[Kevin]

Blame America

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Really, just because your gun laws aren't working, no need to blame-shift.

[Rolling Bones]

Blame Canada


U.S. blames Canada for marijuana emergencies

http://www.maryjanesgarden.com/us_blames_canada.php

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Blame Canada


U.S. blames Canada for marijuana emergencies

http://www.maryjanesgarden.com/us_blames_canada.php

Cool, post a new thread on it. Don't derail this one.

[Rolling Bones]

Blame Turkey

US blames Turkey for Iraq chaos

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Sad...253960989.html

[Rolling Bones]

Blame the E.U.

US blames EU for deadlock

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/1yr_a...ate=12-15-2005

[Rolling Bones]

Blame everyone.

U.S. Blames Humans for Global Warming.

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.p...d=77&Itemid=27

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Blame America

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Really, just because your gun laws aren't working, no need to blame-shift.

Your laws...

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto,"

[Kevin]

Yes, even if that is true, the US is making these people kill other people?

No.

These deaths are the fault of Canadians. Not the US.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes, even if that is true, the US is making these people kill other people?

No.

These deaths are the fault of Canadians. Not the US.

Nowhere does the article say the US is making Canadians kill each other. The problem is US guns flooding the Canadian market, which in turn causes gun crime. When gangs get hold of guns they tend to use 'em. If there were less US guns, then there'd be less shootings

[Kevin]

I'd like to know how they know which guns are getting over and how.

[ebuddy]

"John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, says the number of guns smuggled from the United States is a problem, but that Canada has a gang problem -- not a gun problem -- and that Canada should stop pointing the finger at the United States.

"It's a cop out. It's an easy way of looking at one symptom rather than addressing a whole disease," Thompson said."

The gun-death toll doubled since last year. Why just this last year?
Who is smuggling the guns in? For who??? Do you suppose maybe there's a market for these guns in Canada or are we just giving them guns so they can kill people?

the answer; Canadian gang members are paying quite well for illegal firearms, there's a huge market for them. Canadians are coming into our country, purchasing weapons and taking them home in ample supply. They should've been stopped by border patrol, but...
The US was mentioned no less than 5 times in a small article regarding Canadian gun crime. I can appreciate their depending on our business finance, but politics too???

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, says the number of guns smuggled from the United States is a problem, but that Canada has a gang problem -- not a gun problem -- and that Canada should stop pointing the finger at the United States.

"It's a cop out. It's an easy way of looking at one symptom rather than addressing a whole disease," Thompson said."

The gun-death toll doubled since last year. Why just this last year?
Who is smuggling the guns in? For who??? Do you suppose maybe there's a market for these guns in Canada or are we just giving them guns so they can kill people?

the answer; Canadian gang members are paying quite well for illegal firearms, there's a huge market for them. Canadians are coming into our country, purchasing weapons and taking them home in ample supply. They should've been stopped by border patrol, but...
The US was mentioned no less than 5 times in a small article regarding Canadian gun crime. I can appreciate their depending on our business finance, but politics too???

Canada does not have a gang problem. Toronto, Vancouver and to some extent, Montreal have a gang problem. Just like any big cities.

Toronto is one special case where the police have profiled black-canadians, especially from the Jamaican community. Some police officials alos lost their jobs over it. Nevertheless, the poverty amongst black-canadians, especially amongst immigrants, is quite a desolating picture, especially in Toronto (Vancouver and Montreal are not immune; the problem is less apparent).

The subculture being developped is one where power struggles abound and the use of weapons calls for an ongoing escalation. The availablity of weapons through a legal (or illegal market) from both sides of the border is obvious. Blaming America for it makes sense, but in the end, it's the end user who's to be blamed.

Weapons don't kill people; the users of the weapons do.

[Pendergast]

"I think it's a day that Toronto has finally lost its innocence," Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said. "It was a tragic loss and tragic day."

That quote made me laugh so hard, like Torontonians are finally becoming "aware" of such crimes, as if there is not one day the Toronto Sun does not report that type of crime.

[Rolling Bones]

^^^ Well this time it was an innocent young and pretty blond white girl who was killed in a crowded downtown street by two black gangs shooting it out instead of blacks killing each other in public housing projects over drugs and turf.

[ghporter]

Gee...Why not blame the piece of filth that actually DID THE SHOOTING? Why not make this person horrendously miserable for the rest of his unnatural life? Why not make it seem to be a dangerous thing to even contemplate commiting such an act?

