Which gun should be banned next?

[tricky]

Forum Sponsor

I've never had to draw a gun, as I said every man should be able to protect himself

You are using your father's experiences from god knows where, 30+ years ago I'm guessing, as your reasoning to carry a gun, here & now. That was my point.

Living your life in fear, for the 0.02% chance you will be victim to a (not necessarily homicidal) home invasion seems like an awful way to live. Must be quite a burden to carry.

 

[kellen]

You are using your father's experiences from god knows where, 30+ years ago I'm guessing, as your reasoning to carry a gun, here & now. That was my point.

Living your life in fear, for the 0.02% chance you will be victim to a (not necessarily homicidal) home invasion seems like an awful way to live. Must be quite a burden to carry.

What's the percentage chance of being accidentally killed by your own gun?

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

I'm going to have to question the source of this graph due to the number of grammar mistakes it contains. If they can't write, how do I know they can graph or even source accurate data?


I'll also need to ask if the number of 'Intentional Firearms Deaths Rate per 100000' happens to include suicide? If so, please cite the number of deaths by hanging, knife wounds, etc, that Japan has in relation to those in USA.

 

[Schneller]

http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Debating gun ownership is just as pointless as debating religion, but much less fun. I'll just present this data from reliable sources.

In my view, believing that guns make you safer in the face of this data, is like believing in creationism in the face of scientific evidence.

Both are beliefs unsupported and contradicted by the facts.

 

[theraymondguy]

Not 'which' gun should be banned, but 'what' gun should be allowed.

To go forward we need to look back, the answer to the 'gun' issue is a musket.

Exchange your MAC10, AR-15 or Glock with a Canadian Government issued Musket. Open Carry? No Problem! Loaded guns are no longer an issue - every time you lift the barrel over 89* the powder will sift out, or lower it more than 91* the ball will roll out of the barrel. Control the sale of munitions? No need, just control the sale of black powder. Just imagine how frustrated the gang members will be when the black powder stains their air jordans. They'll switch to knives and slingshots in a heartbeat.

 

[promac]

http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Debating gun ownership is just as pointless as debating religion, but much less fun. I'll just present this data from reliable sources.

In my view, believing that guns make you safer in the face of this data, is like believing in creationism in the face of scientific evidence.

Both are beliefs unsupported and contradicted by the facts.

Then you should appreciate this:
Degrading Scientific Standards to Get the
Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down
https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm
Also, you really need to assess your own risk of harm eg:
Suicidal
History of violence
Criminal activity
History of alcohol/substance abuse
Mental illness
If you and other household members lack the risk factors above and are competent in your storage, handling and carry of guns, the risk to you and your family's safety is extremely remote.

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Debating gun ownership is just as pointless as debating religion, but much less fun. I'll just present this data from reliable sources.

In my view, believing that guns make you safer in the face of this data, is like believing in creationism in the face of scientific evidence.

Both are beliefs unsupported and contradicted by the facts.

From your business insider link I found this chart:

Which implies to me that the number of guns per 100k is not directly proportional to the number of gun homicides, because as you can see USA, Serbia, and Switzerland all have high gun ownership levels, but relatively low gun homicide rates.

Lets clear something up though... guns are just a tool. If there are a lot more guns, there will be more gun deaths, sure. If there are fewer guns, will that reduce violence? I would say it would not, in fact I would say that would just mean that the the violence would be easier to perpetuate against those that are unable to defend themselves.

Now, lets take a look at the violence level compared to the number of guns, and lets take Britain for example:

What this chart tells me is that even though the number of guns was vastly reduced, that did nothing to curb violent crime. If am attacked with a gun or a knife, what is the difference, I am still dead?

Good try linking gun control to creationism... here are some graphs of data that suggest the case isn't quite as clear cut as you indicate -- and these relate to states that previously did not have right to carry laws and enacted them -- how did allowing a person to protect themselves change the homicide rate:

 

[tricky]

What's the percentage chance of being accidentally killed by your own gun?

Although I loathe to bring up statistics in the firearms debate (everyone finds a statistic to support their side), this journal article suggests an American is 1.9x as likely to die from a homicide in their own home if they have a gun in the house, compared to a house with no gun. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

[kellen]

You are using your father's experiences from god knows where, 30+ years ago I'm guessing, as your reasoning to carry a gun, here & now. That was my point.

Living your life in fear, for the 0.02% chance you will be victim to a (not necessarily homicidal) home invasion seems like an awful way to live. Must be quite a burden to carry.

1,033 victims per 100,000 population. Violent crime 2012. Canada (excluding QC)

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year - Canada - 2.22 (2007-2011)

1.03% chance of being a victim of a violent crime
0.0022% chance of being killed by a gun


​

yeah, you should totally be more scared of guns than violent crime

 

[tricky]

Now, lets take a look at the violence level compared to the number of guns, and lets take Britain for example:

It is known that gun crime will peak after a ban... don't just cut your data off when it's at maximum to try to bolster your point. Look at the whole picture.

