Here's Why Some Don't Like Gun Control

Before giddyup said he didn't own any guns, I thought for sure he was in a militia or something. I imagined him plotting to overthrow the govt before they tried to get him. You know, times were way different back when the right to bare arms was first written down. We don't really need guns, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to own them. I just think we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people like criminals and people who violate hunting laws. Also, to protect the kids. Why can't people just get Brinks if they are worried about criminals breaking into their houses? I may be wrong, but I don't think you can shoot and kill somebody because they broke into your house to try and steal your tv, that doesn't fall under self defense. I think it would be a lesser degree of murder. I don't own a gun, but I thought it would be cool to get a pistol and go to a shooting range for fun. If gun control keeps guns out of the wrong people's hands, I don't mind going through any hassle to get one because I don't plan on breaking any laws, so what do I have to worry about. Anyways, this reminds me of when I saw U2 when they last came to Houston, and they had that movie with Charelton Heston saying some ignorant stuff like "A gun is only a bad thing in the hands bad people, a gun in the hands of good people is a good thing. A gun in the hands of good people is only bad for bad people." He must be senile.

 

Funny how those guns "find" their way to the criminals....yea, if we just got rid of our guns, then I'm sure the black market would simply dry up...

What exactly does comparing the gun related crimes between Canada and the US actually prove? Nothing.

Are we to believe that the lower crime rate in Canada is directly attibuted to the fact that Canadian citizens, for the most part, aren't allowed to own guns for self-defense?

If that's the case, then please explain why some countries with high gun ownership (such as Israel and Switzerland) also have low crime rates. Or how about societies with low gun ownership that have high crime rates, such as Mexico?

 

I think the most striking stat on that page was that you are more than 14 times more likely to be murdered by a handgun in the US than we are in Canada. Not twice or three times as likely, 14 times! How do you explain that? Why would you say that comparing gun related crimes in Canada and the US proves nothing? Do you have anything at all to back up that statement? Can you think of another country that would make a better comparison than Canada?

We’re taking about handguns primarily. They are the focus of Canadian gun laws. The Swiss are issued assault rifles, IIRC, and are all trained to use them. Essentially all the men are in the reserves. Israel is obviously in quite a different situation. Mexico? You’re asking me why Mexico has a high crime rate!? Ummm… we can start with poverty. Why do gun proponents constantly want to compare yourselves to third world countries? You gotta make a better argument than that.

 

It is oversimplification to simply assume that the crime rate is directly proportionate to the number of guns available to the public. Even worse, differences in societies make these international studies make the conclusions questionable. For instance, Canada (and Europe for that matter) have traditionally had much lower violent crime rates than the United States, even before strict gun control laws were enacted. Look at the rates of other forms of violent crime; they're lower too. You only linked to the data from 1998, but if you were to look at the data over the last 20 years, you would see that Canada has a lower instance of violent crime, period.

BTW, Canada has only about 10% of the population of the United States, and a much smaller number of high-density metropolitain areas where by far most violent crimes occur.

Why not compare to Mexico? You're comparison of the US to Canada is just as invalid. In case you missed it, the whole point of my comparison of these other countries with the US was to show you that there are many intangibles that can't be seen in statistics which contribute to violent crime. Like I said before, attempting to attribute violent crime with a single factor such as gun availability is impossible.

 

You're posting a link from the "Coalition for Gun Control" site?

"The more guns there are around..."

How does gun control legislation solve this problem? How would guns disappear due to more gun control legislation? Have drugs disappeared as a result of them being against the law? Do you think most people that are going to murder someone go into the store and say "one 9 millimeter, please"? If the law against murder isn't stopping them, how would another law against gun ownership?

From your link:

"Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for 'self-protection.' This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them."

Can you tell me how enacting the items in bold would accomplish anything in the US other than putting criminals at a greater advantage?

 

When did gun control and repossession of guns by the government become synonymous?

Most gun control advocates just want gun ownership to have the same safeguards as car ownership (mandatory education, licensing, registration, maybe even insurance). I don't see why this is such a problem.

I think the background checks we have in place are adequate (and will be even more effective as the ability to track a person's record via computer will become easier) and a waiting period can help prevent crimes of passion (or purchases of passion ).