Because inanimate objects that are theoretically migrating by themselves across an international border cannot speak for themselves and say "I was illegally bought in X and brought here by Y, then sold to Z who then sold me to the shooter." That's why.

What steps does the Canadian government take against people who illegally import guns? Do they even do much to look for them? And what does the government do about gangs in Toronto and in general?

NO gun ever did anything by itself, any more than any car by itself ran over anyone, any more than any knife plunged itself into some innocent victim, or any more than any club beat someone senseless all by itself. Whether you like guns or not THEY DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES. PEOPLE USING GUNS COMMIT CRIMES. Control criminal actions and the tendency for criminal intent, and gun access becomes a non-issue.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

^^^ Well this time it was an innocent young and pretty blond white girl who was killed in a crowded downtown street by two black gangs shooting it out instead of blacks killing each other in public housing projects over drugs and turf.

Whatever; I mean, victims are victims, whatever their origins. Obviously, the gang phenomena is not a "black" one. It's usually about people who don't feel lik they fit in society, which is true to First Nations, white people, Asian, Blacks, etc.

My point was that the Toronto police had been profiling criminals as Blacks, and that created an uproar amongts the people of the Black comunity, with good reason.

Profiling Americans because they have the right to possess and use weapons is just as silly as profiling Black people for crimes.

Still, there are reasons for crime amongts the Youth, whatever its cultural origins, and that is a problem stemming from other issues, socio-political ones amongst others. Canada is a good society, but it could also improve, especially insome areas of some of its big cities.

[cmeisenzahl]

>> "There are neighborhoods in Toronto where young people face barriers of poverty, discrimination and don't have real hope and opportunity. The kind of programs that we once took for granted in Canada that would reach out to young people have systematically disappeared over the past decade and I think that gun violence is a symptom of a much
>> bigger problem," Miller said.

This is odd. How can there be poverty and discrimination in the socialist utopia that is Soviet Canuckistan?


>> Martin, who says up to half of the gun crimes in Canada involve weapons brought in illegally from the United States, raised the smuggling problem when he met with U.S.
>> Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in October.

Wait, where are the other half coming from?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Gee...Why not blame the piece of filth that actually DID THE SHOOTING? Why not make this person horrendously miserable for the rest of his unnatural life? Why not make it seem to be a dangerous thing to even contemplate commiting such an act?

Because then they would have to admit THEY had a problem in their own country. Easier to blame the US for it, and act like it's OUR problem.

They would also have to admit gun control laws didn't work the way they thought they would.

NO gun ever did anything by itself, any more than any car by itself ran over anyone, any more than any knife plunged itself into some innocent victim, or any more than any club beat someone senseless all by itself. Whether you like guns or not THEY DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES. PEOPLE USING GUNS COMMIT CRIMES. Control criminal actions and the tendency for criminal intent, and gun access becomes a non-issue.

Exactly.

[DBursey]

Who is this 'they' to whom you refer, Kevin? Generalize much? You're making the same purile mistake as anyone else who looks elsewhere for solutions to his own problems.

Canadians; learn to deal with the fact that we live next door to a culture of guns, nothing there will change anytime soon. We have to look to our own law enforcement and border policing for some of the answers.

Keep in mind that with the record number of shootings in Toronto this year, our largest city's crime stats still pale in comparison with those of most of America's smallest and 'safest' cities.

Oh, and to the purveyors of that puerile old saw 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' ... Intent, without the facilitating hardware, is malice without potency. Unless you're expecting the drug gangs to resort to drive by clubbings.

[Spliffdaddy]

Starting in 2nd quarter 2006, a new law takes effect in the US. Basically, it states that other countries can no longer blame the US for their own problems. Despite the uproar from the 'world community', Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy, US representatives overwhelmingly supported the legislation.

[Busemann]

Total LOLZ!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Who is this 'they' to whom you refer, Kevin? Generalize much?

They, are those who supported said gun control measures. And no, it's not generalizing.

You're making the same purile mistake as anyone else who looks elsewhere for solutions to his own problems.

To his own problems? What problem do I have that I am looking for a solution for?

Keep in mind that with the record number of shootings in Toronto this year, our largest city's crime stats still pale in comparison with those of most of America's smallest and 'safest' cities.

Who told you that? Whoever did, they lied.

My city had 2 murders last year. I am positive Canadian's largest cities have more than a 2 murder a year tally.

