Gun Control in US and Canada

Don't want to debate it , just want it ended..... What amount of deaths will make you stop debating ... Guns kill END OF FRICKEN STORY
 
Then indeed, you also "fit" the bottom comment.

Implying I'm stupid?? Classy.

If I lived in the US where this is a serious problem, I would work towards better control and more importantly, reducing the number of guns AND ammo available to the public.
 
A good example of why it's going to be tough to make the necessary changes to gun control issues in the US. When a former governor says the problem is not crime, violence or guns but that it is a SIN problem because GOD has been removed from our schools, military and public lives I have to think it's going to be difficult to get meaningful discussion and action based on science and reason. I hope I am wrong

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...3792.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
 
Implying I'm stupid?? Classy.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your reply Dave.
On the other hand, ANYONE that truly believes Criminals will adhere to gun control laws is IMO "A special kind of stupid".

If I lived in the US where this is a serious problem, I would work towards better control and more importantly, reducing the number of guns AND ammo available to the public.

But... You actually live in Canada. Want to make a difference here? Methinks I have already pointed the way...

Cheers,
Nog
 
9/11 if I remember correctly, they used box cutters. Not against gun control simply answering a question

box cutters and boeing 767. Did air travel change after that event? Let's hope new security measures will prevent future attacks on innocent people.
 
so do cars! Far more then weapons ever will. Ban everything!

That's precisely the kind of ridiculous argument you keep repeating. There is a social and economic utility to motorized transportation for the majority of citizens that firearms just do not have. Everyday life for most people would grind to a halt with no motorized transport. Can the same be said for firearms? Firearms are designed to kill, and have no other purpose. Motor vehicles are not designed to kill. Yet, given the hazards of vehicle operation, we all recognize that it must be heavily regulated to improve safety.

Fortunately, in Canada gun possession and use has never been a right, constitutional or otherwise, but a heavily regulated privilege since Confederation. And it has become more heavily regulated ever since. Gun related violence in Canada, while not eradicated, has always been vastly lower on a per capita basis than in the United States. It is undeniable that fewer guns and more restrictive laws concerning firearm possession, ownership and use make for fewer gun-related deaths and injuries. That some of you can't understand this is troubling.
 
box cutters and boeing 767. Did air travel change after that event? Let's hope new security measures will prevent future attacks on innocent people.
Yep, and control and reporting of large purchases of fertilizer was instituted after the Oklahoma City bombing.In fact a group was recently busted and charged with terrorism back east,when they bought a large amount of fertilizer and the RCMP was tipped off.At any rate as I said in my previous post, I'm not against gun control simply answering the question "when was the last mass murder that didn't involve a gun".
 
Fortunately, in Canada gun possession and use has never been a right, constitutional or otherwise, but a heavily regulated privilege since Confederation. And it has become more heavily regulated ever since. Gun related violence in Canada, while not eradicated, has always been vastly lower on a per capita basis than in the United States. It is undeniable that fewer guns and more restrictive laws concerning firearm possession, ownership and use make for fewer gun-related deaths and injuries. That some of you can't understand this is troubling.

I for one completely understand. And btw, I rather much like the situation we have today in Canada regarding firearm ownership. Never said or insinuated otherwise (although there are a few restrictions I do believe are just a tad excessive).

The States on the other hand is a whole different can of worms. And yes, I do believe it is far past time they considered and implemented a system far more restrictive than they have today. Unfortunately while we may share that opinion, it makes not a single whit of difference to what may or may not occur down there. Even were they to establish tighter controls today, it would be far beyond our lifetimes before any real difference was realized. Simply put, there are far too many guns already out there, making any form of "control" meaningless at this juncture. Doesn't in my mind mean they shouldn't begin, and I truly hope they get around to that sooner rather than later.

What I do beg to differ with is the notion that Canadian Firearm Laws have to be stiffened as suggested by several in this thread. We are already under very strict Legislation, sufficient enough to control legitimate firearm ownership and use in this country. Any further restrictions simply effect legal and bona fide owners, and certainly not the criminal factor.

As I noted previously, what is required here in Canada is a review and re-vamping of just how our Legal System deals with firearm offenses. The Laws already exist. Quit the damn overly soft approach, and implement the penalties in accordance with their severity!

Nog
 
Here's another angle on the incidence of gun violence between Canada & the US.

While most societies have a given prevalence of mental illness amongst a population that will sooner or later spawn an event of horrific violence, there are 10-times more Yanks than there are of us... so it's 10-times more likely to happen south of the border. Not sure it equates to Yanks being crazier or more violent than us.

Simple math. No?
 
Here's another angle on the incidence of gun violence between Canada & the US.

While most societies have a given prevalence of mental illness amongst a population that will sooner or later spawn an event of horrific violence, there are 10-times more Yanks than there are of us... so it's 10-times more likely to happen south of the border. Not sure it equates to Yanks being crazier or more violent than us.

