The shootings and the campaign

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are the police able to be everywhere at once? Of course not. As such, I think it's fair to say that law-abiding individuals ought to be given the choice whether to rely solely on the cops or to also have protection for them self in the privacy of their own homes. People ought to be free to choose whether or not to provide additional protection for them self at home. Should a criminal break into somebody's home with the most unlawful intentions, the cops will likely not be able to come to the rescue in time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The biggest problem is not the Quebec residents who decide to use firearms for unlawful purposes? It's the fault of everybody in the United States of America instead? What happened to personal responsbility?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would happen if a pool had 32 fully-submerged people, and somebody threw an electric device into it? Sick people will always find sick ways to kill people, with or without guns. Unfortunately, "gun control" is not going to end the madness.

[Politico]

I'm not trying to convince you, since I know I can't.

It's just growing up in a different environment. The idea of owning a gun, let alone owning one in an urban area is just utterly ridiculous to me.

Nobody is saying you ought to be forced to own a gun. I think you, and all other law-abiding individuals, ought to be given a choice. I do not judge your choice to not own a firearm and I obviously accept it. Perhaps you ought to accept and respect the choice of other law-abiding individuals who choose to own a firearm?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not trying to convince you, since I know I can't.

It's just growing up in a different environment. The idea of owning a gun, let alone owning one in an urban area is just utterly ridiculous to me.

Nobody is saying you ought to be forced to own a gun. I think you, and all other law-abiding individuals, ought to be given a choice. I do not judge your choice to not own a firearm and I obviously accept it. Perhaps you ought to accept and respect the choice of other law-abiding individuals who choose to own a firearm?

I accept it, since in Australia you have to go through a lot of paperwork to get one. Generally, if you have one - you need it. Generally farmers and sporting shooters are the only people who possess them.

I don't judge the person who wants one, I personally find it unfathomable as to why a person would want one. That's my position, I wasn't brought up in a culture where guns are available. A gun is a totally alien concept to me. Guns were always rare in the cities, and now they're virtually unknown. For us, guns and their availability have nothing to do with rights, you have the freedom to purchase one - but as a responsible citizen you also have the responsibility to make sure that you follow procedures.

[Gabu]

In the real world, if somebody really wants to kill somebody they're going to find a way.

Of course, a gun does, however, make the job a lot easier.

I'm basically with Polnut on this.  I've grown up in a culture where the idea of desiring gun ownership in most cases is largely considered weird and alien, and certainly not a God-given right that must never be infringed upon.  Most Americans seem to find the prospect of not being able to carry a gun around to be a scary thought; I (and many Canadians), on the other hand, find the prospect of everyone carrying a gun around to be the scary thought.  Most Americans seem to believe that the solution to crimes involving guns is for everyone to have a gun; I, on the other hand, believe that the problem is, rather, the underlying paranoid mentality of "everyone should be armed".

Given our backgrounds, we are unlikely to ever remotely see eye-to-eye on the issue.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, Politico, I'll join my position to Polnut and Gabu. It seems it comes from the culture. In France, it's maybe cause we don't think that we can be attacked at each corner by someone or by someone with guns that we trust Police, even if for sure they can't be everywhere at the time. But the most important is that we trust the other ones to not attack us. To be attacked by someone is a fair fear in France. And as I said we have a strong "gun control" which is not a problem for liberties and democracy (they are other really bigger important problems for them, be sure of this) and criminality with guns is fair in France. So maybe there is a big part which comes from the culture, but cultures are not here to be frozen, they move, and maybe it would be good to try to spread the trusting in others than to spread the fear of others. I know it's easy to say, but if you don't try, you'll never succeed.

Then, please, it's not hard to acknowledge that a gun, even the most normal one, is a very dangerous "tool" with the one you can kill or damage really easily peoples with it more than with any other tools. It's the most dangerous "tool" that exists and I still think it's good to adapt laws with it.

Then, it's a tool which encourage the mistrust in others. If we accept that someone has one for his defense, the other will think ("Oho, he could attack me with it, I should have one"), and so will think an other, and so an other, etc.

Then, I think also it's not really hard to acknowledge that selling guns as easily as these are sold in USA is making the criminality with guns more easy. In Quebec, if "gun control" was better with the close US border, criminals and gangs will have more troubles to get the weapons which make the crime easy to do that are guns.

[ukchris82]

Yes but if you throw a TV in a pool is the pool killing you?

I agree about that if you want to murder you'll find a way but giving someone a gun hardly helps!

Just adding some stats to the arguement
 

murder rate in 2000s  per 100,000 people
US 5.9
Iran 2.93
European Union 2.37
United Kingdom 2.03
Canada 2.01
France 1.64
England,  Wales 1.62
New Zealand 1.29
 Australia 1.28


I think that says it all...
 

[Gabu]

Just adding some stats to the arguement

murder rate in 2000s  per 100,000 people
US 5.9
Iran 2.93
European Union 2.37
United Kingdom 2.03
Canada 2.01
France 1.64
England,  Wales 1.62
New Zealand 1.29
 Australia 1.28

Or, if you wanted to make the statistic more relevant:

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people

Zimbabwe:    4.746
Mexico:    3.6622
United States:    3.6
Belarus:    3.31
...
Portugal:    0.8488
Switzerland:      0.5341     
Canada:    0.5030
Germany:    0.4672
Australia:    0.3073
Spain:    0.2456
New Zealand:    0.1827
United Kingdom:      0.1026

The mantra of "if you ban guns, only criminals will have them" sounds reasonable at face value, but it doesn't seem to be true... given that the UK has the lowest firearm homicide rate out of all of the countries that track that data.

