Respect is one of many problems I feel Americans have, however if you kill someone and don't feel guilty that's more of a question of morals, not respect.

However there is a long long list, Corporatization, the 700 trillion (and more) bailout for unimaginatively bad banking, poor education system (Suggested by Americans on this thread for a reason why homicide rates are so high), Rampant Racism, Obesity, Excessive Military spending, etc....but...yea, we'll leave it at that.


Are you pro-capital punishment?

If someone stole bread to feed their family, would you not feel the slightest bit guilty if she got a fine or went to jail?

In the 1950's a child in Canada was given Capital Punishment for killing his abusive parents. At 5 years old, do you think that child had any idea about the reprocussions of murder? Does he deserve the death sentence, or counsiling and a chance at a normal life? Is an 18 year old that much different when he grew up consistantly abused? What about the people proven innocent after the fact?

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).

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.)

The US government should not interfere with Americans right to own guns. Government taking away guns breaches the constitution and is against individual's freedom and liberty. More guns is the answer and people should have easier access to buy guns of his/her choice to defend themselves and their property. Gun control restriction laws infringe upon individual's God given right to own guns.

Maybe it's because i live in a country against guns, which is why i'm against them. But i'm not convinced relaxing our laws would be good in this economic climate at least.

But my point always was that a gun ban policy didn't neccesarilly increase crime rate, which is what you always claimed. Even if it stayed the same, it proved my point, that a gun ban don't always increase crime in the long term. 

What may shock you, is that i support full drug legalisation and regulation of such drugs. Because, it makes money  for government in taxes, it saves them money as less people would be in jail, and crime rates would fall by a lot (like they have in Portugal and Holland). I don't see the danger in doing this, but i do for guns. 

Actually I never said that.  All I said was that the murder rate went up after the handgun ban.  Which it did.  I didn't draw an casual effect outside the fact that clearly gun control didn't help.

Guns do stop crimes but more non-targeted crimes of oppurtunity vs murder which is a crime of passion.

I grew up right outside of chicago. . The gangs go out of state or to gun shows to pick up guns, all places that don't regulate. Believe me, it's not hard to know where they get sh-t because they non-stop talk how cool they are. My best friends when i was a kid shot someone.

Don't believe me, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-07-22/news/9607220184_1_estrada-chest-thursday-night-round-lake-beach

Also the kid that did the movie theater shooting, Bought all his guns at a shop. He also wasn't allowed on campus cause of what he was telling his councelor. He was a loner and never would have got guns if the councelor had a way to flag his background check.

It won't be perfect but hey if you want perfect than  why try anything at all. Anything you do is not going to be perfect but you can make it better.

Drinking and driving deaths has went way down because we regulate it better with stiffer laws. I can't stand this logic people use. Well people will still get it, Yea but most that do mass shooting are loners and don't have connections. The laws are as such that the councelor that was seeing the kid that did the school shooting couldn't even ask if they had a gun in the house. If she was able to ask and tell the lady to lock it up or move the gun, than maybe that kid wouldn't have been able to get it.

IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE, THEN IT IS WORTH IT. Simple.

If you are not a bad person or a person with problems that might indicate that you might be a threat to others. What do you have to worry about? nothing, So the regulation won't affect law abiding citizens.

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.