 

[tricky]

1,033 victims per 100,000 population. Violent crime 2012. Canada (excluding QC)

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year - Canada - 2.22 (2007-2011)

1.03% chance of being a victim of a violent crime
0.0022% chance of being killed by a gun


​

yeah, you should totally be more scared of guns than violent crime

But the article above (which is from Oxford U Press..... which is good) says you have 90% greater chance of being killed by a gun in your own home if you own one???

Statistics in the gun debate are just ****ed

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

So what I am arguing is that the total number of violent crimes committed is a much more important stat that simply the number of guns per 100k compared to the number of gun deaths.

It makes little difference to me if that violence is shooting, beating to death, stabbing to death, running someone over, etc, etc, violence is violence.

I personally believe that since violence is going to happen with or without guns, and not everyone is physically capable of protecting themselves, then guns -- and specifically hand guns and the right to carry should exist so that innocent people can protect themselves from violence.

I see guns as a tool that you hope you never need to use, like a helmet or set of knee pads, but you are very thankful to have when the situation arrives that needs it... like a helmet and knee pads in a motorcycle crash.

 

[promac]

Although I loathe to bring up statistics in the firearms debate (everyone finds a statistic to support their side), this journal article suggests an American is 1.9x as likely to die from a homicide in their own home if they have a gun in the house, compared to a house with no gun. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Response to risk of gun in the home:
"Dunlop ignored that the research he cited assumes that if a person was killed and a gun was owned in the home, it was the gun in the home that was responsible for the death. In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home. For one of the papers in the meta-analysis, in only 8 of the 444 homicide cases was a “gun involved (that) had been kept in the home.” Nor do the studies separate homes of gang members from those of law-abiding citizens."
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/08/response-to-claim-about-risk-of-guns-in-the-home/

 

[kellen]

So what I am arguing is that the total number of violent crimes committed is a much more important stat that simply the number of guns per 100k compared to the number of gun deaths.

It makes little difference to me if that violence is shooting, beating to death, stabbing to death, running someone over, etc, etc, violence is violence.

I personally believe that since violence is going to happen with or without guns, and not everyone is physically capable of protecting themselves, then guns -- and specifically hand guns and the right to carry should exist so that innocent people can protect themselves from violence.

I see guns as a tool that you hope you never need to use, like a helmet or set of knee pads, but you are very thankful to have when the situation arrives that needs it... like a helmet and knee pads in a motorcycle crash.

Of the 1033 violent crimes per 100,000 only 22 involved guns. So yeah

 

[corpse]

Even if they outlaw all guns, it will only be law abiding citizens who wont have them.

How hard is it to get weed or coke these days? just a phone call away in most cases... pretty sure those are illegal

These cases that guns are involved with are done with guns that get smuggled into canada along the same lines and using the same people that drugs do. The same circles of people will always have access to these things no matter what the laws are.

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone having firearms of any kind as long as they are trained in the proper, safe use and care of them. Maybe add, no violent crimes in their past...

 

[daught]

^ well Canada should pressure the US to ban and destroy all it's guns. Remember when Canada was moving towards legalizing marijuana and the US freaked that if it ever becomes legal in CA lots of it will be smuggled there. Well, now it's our turn to be irrational and pushy.

 

[Roadghost]

We don't need to ban any guns. We don't have a gun problem in Canada.

 

[promac]

^ well Canada should pressure the US to ban and destroy all it's guns. Remember when Canada was moving towards legalizing marijuana and the US freaked that if it ever becomes legal in CA lots of it will be smuggled there. Well, now it's our turn to be irrational and pushy.

That will never happen, so that's off the table. The 2nd Amendment guarantees/protects The People's right to keep and bear arms. Such attempts usually result mass civil disobedience, even in Democratic leaning states.
http://www.americasfreedomfighters....olice-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-control-laws/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...armed-new-yorkers-are-about-to-break-the-law/
The British tried to ban and confiscate guns in the late 1700's and got their ***** kicked. With approximately 100 million gun owners and more than 300 million guns, such a scheme would probably result in another civil war.
Why is it so important to you to ban and destroy all guns? What do you have to gain?

 

[kellen]

He's just trolling

 

[RockerGuy]

You are using your father's experiences from god knows where, 30+ years ago I'm guessing, as your reasoning to carry a gun, here & now. That was my point.

Living your life in fear, for the 0.02% chance you will be victim to a (not necessarily homicidal) home invasion seems like an awful way to live. Must be quite a burden to carry.

I don't think I said I wanted to carry a gun. I'd like to have more rights to use it if deemed necessary.

I'd rather be safe than sorry. It's more of a burden to strap on a helmet before every ride

Forum Sponsor