Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

 

No, but a gun won't shoot by itself. There must be a person behind the gun that does it. Anything can kill, but this is just 1 method. People will easily find a way around it.

But man, you're totally forgetting a piece of paper with some Senator's signatures on it will stop the bullets from coming out from their respective barrels.

But man, you're totally forgetting that when you've got a gun in your pocket, you'll be totally safe from everything, dude. It'll never go off accidentally and maim or kill a little kid. It'll never get stolen and used for ill. That gun shop you frequent will never hand out a gun to a criminally insane person who'll go on a shooting spree. You'll always be prepared and quick enough on the draw to dispatch the ten gang members coming your way, and what the hell, that little girl walking her dog, well, she wouldn't have done anything useful with her life anyway.

 

From other thread:

 

 

Too idealistic? Odd that it's been proven to work in many countries.

I'm never going to give up the possiblity to protect my own safety. No one knows me better than myself. That is a fact. A fact which you will never make me believe otherwise so you might as well not quote this part of my post.

 

 

And like I said, an attitude where the self is more important than society. I will put my personal safely on the line because I know others lives are saved because of it. Not to mention of course, in my twenty-one years of life living in a far from crime free neighborhood I've never even seen a gun.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

 

No, but a gun won't shoot by itself. There must be a person behind the gun that does it. Anything can kill, but this is just 1 method. People will easily find a way around it.

But man, you're totally forgetting a piece of paper with some Senator's signatures on it will stop the bullets from coming out from their respective barrels.

 

I'm honestly don't understand what you're getting at.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

 

No, but a gun won't shoot by itself. There must be a person behind the gun that does it. Anything can kill, but this is just 1 method. People will easily find a way around it.

But man, you're totally forgetting a piece of paper with some Senator's signatures on it will stop the bullets from coming out from their respective barrels.

 

I'm honestly don't understand what you're getting at.

He's trying to be sarcastic and tell you that anti-gun legislation has no effect, when it obviously works to great effect.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

No, but a gun won't shoot by itself. There must be a person behind the gun that does it. Anything can kill, but this is just 1 method. People will easily find a way around it.

There are two sides to it. The gun isn't going to shoot by itself, short of a freak accident or demonic posession (Both being cases where you have bigger problems on hand), but without the gun, the man who would've been behind it isn't nearly as effective at killing things, especially things close to his own size. The man needs both the tool and the will to use it. You could have people with the will but not the tool (Who would be dangerous regardless) or people with the tool but no desire to actually use it on another individual (Read: Most legal gun owners).

It seems my post is gonna get ignored. Bump for great justice.

 

Look - I seriously feel for those people in the world (in Canada particularly) who are killed because they can't defend themselves by carrying a gun around.

Well, see there you go. You think people are too stupid to defend themselves but I believe they are. You're the pessimistic and idealistic one, I'm the optimistic and realistic one.

 

Learn to disagree to what we agree? :-)

It seems my post has already been ignored.

So in essence what you're saying is that it's perfectly alright for gangs to kill each other, as long as they're not killing "innocent" people (or at least that they are not worth of being counted as a gun related death). That seems to be a little bit discriminatory if you ask me.

It's their choice to join gangs and face possible risks for possible rewards. Life is like that. But what does matter is when politicians try to limit gun control by referencing statistics which include criminals' deaths, criminals who don't listen to the law now, and won't listen to the new gun laws tomorrow.

It's still absurd that you would say that because they are gang related shootings, they don't count. It also seems like you're implying that people outside of gangs don't use guns in a manner that harms other people and if they do, it is somehow okay to count those statistics. I hate playing this card, but you really need to back up your initial claims with some sort of statistics. There is enough evidence out there on the topic of gun law/crime rate to justify your argument if it really is sound.

It seems my post has already been ignored.

So in essence what you're saying is that it's perfectly alright for gangs to kill each other, as long as they're not killing "innocent" people (or at least that they are not worth of being counted as a gun related death). That seems to be a little bit discriminatory if you ask me.

It's their choice to join gangs and face possible risks for possible rewards. Life is like that. But what does matter is when politicians try to limit gun control by referencing statistics which include criminals' deaths, criminals who don't listen to the law now, and won't listen to the new gun laws tomorrow.

It's still absurd that you would say that because they are gang related shootings, they don't count. It also seems like you're implying that people outside of gangs don't use guns in a manner that harms other people and if they do, it is somehow okay to count those statistics. I hate playing this card, but you really need to back up your initial claims with some sort of statistics. There is enough evidence out there on the topic of gun law/crime rate to justify your argument if it really is sound.

You're right on two accounts:

 

[1] I almost forgot about that post.

 

[2] I have no evidence or statistics. Nor am I gonna find them. Either you believe what I say due to its logic, and maybe find out more if you care enough, or just ignore it...'cuz I'm not posting here any time soon.

I'm not the one asserting biased and unproven claims. I don't need to prove anything to you haha.

I'm not the one asserting biased and unproven claims. I don't need to prove anything to you haha.

But you are failing to read. :mellow:

Guns are dangerous, they're designed to kill. Therefore, they shouldn't be as widespread as they are, and need restrictions.

 

That's what I think.

I'm not the one asserting biased and unproven claims. I don't need to prove anything to you haha.

But you are failing to read. :mellow:

I believe I'm reading just fine. I'm reading an argument that's conclusion is rendered illogical by its lack of evidence. You're definitely entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make it right just because someone doesn't prove it wrong.

.

It seems my post is gonna get ignored. Bump for great justice.