And the US has many, many, many more people than Canada. So the numbers WILL be higher. So comparing numbers like you are is a bit dishonest no?

That would be like having a room of 5 people compared to having a room of 100.

You could say less problems happened in the room of 5 people.

OF COURSE! Less people to cause problems.

Oh, and to the purveyors of that puerile old saw 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' ... Intent, without the facilitating hardware, is malice without potency. Unless you're expecting the drug gangs to resort to drive by clubbings.

Regardless. Fact is, these guns aren't killing people.

The problem is with the people THAT ARE killing people. Not the guns.

If someone wants someone dead, they are going to find a way to do it no matter what.

[DBursey]

Not for these boys; the drive-by can only work with a gun in hand. The newer, higher calibre stuff these guys favor have greater killing power, ergo more innocent 15 yo girls. One bullet can now go through several innocents in the shopping crowd.

'Finding a way' to kill each other isn't the question. It's the use of these things specifically I'm talking about, put in fashion by America's many merchants of gun glamour. It's firing into crowds of shoppers on downtown streets with these things that I have a problem with.

Canadians can make much better use of their time by remembering these issues come Jan 23rd than in harping against Americans and the NRA crowd. We need to get our own house in order, which would include giving police better tools and increased numbers to deal with evolving problems. Better border enforcement works both ways as well. Let's se it happen.

BTW; best wishes for a gunshot-and-other-traumatic-wound-free new year to Kevin (whom I belatedly recognize as Zimphere's reincarnation), Spliffdaddy and all the rest of ye fine cadre of belly-achers here at MacNN. There are now other issues of which to attend. Let the headaches begin!

[Kevin]

Don't even own a gun myself. No reason to. I'd just shoot my eye out.

Owning guns is a bad thing.

If gun manufacturing stopped RIGHT NOW, it would move underground. Just like the alcohol bootleg days.

[DBursey]

Who told you that? Whoever did, they lied.

My city had 2 murders last year. I am positive Canadian's largest cities have more than a 2 murder a year tally.

And the US has many, many, many more people than Canada. So the numbers WILL be higher. So comparing numbers like you are is a bit dishonest no?

That would be like having a room of 5 people compared to having a room of 100.

You could say less problems happened in the room of 5 people.

OF COURSE! Less people to cause problems.

Of course! Everyone knows that American cities are as safe as Canadian cities, Kevin.



Time for that next dose of soma, Kevin!

EDIT: If I post a link to per capita gun deaths. I'd be accused of America-bashing. Hey; it is what it is, and you are what you are (in a nice, bell-curve adjusted, per-capita kinda way). Let's just leave it at that, he suggested hopefully.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Of course! Everyone knows that American cities are as safe as Canadian cities, Kevin.

Time for that next dose of soma, Kevin!

Silly

EDIT: If I post a link to per capita gun deaths. I'd be accused of America-bashing. Hey; it is what it is, and you are what you are (in a nice, bell-curve adjusted, per-capita kinda way). Let's just leave it at that, he suggested hopefully.

I am not saying there isn't more. I am saying it's been exaggerated because of the amount of people.

Of course when you get SO many people in such a small place bad things are more likely to happen.

That is why I wont live in a big city.

[DBursey]

Well, the per-capita results tend to support what I'm trying to imply. Of course, per-capita results by nature tend to unfairly generalize, especially when it comes to their statistical scatterings of character-questioning aspersions against the quality nature of good men such as yourself!

I have that Dilbert on my wall at work.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Oh, and to the purveyors of that puerile old saw 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' ... Intent, without the facilitating hardware, is malice without potency. Unless you're expecting the drug gangs to resort to drive by clubbings.

Perhaps not "drive by" clubbings, but clubbings nonetheless. Bad people INTENT on doing harm wil find a way to do it, with whatever they find at hand.

But the issue here is not bad people using guns on innocent people, it's the gang culture that is at work. What are these gangs selling that causes them to want to control territory? Who's buying it? Why? These issues are important here, because the situation is absolutely not simply one of the availability of guns to criminals, it's about gangsterism. First and foremost, the wave of gangsterism in ALL cities needs to be ended. Using "underpriveledged" or "marginalized" as excuses for this sort of behavior is still just excusing it, not identifying the cause or a way to cure it.