[ukchris82]

Doh!

How stupid of me to find the wrong data.

Cheers!

[Politico]

I respect the differing views on the subject and can understand the personal decision not to possess a firearm. That said, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to the following question:

Why should law-abiding individuals not be able to choose whether or not to own a firearm in the privacy of their own home?

I believe that law-abiding adults are capable of making a personal decision about how to best protect them self. I believe that law-abiding adults should be given the right to defend them self from criminals should their life ever become endangered. Finally, I believe that a nation is far less likely to turn away from democracy and head towards totalitarianism if a significant amount of its populace is armed. For all of the above reasons, I strongly believe law-abiding individuals should not be prohibited from choosing for them self whether or not to own a firearm. It is a personal choice best left up to each law-abiding individual in the nation, not the government.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I respect the differing views on the subject and can understand the personal decision not to possess a firearm. That said, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to the following question:

Why should law-abiding individuals not be able to choose whether or not to own a firearm in the privacy of their own home?

I believe that law-abiding adults are capable of making a personal decision about how to best protect them self. I believe that law-abiding adults should be given the right to defend them self from criminals should their life ever become endangered. Finally, I believe that a nation is far less likely to turn away from democracy and head towards totalitarianism if a significant amount of its populace is armed. For all of the above reasons, I strongly believe law-abiding individuals should not be prohibited from choosing for them self whether or not to own a firearm. It is a personal choice best left up to each law-abiding individual in the nation, not the government.

To answer you, I can just send you back to my last message of this topic, all the arguments are in to contradict you and to show you that if you want to choose safety and serenity for a country, you need to choose gun control.

Then you can also watch the statistics posted by the others to strengthen my arguments.

[ukchris82]

To answer your question...because it is safer

[ukchris82]

As a side point:

In US the police say "Stop or I'll shoot"
In Europe the police say "Stop or I'll say stop again!"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just adding some stats to the arguement

murder rate in 2000s  per 100,000 people
US 5.9
Iran 2.93
European Union 2.37
United Kingdom 2.03
Canada 2.01
France 1.64
England,  Wales 1.62
New Zealand 1.29
 Australia 1.28

Or, if you wanted to make the statistic more relevant:

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people

Zimbabwe:    4.746
Mexico:    3.6622
United States:    3.6
Belarus:    3.31
...
Portugal:    0.8488
Switzerland:      0.5341     
Canada:    0.5030
Germany:    0.4672
Australia:    0.3073
Spain:    0.2456
New Zealand:    0.1827
United Kingdom:      0.1026

The mantra of "if you ban guns, only criminals will have them" sounds reasonable at face value, but it doesn't seem to be true... given that the UK has the lowest firearm homicide rate out of all of the countries that track that data.

Except when you take into account Zimbabwe and Mexico have very strict gun laws, and not every country below the US does (geez, have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Guns are just as prevalent in parts of Canada as they are in the US). Oh and Switzerland? Guns are MORE prevalent there than in the US, and we're not talking about hunting rifles or even hanguns, but actual assault rifles (which are distributed to citizens by the government).

Not that I see gun ownership as some inalienable right, but I don't think preventing it reduces crime, and only loses the Democrats votes. Thus my position has been the Democrats should throw the issue under the bus, which they have thankfully. Gun control is never going to accomplish anything in the US.

[dead0man]

Plus, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes take place in a very specific type of place that 99.9% of Americans never ever go to.  Yes, mall and school shootings grab the headlines, but they don't make the numbers high.  It's the 4 gang bangers a weekend offing each other in the hood that drives the numbers.  If you think taking guns away from regular Joe Sixpack is going to stop that, you're not thinking clearly.

[Politico]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Sticks and stones? Good luck with that.

AIDS has killed millions of Americans the past quarter century and continues to kill many thousands each year. *Beginning of sarcastic rhetorical question* Gee, should we outlaw sex outside of marriage? *End of question*

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Rocks and stones? Good luck with that.

Please, no matter you have guns or else, if a government turns toward totalitarianism, he'll have the army with it, it's not your riffles and your magnums which could stop it. Then, most of time totalitarianism can work cause the majority of the population is OK for it, watch the 20th century's history to check it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Outside of the fact I don't see what this do here, and how you can compare sex with gun ownership, you can just doing the promotion of condoms.

[Politico]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Rocks and stones? Good luck with that.

Please, no matter you have guns or else, if a government turns toward totalitarianism, he'll have the army with it, it's not your riffles and your magnums which could stop it. Then, most of time totalitarianism can work cause the majority of the population is OK for it, watch the 20th century's history to check it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Outside of the fact I don't see what this do here, and how you can compare sex with gun ownership, you can just doing the promotion of condoms.

I am all for the promotion of condoms and safe sex practices. Likewise, I am all for the promotion of gun SAFETY practices, not gun control.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Sorry, I had put one part of my answer in your quote, maybe you have not seen it. I corrected it.