I'd like to see a society without guns, but guns are only a symptom of the larger (and maybe unsolvable) problem of feelings of insecurity. Taking guns away won't solve that.

 

Why?

 

x34

Are you saying that the US is so different from anywhere else that no other country in the world can usefully be compared with it? This kind of comparison is a basic element of research. No two people are the same, but if one otherwise healthy person is exposed to conditions X, that another otherwise healthy patient is not exposed to, and the former displays symptoms Y which the latter doesn't display, then there is reason to suspect that there may be a link between X and Y. It's not absolutely conclusive. There may be other factors involved but it's a valid hypothesis. When you have two countries that are as similar as Canada and the US, in terms of standard of living, education, religion/values, then I think the relationship between gun laws and gun crimes in the two countries becomes very much worth looking at.

As far as relationship between city size and crime goes, Calgary is a city of bout 1 million people and we typically have between 10 and 15 murders per year. How would this compare to an American city of the same size? Mexico is a third world country and off the top of my head I can think of several other major factors that would be significant in causing crime, like education, poverty, corruption …


Giddy:
It doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies to think that, "oh well, it's most likely the poor people and those who live around crime that will be victims of it." I would also say that it affects the society as a whole. I've heard the concerns that average Americans have about being victims of violent crime, and those concerns don't exist to nearly the same level here. We are not perfect, I'll hasten to add, in fact we have an evolving case that may turn out be one worst serial murders in North American hisotry, but I think it's safe to say that in general we feel and are much safer than you are.

The Freak:
Illegal guns were once legal, right? Some petty thief broke into a house and while he was rifling the dresser for jewellery he came across a gun and he took that too, so now he has a gun or the gangster he sells it to will have a gun. That doesn't happen in Canada. He doesn't find a gun because there isn't one there, and it doesn't end up in the hands of the bad guys. Because there are many fewer guns around, the gun culture even amongst the criminals is much reduced. Punk A doesn't need a gun to protect himself from punk B, because punk B doesn't have a gun. The punk/gangster arms race, if you will, is at a much lower level. Also, there is no way that these guys can carry guns legally. You can't say, "I have a permit for that," because unless you are one of those 50, you don't. It's not a minor offence to be in possession of a gun either. If you get caught with a gun you are in big trouble, and you can also be sure that the cops will put your name on their "special attention list." So the risks of even carrying a gun very high, and it's just not worth it to most punks and criminals to take that risk. So imagine your typical murder scenario in the US, and then remove the guns from the picture. Less firepower means fewer people get killed, and situations don't even escalate to the same level, when guns are removed from the equation.

 

Were illegal drugs once legal? Who legally bought the crack that is being sold on the streets right now before it was "stolen from his dresser"?

If there is a market for guns, they will exist.

 

Drugs are illegally manufactured and distributed. Are you saying that guns are illegally manufactured and distributed in the US, in significant numbers?

Another way of looking at what I’m saying is that the Canadian system reduces demand for guns. It wouldn’t take a genius to smuggle guns in from the US, and we do have some here, but the bad guys don’t feel they need them as much as they do in the US, and the risks associated with being caught with them make them even less desirable to have. The good guys know that we are much safer overall by not living in a gun culture. We know that if we arm ourselves and take on a gun culture, we are really putting ourselves at much greater risk. So in the end the reason we have far fewer guns here is that ours laws and culture make the demand for guns very low.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the majority of the ones catching the bullets weren't the ones with NBA scale income. I agree that political, economic, cultural, racial and legal issues play a part, but I think you would be hard pressed to say that these are important factors while gun control laws are not. I think that Canadian social programs keep us from having gettos and gangs and the kind of violent subcultures that can exist there. We do have gangs though, and often they are racially based gangs of one sort or another. All first world countries I can think of have strict laws on handgun ownership and other selected weapons, and in general these laws work very well for them. I think that many Americans too quickly dismiss the benefits of gun control laws without giving them a close enough look. There are good examples out there. Check them out.

 

Here's a link to a funny cartoon about gun control. http://iwon.mondominishows.com/tmw.html

 

How does this jibe with your view that the police should be more tyrannical in their dealings with the general public and that we should all just bow down to authority whether right or wrong?