Finally, taking guns away from law abiding citizens has never worked to reduce crime. Look at the skyrocketing violent crime rate in England since almost all firearms are now illegal for normal citizens to own. Note that there are more and more crimes committed with guns now. Contrast that to U.S. states with concealed carry handgun laws. There (as in Texas, where I live), violent crime has fallen dramatically since concealed carry became law. Overall, violent crime in the U.S. has fallen for many years, closely related to the increase in legal, licensed carrying of firearms. Unfortunately this does not directly affect gang crimes such as the drive-by in Toronto, because gangbangers are more interested in their drug sales and protecting their drug selling territory than the possibility of them getting shot themselves.

[Pendergast]

Hmmm....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Hmmm....

Shots fired into the air for celebratory reasons? Sounds like the Middle East. Must be those damn foreigners in Central Florida
causing all this trouble. Let's get rid of them and replace them with red-blooded, law-abiding, gun-loving Americans. They
know how to use their guns properly and would never do anything so ridiculous as shoot guns into the air for no reason.

</sarcasm>

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Regardless. Fact is, these guns aren't killing people.

The problem is with the people THAT ARE killing people. Not the guns.

If someone wants someone dead, they are going to find a way to do it no matter what.

Wrong. Remove guns from general society and there will be less deaths. In fact, the rate of unintentional firearm deaths of children is nine times higher in the United States than in twenty-five other industrialized countries (such as Australia, France, Israel, Canada, Germany and England) combined. Make guns more difficult to get for these gangs and I'll assure you that the rate of deaths will go down.

People pull the trigger. It's the guns that kill. AND YOU KNOW IT!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Busemann

People pull the trigger. It's the guns that kill. AND YOU KNOW IT!

There are certain types of people more apt to pull the trigger and surprisingly they don't include legal gun owners, but criminals. This is what Canada should realize. Criminals pull the trigger. There was a report on 20/20 the other night and they were interviewing a handful of criminals and asked them what they fear most when committing robbery. Their single biggest fear was not of the police nor of getting caught, but of getting shot by an armed "victim".

There are a compelling number of statistics that show that there is absolutely nothing harmful about legal gun ownership and in fact the only thing you're accomplishing by illegalizing their ownership is ensuring that only criminals have them.

Toronto's problem is a gang/drug problem, not a US problem. 70% of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of our counties. Counties where an overwhelming majority of those murders are committed in drug-related gang crimes.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is what Canada should realize.

Let's not put the whole country into the bag of a unique opinion please.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Let's not put the whole country into the bag of a unique opinion please.

What have I done again Pendergast? You're saying Toronto is not a Canadian problem, it's a Toronto problem?

[Pendergast]

I repeat:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is what Canada should realize.

Can't you see you are generalizing an opinion to a whole country?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What have I done again Pendergast? You're saying Toronto is not a Canadian problem, it's a Toronto problem?

How is Toronto a problem?

[Hawkeye_a]

I cant stand this BS of "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" crap. Guess what.... Guns are MADE to kill people, thats their sole purpose, not to save or protect people. You press a button(pull a trigger) and the intent of doing so is to cause harm of some kind.

If guns dont kill people and only kill people, every man woman and child should be allowed to carry a gun, and that wouldnt change the murder rate.

Fact is, guns are tools for harm/murder/badstuff. As i see it, there are two options:
1. made it legal for anyone to own a gun. the result more guns in circulation. which leads to more gun related accidents and murder.
2. siverely limit or even ban the proliferation of guns. which leads to fewer gun related accidents and murder. (my question to you is, is that a bad thing ?)

it can be said that if someone wants to harm another, they could use a baseball bat, knife, car, etc.....but what makes a gun different from these things ? simple...its sole purpose is to cause harm. and any well meaning human being in their right mind would not want to harm another.

So my second question to you is. those of u who are pro guns....you say . people are the problem, right ? well....you got two ways of preventing them from killing others...
1. preach/brainshwash them into becoming "good" people
2. make it harder for them to kill people

of those two, it seems a lot more feasiable to do the second by taking away their tools. At worst, the murder rate would remain unchanged. At best you would have prevented the killers/murders from getting their hands on tools that would make killing easier.

Therefore, ridding a society of guns, or at least trying to, is in everyones interest.

[Pendergast]

Unless a gun is badly manufactured, or inappropriately stored, a gun is harmless.

Unless a person with ill intentions, or incompetent in its use is in possession of a gun, a gun has no ill effects.

The person is at the root of the problem.

