

A) Guns prevent crime who says?   The statistics that show hot home invasions almost never happen in the US.  The criminologist studies that show 88% of prisoners would not break into peoples homes while others are there.  (In the US)   So you aren't going to rob a stranger because you never know how many people live in a house or many cars are there.  Unless you spend a lot of time to case the house.

 In otherwords all the statistics regarding the matter.   As for a dog... ever hear of a poisoned piece of lunch meat?   Takes care of that easy.  

 

B) Banning alchohol has negative effects but guns don't?   Incorrect.  The only negative effect banning alchohol had was that it inreased black market sales.  Guess what happens after a gun ban?   Black market sales.

 

 C) Again, see point A.   The statistics show that greater gun ownership prevents robberies, and as would stand to reason, rapes and muggings as well, since fear of honest people having guns is a strong fear.  I never said you'd be safer because it'd prevent homicides.  You'd be safer because it would prevent property crimes.   Which again is documented by fact.

D) Your beer and gun regulations aren't the same.

 

So again, my points... supported by statistics and facts.  Your points... not supported by anything.  The only thing you can cling to is that the US has higher homcide rates, while ignoring the fact that the USA had higher homicide rates back when Candada had the same policies, and Canada's homicide rate was the same.

 

To show why your arguement doesn't hold up, answer this one question.  If Japan were to completely deregulate guns, no banned guns of any kind.  In fact at 18 every citizen is handed an fully automated AK47.  If there murder rate stayed the same.  Would you suddenly be for deregulating all guns?   There homicide rate would be lower then Canada's afterall, so by your logic there laws were better.  Hell lets say their homicide rate went up a little.  It's still lower then Canda's right?  Again by the only reasoning you've given in this thread, Japan's laws would be better.

I'm hoping your answer would be "No, Japan's homicde rate was lower before the ban happened so it's irrelevent."  If you've got any actual statistics to put foward.  Great, but i've seen none suggesting it does anything, anywhere.

 

I can point to reasons why the US has a high homicide rate, or reasons that seem statistically significant.  Which is why THOSE problems need to be worked on.  Getting rid of guns is just making it less safe for regular citizens.

You're telling me that my opinion isn't grounded when it's reflective off your own statistics.

Yet your opinion is grounded, despite your opinion being different from your arguement.

There is no reason to encourage safe, non gun crazy nations to pick up arms. However restricting guns could help prevent homicides, because often times homicides are committed with a stolen gun which was at one point purchased legally.

A) Again, you failed to post an arguement. Is that statistic higher or lower then other countries? I'm extremely doubtful that 88% is the highest rate, and that that rate belongs to the USA.

B) Yea, that's just wrong, homicide rates (as you have shown) do not correlated with gun bans (homicides don't go up). However the homicide rate spiked in the 1930's, when Alcohol was banned. Banning alcohol has a negative effect, guns do not.

C) BS, This "fact" you speak of is your own opinion.

D) No it isn't if you bothered to read my post. You're response up to this point has just been random thoughts, not at all related to my comment? Why bother quoting me, if you're not going to say anything related to what you're quoting?

As for you're point on Japan, now you're just speaking jiberish. First of all, you're making a theoretical situation, with theoretical results, which Most non-Americans, or at least non-gun nuts would immediatly see just being silly. This is clearly your own opinion, not fact, and you're presenting it as if it's a grounded reason why to make more countries have guns. If you gave everyone in Japan a gun, criminals wouldn't stab people anymore, but they would shoot more people, more easily.

Just this logic is insane. Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Germany, among other countries, have the best economies in the world. Why are you trying to change their system, to mimic the inferior US system? Even if guns aren't the issue, you're arguement should be that USA should mimic Japans Education System, not have Japan mimic USA's gun policy and "See what happens."

I'm not going to continue debating with you. Whenever I introduce an arguement, you fail to counter. You still haven't defended against yourself for my claim of you being a hypocrite, and you clearly have a preconcieved view on weapons. You want more people to have more guns, when the evidence you have shown tells us that there is no benefit for a populationto carry or not to carry weapons.

 

 

As you have shown, countless times getting rid of guns, doesn't make things "less safe." It makes no difference in safety. Stop arguing a different point from your own statistics shown before. Stop being a hypocrite.

Kasz216 said:

the2real4mafol said:
i just wonder when it comes to gun law, when does it go from protecting yourself to actual murder? How does US law define that?

Varies state to state and generally you have to go to trial.    Even the majority of "Stand your ground" cases in which someone shoots a criminal in their own home goes to trial.

The legal standard is generally "Reasonably fear for your life."  So they'll be looking to make sure the burglar was armed, wasn't shot in the back or running. 

Even then, being found innocent there doesn't mean you won't be found for killing the person at a Civil trial where the burden of proof is lower.

Every sate is different, but this is the general consensus.

O.J. Simpson won in the criminal court, but lost in the civil trial.

The reason for this is because generally criminal charges are laid when the defended is believed to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" where civil courts only need you to "likely" be guilty.