 

Look - I seriously feel for those people in the world (in Canada particularly) who are killed because they can't defend themselves by carrying a gun around.

Well, see there you go. You think people are too stupid to defend themselves but I believe they are. You're the pessimistic and idealistic one, I'm the optimistic and realistic one.

 

Learn to disagree to what we agree? :-)

I don't think people are too stupid to defend themselves. I think giving people easy access to guns does more harm then good, and this is statistic fact.

Gun control discussions always go to hell

Moral decay.

TIF discussions always go to hell

Fix'd

I don't support increased anti-gun legislation for two reasons:

 

1. Gun legislation won't keep bad people from getting guns. Getting illegal guns is far too easy. Not only that, but trying to make laws that keep people who are, by definition, lawbreakers, from getting guns won't work. They are lawbreakers. They will break your laws and get guns anyway.

 

2. If law abiding citizens can't get guns, but criminals still can, it will become much harder for common people to defend themselves. The criminals have guns either way, it's a question of whether or not the victims will have any chance (albeit a slim chance) to successfully defend themselves.

This reasoning makes sense in theory but not in practice. The fact is that even for a country like Canada on the border of Gun Central, gun crime is quite low simply because they are illegal. Yes - if you really really want a gun, you can get it - but only the most serious criminals really really want them.

I do completely agree with Y_Guy, but I think we should still keep in mind that the statistics may not be completely reliable. Many other factors influence the amount of gun crime, including cultural differences, population and density, and geographical location. Even with the same laws, I would expect gun crime in the US to be more common than in Canada because of our proximity to Mexico.

^ Was just about to say that but you did so better. If serious criminals are going to get their high-powered guns anyway, why do we have to restrict Joe Gunownerson from doing so when he isn't going to be shooting up anyone that looks at him funny?

TIF discussions always go to hell

Fix'd

As far as discussions go, this one's going pretty well.

 

We can't have that.

 

EVERYWON WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH MY POINT OF VEW IS A HOMOSEXUAL ATHEIST MUSLIM TERRORIST GERMAN CAVEMAN WHO DESERVES TO BE EUTHANIZED AND A BLIGHT ON GALACTIC PURITY. YOU, SIR! YOU ARE A BLIGHT!

 

Do I win yet?

Yet gun crime in the US is higher per capita then in Mexico :P (according to some statistics, it's pretty close though so it fluctuates). Interestingly enough, Japan is also quite close to Russia, yet Russia has one of the highest gun crime rates per capita, and Japan one of the lowest.

 

I agree that you can't come to a completely full conclusion about statistics but at very least it's undeniable that gun control lowers gun crime per capita even if that isn't the only reason for such.

 

Edit: lol @ mask

I do completely agree with Y_Guy, but I think we should still keep in mind that the statistics may not be completely reliable. Many other factors influence the amount of gun crime, including cultural differences, population and density, and geographical location. Even with the same laws, I would expect gun crime in the US to be more common than in Canada because of our proximity to Mexico.

I think density play a huge factor into gun crimes. If you take a look at the map posted, you'll notice several states in the U.S. like Minnesota or North Dakota that have extremely low amounts of deaths per capita, and probably have the lowest population density of all the states.

 

Here's another interesting statistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

 

On average, there are 90 guns per 100 citizens in the US, the highest in the world. Third is Switzerland, with 46.

If you cross reference the number of gun related deaths per 100,000 citizens, you'll see that the U.S. is at 10.2, Switzerland is at 6.4, and Canada is at 4.78.

Canada didn't make the chart of guns per 100 citizens meaning its probably less than 1.0 (Nigeria has 1.0 per 100, and its lowest on the list). This means the U.S. has more than 100 times the guns per 100 citizens than Canada, yet the gun related deaths are only about twice as high.

U.S. has 3 times the number of guns per citizens than Canada. Thanks Bloodstain for the catch.

I always thought it was because the guns were so easily available in America. This may not be 100% accurate but in Australia there was a shooting in (Tasmania?) after which guns became more restricted. I haven't heard about any fatal shootings since.

Guns are designed to kill and they really should be hard to get.

 

An idea could be designing guns with remote tracking took which record whenever and when the gun is fired. Also leave it the ability to remotely disable the gun. This would require more work but hopefully could reduce gun deaths. There's my two cents.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Exactly. Most people in gangs who have guns get them illegally anyway. So you pass a law that makes them illegal, they'll still get them. Nothing much will change... The problem isn't that guns are available, it's that people want them in the first place.

One aspect yet unexplored is the relative levels of violence in a society. Though gun ownership has been shown to have a positive correlation with gun-related mortalities, it's not a direct correlation. Switzerland also has widespread gun ownership, but the rates don't match up to the US's figures. There *has* to be another variable. Interestingly, there's an article about Blue Valentine on the BBC website about how America seems to censor sex much more than it does violent scenes.

 

It wouldn't have as much of an effect on adults, but if you're a impressionable child and you grow up watching violent scenes on films (of which America produces and consumes is much larger quantities than the rest of the world), won't you become more tolerant to a violent society? Hence the violence is reinforcing itself. Surely, rates of violence also have an effect on gun-related deaths.

Interestingly, there's an article about Blue Valentine on the BBC website about how America seems to censor sex much more than it does violent scenes.

I agree. My friend was not allowed to turn in his short-story that referenced oral sex, while many people turned in stories that included murders. Also people tend to think of movies that have sex scenes and references to be much more "inappropriate" to children than movies that have murder scenes and violence through out. So basically, through the media, society is sending the message of "Killing isn't that bad, but sex is" to kids.