Because we can establish such facts does not mean a person is pro-gun. I certainly am not and I'd rather promote the banishment of any guns that promoting its availability to the public.

But the fact remains that inanimate objects present no danger.

A car does not kill people; its driver can. either voluntarily or involuntarily.

An atomic bomb is useless untill it is armed.

A popsicle, a piece of steak can be murderous if not used properly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Wrong. Remove guns from general society and there will be less deaths.

That is very idealistic.

Remove guns from society, and society finds a way to make them itself.

AGAIN. This is what happened with alcohol when it was illegal. This is what happened to drugs when they made them illegal. This will happen to guns if they ever make them illegal.

It's not happening NOW because there are other ways to get guns.

We will NEVER be able to get rid of them. And when we outlaw them, the only people that will have them are those willing to break the law.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is very idealistic.

Remove guns from society, and society finds a way to make them itself.

AGAIN. This is what happened with alcohol when it was illegal. This is what happened to drugs when they made them illegal. This will happen to guns if they ever make them illegal.

It's not happening NOW because there are other ways to get guns.

We will NEVER be able to get rid of them. And when we outlaw them, the only people that will have them are those willing to break the law.

Industrialized countries where proliferation of guns is very low has seen no social uproar akin to that of the alcohol prohibition in the 20's. Where I live, 'no one' owns guns. Even though it's fairly easy, though expensive, for criminals to get guns, gun related deaths are a rarity. And it's been proven that criminals are more likely to pull the trigger if they are in a situation where the victim is armed as well.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Industrialized countries where proliferation of guns is very low has seen no social uproar akin to that of the alcohol prohibition in the 20's. Where I live, 'no one' owns guns. Even though it's fairly easy, though expensive, for criminals to get them, gun related deaths are a rarity. And it's been proven that criminals are more likely to pull the trigger if they are in a situation where the victim is armed as well.

Where exactly do you live may I ask?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I cant stand this BS of "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" crap. Guess what.... Guns are MADE to kill people, thats their sole purpose, not to save or protect people. You press a button(pull a trigger) and the intent of doing so is to cause harm of some kind.

If guns dont kill people and only kill people, every man woman and child should be allowed to carry a gun, and that wouldnt change the murder rate.

Fact is, guns are tools for harm/murder/badstuff. As i see it, there are two options:
1. made it legal for anyone to own a gun. the result more guns in circulation. which leads to more gun related accidents and murder.
2. siverely limit or even ban the proliferation of guns. which leads to fewer gun related accidents and murder. (my question to you is, is that a bad thing ?)

it can be said that if someone wants to harm another, they could use a baseball bat, knife, car, etc.....but what makes a gun different from these things ? simple...its sole purpose is to cause harm. and any well meaning human being in their right mind would not want to harm another.

So my second question to you is. those of u who are pro guns....you say . people are the problem, right ? well....you got two ways of preventing them from killing others...
1. preach/brainshwash them into becoming "good" people
2. make it harder for them to kill people

of those two, it seems a lot more feasiable to do the second by taking away their tools. At worst, the murder rate would remain unchanged. At best you would have prevented the killers/murders from getting their hands on tools that would make killing easier.

Therefore, ridding a society of guns, or at least trying to, is in everyones interest.

Read my posts above. MORE legal ownership of guns in the U.S. has actually caused a decrease in both violent crime and gun accidents. Note that there ARE laws about how people must store guns where small children are involved, so the tragic "8 year old kills playmate" story also comes from a criminal act-and is becoming even more rare than it has always been. It's "news" because it's inflamatory and senational, that's all. Otherwise it's just a tragedy.

What an armed populace (where you never know who might actually have a gun) does is make criminals think about immediate, significant consequences for their actions. Without going into the 2nd semester Psych details, this is what most career criminals lack; the ability to project abstract consequences for their actions. Upbringing, social pressure, just dumb, it doesn't matter, that's what their problem is.

On the other hand, by removing legal firearms from a society, you do NOTHING about illegal firearms. So instead of "disarming the criminal," you've disarmed the law abiding citizens. During the U.S.'s Prohibition, alcoholic beverages of all kinds were illegal, with exceptionally high levels of enforcement designed to stop the availability of alcohol. It didn't work. Look at the worldwide drug problem, where just about any "recreational drug" is illegal just about everywhere-does that stop drug users? Criminals will get guns if they want them, whether it's legal for non-criminals to have guns or not. But making the criminal realize that his "victim" may just decide to shoot him instead has been shown to actually work in reducing violent crime.