Simple math. No?

That angle is meaningless if it is meant to shed light on the gun control debate. The "per capita" rate of gun related injuries and deaths must be compared. When that is looked at, the evidence is both clear and overwhelming. Ready access to firearms by those with mental illness or otherwise inclined to violence is the problem.
 
I think many on here are confusing the criminal use of guns with those who are mentally sick and who easily acquire firearms. Criminals for the most part don't buy guns legally so agreed we are never going to stop this activity completely no matter what you do. However criminals use guns in the act of crime which most often doesn't result in the gun being fired...or if the intent was murder it is a single person known to that person and is often a criminal themselves. (drug related killings) Criminals don't want to get caught so opening up a firearm on a crowd of people isn't in their best interest.
 
That's precisely the kind of ridiculous argument you keep repeating. There is a social and economic utility to motorized transportation for the majority of citizens that firearms just do not have. Everyday life for most people would grind to a halt with no motorized transport. Can the same be said for firearms? Firearms are designed to kill, and have no other purpose. Motor vehicles are not designed to kill. Yet, given the hazards of vehicle operation, we all recognize that it must be heavily regulated to improve safety.

Fortunately, in Canada gun possession and use has never been a right, constitutional or otherwise, but a heavily regulated privilege since Confederation. And it has become more heavily regulated ever since. Gun related violence in Canada, while not eradicated, has always been vastly lower on a per capita basis than in the United States. It is undeniable that fewer guns and more restrictive laws concerning firearm possession, ownership and use make for fewer gun-related deaths and injuries. That some of you can't understand this is troubling.

Whats troubling, is there was a person out there, crazy enough to kill HIS Mother, and 20 kids that are less then 7 year olds, and the only way you can make sense of it, is blaming the weapon used in the event.BY removing guns from the equation or putting in tougher gun laws, you are only making it harder( or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have a gun and protect themselves. And im not ok with that. I have a right to protect myself and my family. Crimals will always have guns.

And lastly, its not fair to compare just the firearm laws in both countries. There is alot more involved. Economy, poverty, gangs, crime rates just to name a few are all parts of the equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if any of you saw what Morgan Freeman said about it today...but he hit the nail on the head, its not about gun control, look at the bigger picture. Here is what he said...

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
 
Saxe Point's latest comment was completely reasonable in most intelligent, rational, people's minds and then to come back with such a closed minded response just clearly shows that you seem to be the type that refuses to acknowledge what has become PART of a major problem in the US, that of rampant gun violence. By saying that the only way SP, and other such as myself, can make sense of this is by blaming the weapon used illustrates your inability to actually read and hear what we are saying. Too many guns, too powerful, too easy to get. The fact you can't accept this as fact equates you with the scary minded NRA folks who try to think that by outlawing military grade weaponry you are making them less safe. In my opinion this is a disgusting mindset that has led the US to the state they are now in.

Whats troubling, is there was a person out there, crazy enough to kill HIS Mother, and 20 kids that are less then 7 year olds, and the only way you can make sense of it, is blaming the weapon used in the event.BY removing guns from the equation or putting in tougher gun laws, you are only making it harder( or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have a gun and protect themselves. And im not ok with that. I have a right to protect myself and my family. Crimals will always have guns.

And lastly, its not fair to compare just the firearm laws in both countries. There is alot more involved. Economy, poverty, gangs, crime rates just to name a few are all parts of the equation.
 
Saxe Point's latest comment was completely reasonable in most intelligent, rational, people's minds and then to come back with such a closed minded response just clearly shows that you seem to be the type that refuses to acknowledge what has become PART of a major problem in the US, that of rampant gun violence. By saying that the only way SP, and other such as myself, can make sense of this is by blaming the weapon used illustrates your inability to actually read and hear what we are saying. Too many guns, too powerful, too easy to get. The fact you can't accept this as fact equates you with the scary minded NRA folks who try to think that by outlawing military grade weaponry you are making them less safe. In my opinion this is a disgusting mindset that has led the US to the state they are now in.

What if i told you I agree the USA needs more control? what if i told you i 1000% agree that outlawing military grade ammo and arms is a good thing for citizens and i would be 1000% on board if they banned them? What if i told you there is absolultely no need for 50 rnd magazines and i belive they should be outlawed? would you listen to me then?

Because i do believe that.

But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about a crazy muther f'er who stole his mothers legally obtained guns ( none of which fall into the catergories above) and shot her, drove to a elementary school and murdered 20 kids. And no amount of control, or any of the things you are suggesting would have stopped that. Comparing just the amount of guns to the amount of people is not fair. As mentioned there is alot of other things involved. There are alot more car bombings in afgansitan vcompared to Canada because people over there are facking NUTS! not because they have more people capable of making car bombs. And if you dont agree with that, i think its best we agree to disagree, because we will never meet in he middle on this one.

Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top