Gun Control, for or against?

• 373 people in Germany
• 151 people in Canada
• 57 people in Australia
• 19 people in Japan
• 54 people in England and Wales, and
• 11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

The numbers speak for themselves.

All valid points, I think, except for them being just tools. The last school shooting was with an AK-47.  Kim in N. Korea was a cancer before, but now he has a tool that can gill larger volumes of people. The nuclear bomb is just a tool, and there is a root cause to Kim's insanity, but at some point you have to draw a line and say hear you can't go. I think Assault weapons are the same.

We have alot of "drug control" in this country however we still have a high proportion of drug related deaths as compared to other countries

US: 17000

England: 1565

Canada: 886

(US and England are from 2000, Canada is 1998)

It's not 'great' to get into a fight but you do know that it's extremely unlikely your life is in danger and you (or the other person) will stop once the other is down.

Gun control and drug control are two dirrerent things, one is addictive, one is not, one is manufactured illegaly and the other is not. One is used to alter mood, the other is not. Once is easiy smuggled, the other is not. One is registered, the other is not.  

I totally disagree with you Drew... No one ever hears of all the robbers, and rapists that are going to attack a home and the owner on the other side says I have a gun and I will use it. Every once in a while you hear it in the papers but because of the biased media it is rarely reported.

I grew up with guns in my house and I know how to shoot them (well, I was NG). Just because there were guns in the house doesnt mean I would have used them to kill someone. Everyone knew my dad was a hunter and by golly our house was never broken into either (My dad has an extensive coin collection).

But there were houses on our street that were broken into

Do we need gun control laws? What? How about we figure out a way to enforce and put teeth into the ones we have.

As a law abiding citizen I have jumped through hoops to buy my couple of hunting guns through reputable dealers/ people. I have had to wait, and had no problem with it.

If I was a crook I could have one in no time with no hoops. Not traceable, no record. That is not right.

You just cant legsilate stupid away.

How long have guns been around? Have kids been shooting up schools since guns have been around? What may have changed?

If anything it HAS goten harder for law abiding citizens to get guns yet kids can just get them from where? Are these mom and dads guns? If the answer to that is yes, there in lies the problem. If they are getting them off the street what good is any type of "control" going to do? The street dealers dont give a rats a$$ who wants what for what reason.

I will now avoid the temptation to ploticize this issue. It really isnt a left or a right issue. Completely banning guns isnt the answer and having no control isnt the answer. We need some reasonable laws (there already are) and some enforcement and teeth behind them (there isnt).

Okay, now let me have it I suspect.

It comes down to "what is gun control?"  Are we talking about completing outlawing guns?  Are we talking about making it harder to get a gun?  Or, something completely different?

Statistics don't make the argument.  There are countries where individuals are armed and there aren't a large number of deaths from guns (I'm thinking Switzerland).

Personally, I don't think outlawing guns is going to be a magic solution.  It's a lot more complicated than that. 

We have a security system. And dogs that bark. Both very effective.

Why do those things have to be mutually exclusive? I say we do both.

I think I may have been unclear as far as what you were stating, were you talking about just banning guns or providing a new creative solution.  My point was that simply banning guns just wont work.  While this may help the problem innitally, in the long run crime would go back to normal bases on black market gun sales, knife violence.  To really change crime in this country we need sweeping societal changes that especially get to the heart of the next generation.  Whether these come in the form of some kind of gun control or something else, I have no idea and thus did not vote in the poll.

Gun control, like the regulations we talked about a few weeks back with online gambling, is a slippery slope. 

Say the gov't passes a law banning the possession, distribution, etc of a certain type of gun because it has no purpose but to kill other people (i.e. assault weapons).  Logic would then dictate that the next "most deadly" gun would gain more and more favor with the criminal element because it would be easier to come by.  So then the gov't has to ban that kind of weapon because it is being blamed for an increasing number of deaths.  This cycle continues until we reach a British level of regulation on firearms.  Then pretty quickly, only the criminals have guns.

There is already a substancial amount of "Gun Control" per se... waiting periods, background checks, limits as to numbers that can be purchased, etc.  I'm all for increasing penalties for crimes commited with guns... I know a number of states are starting to implement minimum penalties for any crimes commited with a gun that can start at 10 years.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the a ban on assault weapons, but I see the reason for concern.  I own sport shooting pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.  If you leave those alone I'm happy.

bts

I dont remember security systems very out in the country in the 70's and early 80's...  Hell we didnt get cable until 1989...
And my mother was allergic to dog and cat hair... so I guess in your town of no gun control we would have been screwed...
There is no one answer for all problems and your perfect little world of Augusta GA doesnt work in every town Jim.

Well, if your strictly talking about protecting your house from breakins, I'd argue that most break ins probably occur (just talking--don't have stats at hand) when the occupants aren't at home. In that case, dogs are effectve and guns aren't.

I've managed to live in Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta for a total of 20 years and have managed to avoind break ins, while I was home or otherwise, with my clever dog/alarm combo. But maybe I'm just lucky.

But I tell you what. I'll support a bumpkin/allergy clause in my constitutional ammendmant.

A wise man once told me, if you flog the numbers long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

A few more stats... to round out your numbers:

1) Aside from rape and murder, Britain leads the U.S. in all other categories of violent crime. (You are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NYC.)

2) Victimization rates for contact crimes in the U.S. is nearly half that of Britain.  The U.S. falls around the middle of the pack in terms of overall victimization rates.  Behind such hotbeds for crime and despair such as Holland, Sweden and Canada.

3) Even when guns were legal in the U.K. they were used in crimes at a far lesser rate than they were in the U.S. at the same time.

bts

I believe that Canada has as many guns per capita as the US.  However I'm sure that 95% of them are for hunting.  In the 25 years that I have been living here, I have yet to talk to someone that either owns a handgun or grew up with one in their house.  I know plenty of people with hunting guns.

So why are there so fewer gun deaths in Canada?  I think that part of it is access to guns.  I'm sure handguns are much harder to come by here, and I think that some of it has to be the gun-culture.  There is something uniquely different about the US and it's relationship to guns.  I'm not sure what it is, but in Canada (from my experience) people could really care less about guns, unless you want to take away their hunting guns.  I can't think of a single person either conservative or liberal who would be against restricting use to guns other then ones used to hunt.

Thank you, I appreciate the bumpkin clause...

I agree that most break ins accur when the family is not home. What about rapes????

I am sure most of you guys would change your opinion if you were home with your wife and some guy broke in with a gun and started to rape your wife and you had to sit there and watch because there was nothing you could do but I guess charge him and get shot in the process. Or even worse hurt your kids...

Why do you think no one ever breaks into a cops home???? I guess because they know he has a badge and a night stick.... yea right... the robbers know damn good and well that the cop has more than one gun and knows how to use it...

I would like to see that poll... I bet you would be suprised...

As for why the US has more gun deaths than Canada. Man its because everyone here is either a Gangsta or a cowboy... When was the last time you heard of a rapper getting gun down in the streets or Toronto???
And you know John Wayne was not a canuk...

My point is that the dogs barking and the security system sign in the front yard are arguably pretty darn good deterrents. Criminals look for an easy mark. Without those things, it's like your inviting them in. And once they are in, theirs no guarantee that the gun is going to help you. If they're stealthy, you're more likely to wake up to a Glock at your temple then you are to actually being able to get the gun in a position to use it.