Finally, your statement that "guns are made to kill people" is false. Guns are indeed often made to be able to kill people, but if there are something like 30,000 firearms crimes involving somebody getting shot in the U.S. every year, what happens with the other 30 billion or so rounds of ammunition sold? They go to legitimate hunters, target shooters, "recreational shooters" like "Cowboy Action Shooting" competitors and so on. The fact is that something significantly less than 1/100th of 1% of firearms discharges in the U.S. involves a human target. Forget the Lynard Skynard lyric; guns are no more made exclusively for killing than cars are made for running people over with. You CAN use them for that, but it is the OPERATOR'S CHOICE.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where exactly do you live may I ask?

I live in Norway. Of a population of about 5 million, there were 31 homicides last year. About 1/4 of these involved firearms. In European countries where gun control is even stricter, firearm offenses are even lower. Look at Japan; 127,000,000 million people and 39 firearm-related deaths a year. Incredibly strict gun control laws. Go figure.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I cant stand this BS of "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" crap. Guess what.... Guns are MADE to kill people, thats their sole purpose, not to save or protect people. You press a button(pull a trigger) and the intent of doing so is to cause harm of some kind.

If guns dont kill people and only kill people, every man woman and child should be allowed to carry a gun, and that wouldnt change the murder rate.

Fact is, guns are tools for harm/murder/badstuff. As i see it, there are two options:
1. made it legal for anyone to own a gun. the result more guns in circulation. which leads to more gun related accidents and murder.
2. siverely limit or even ban the proliferation of guns. which leads to fewer gun related accidents and murder. (my question to you is, is that a bad thing ?)

it can be said that if someone wants to harm another, they could use a baseball bat, knife, car, etc.....but what makes a gun different from these things ? simple...its sole purpose is to cause harm. and any well meaning human being in their right mind would not want to harm another.

So my second question to you is. those of u who are pro guns....you say . people are the problem, right ? well....you got two ways of preventing them from killing others...
1. preach/brainshwash them into becoming "good" people
2. make it harder for them to kill people

of those two, it seems a lot more feasiable to do the second by taking away their tools. At worst, the murder rate would remain unchanged. At best you would have prevented the killers/murders from getting their hands on tools that would make killing easier.

Therefore, ridding a society of guns, or at least trying to, is in everyones interest.

Well the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" isn't "crap". No gun ever murdered anyone on it's own. It takes a human being to make it happen and that is pure physics. But I have other issues with what you said so let me move on to those. Oh, and in case you didn't get this from reading so far, I am PRO-GUN. In fact I love guns.

1. Guns are not all "MADE to kill people". Yep, some are designed to do that, and most of those are military weapons. But most guns are designed for sport or defense. Most shotguns for example are for hunting (mine all are), or sporting clays and the like. Rifles are the same (mine are). Hunting and sport shooting (target shooting). Handguns are less for hunting as they are for target shooting and personal defense while in public via a Concealed Carry Permit (as mine are).

2. I think that everyone over 21, who has completed the necessary firearm safety courses, concealed carry courses, and background check should be allowed to carry a legally registered and obtained firearm if they wish. I think that will actually lower the crime rate, including the rate of murder, because a criminal would really have to think twice about committing <insert your crime of choice here>. In cities with no CC laws now Joe Criminal can walk up to you and stick his knife or illegally obtained firearm in your face, then leave with your wallet or worse. He is less likely to do that if there is a good chance that he's going to get a gun put in his face.

3. Guns are tools, I agree. But it is not a fact that they are tools for "harm/murder/badstuff" (refer to number one above). More guns in "circulation" and in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't equal an increase in murder (see number 2 above). The fact of the matter is that violent crimes committed with firearms are generally committed by people who obtained them and/or are carrying them illegally (meaning stricter gun laws don't mean anything to criminals). Gun related accidents could certainly go up if there are more guns around. The answer to that is gun safety education for anyone who owns one along with common sense. Simple practices, such as always assuming that a firearm is loaded unless you have just verified it yourself (and have not let the gun out of your control since), always store guns unoaded and locked in a proper gun/firesafe. Never point a gun at anyone loaded or not (unless in the instance of an act of self defense). Guns are not toys. If you have children, keep the guns locked, unloaded, and educate them about your guns, stressing that they are NOT TOYS among other things.

4. In the hands of someone with malicious intent the sole purpose of a baseball bat/knife/car, etc...IS to cause harm to another.

5. You're right that "any well meaning human being in their right mind would not want to harm another" The problem is all the humans beings who are not in their right minds and do want to harm another.

6. People are the problem. Brainwashing/preaching them into goodness won't happen in most cases. Banning guns won't stop them either, since criminals don't care about the law. If anything it would make them bolder because they no that no one is going to offer much resistance.

So banning guns solves nothing except makes sportmen like me upset that you've taken our favorite hobbies away, and taken away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from people with malicious intent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

I live in Norway. Of a population of about 5 million, there were 31 homicides last year. About 1/4 of these involved firearms.

Check this out

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Check this out

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

Interesting find. Note this paragraph.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

I would fully support mandatory gun ownership in this country if every gun was registered and all ammunition was tracked like in Switzerland. That way anyone using their weapon for illegal purposes would be quickly found out through the necessary gun/ammunition registry.

I am all for this type of weapons distribution in this country. Everyone gets one for self-defense and the government knows who has every weapon and how much ammunition they have.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Matius

6. People are the problem. Brainwashing/preaching them into goodness won't happen in most cases. Banning guns won't stop them either, since criminals don't care about the law. If anything it would make them bolder because they no that no one is going to offer much resistance.

So banning guns solves nothing except makes sportmen like me upset that you've taken our favorite hobbies away, and taken away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from people with malicious intent.

But thats my point ! you could either choose tyo "solve" the problem by preaching/brainwashing people not to use firearms to kill, and in my opinion that will have a negligable result. or you could try and solve the long standing social issues which leads to violence which could take forever, and in the mean time people(many not all) are using guns to kill each other because they are relitavely easy to get a hold of.

OR you could actually MAKE IT DIFFICULT for those with the intent to kill from getting a hold of such weapons and tools to kill. right ? and maybe by prolonging their ability to commit murder or at the very least hindering it could save a few lives.

The gun imo is a rather cowardly weapon of choice, because the killer stands at a distance and fires a gun, and bam....a person is killed. With a baseball bat/knife, they are up close and personal having to deal with an actual person face to face. maybe that is enough reason for them to change their mind from commiting murder.

And guns....their sole purpose is to kill, be it people or animals. baseball bats were made to hit balls, knives are made for domestic purposes primarily. guns on the other hand, arent exactly used to cut fruit or clip your toe nails.

If giving up the ability to mount a rifle on your mantle due to strict gun control laws saves even one person from being murdered by guns, isnt it a rather small price to pay ?

And yes people kill people......but they will use the best tool available to do so, and right now, guns seem to be the weapon of choice. therefore either convince em not to kill or take away their tools....you could potentially deter them from commiting murder or at the very least hinder them by taking away the tools they use.

Sportsmen...use BB guns or something less lethal to humans, that way if guns get into the wrong hands they wont cause as much harm. And seeing as how guns dont kill people they cant defend people either. law abiding itizens can use baseball bats and knives as well to defend themselves if they really want to.
Cheers

[Sky Captain]

Interesting...

[Kevin]

Ban cars, and falls.

No one is allowed to fall anymore. EVER.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Interesting...

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ban cars, and falls.

No one is allowed to fall anymore. EVER.

Nice logic, Zimphy. But as usual, you've got it wrong.

It's not about banning outcomes, it's about banning the means to make an outcome possible. So, banning falls is not possible. Banning cheap quality step-stools or ladders is possible and could lead to a reduced rate of accidental deaths by falling.


I think the logic of this argument, as it is applied to guns, goes something like this.

You want to prevents murders.
What is the most common way people get murdered? By a gun.
So, if you ban guns you ban the major means for murders to occur.
(You can't ban murder but you could ban the tools for making murder easy to accomplish.)

I am not saying this logic is correct or even desireable, but it is certainly internally consistent between premise and conclusion.


What is an interesting point, at least to me, is the argument about guns as single-purpose killing devices. Many devices have different purposes, some of which can be deadly. But the sole purpose of a gun is to kill another living thing. That's why it was invented. They still exist today because they continue to provide the best combination of technical sophistication and portability for killing other things. Ballistic weapons are a nearly perfect invention from a standpoint of inventive goals and accomplishments. Ballistic weapons allow for one person to incapacitate or kill another, or several other, person(s) at a distance with great ease. I never see anyone talk about this aspect of the existence of weapons; I wonder why this is.