Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 11289745)

The numbers I saw were for small firearms (e.g. revolvers, pistols). In the Small Firearms Survey, Canada had about 31 guns per 100 residents. England & Wales had about 6 per 100 residents.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11289771)

That's just a few minutes from me.

But it seems he's not there and the RCMP moved on.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11289761)

Why should it be any more difficult than,say, restricting driving to licenced drivers?

Originally Posted by magnumpi (Post 11289828)

Lol yeh there is no one driving without a licence today is there ? Why would they? It's against the law of course, just as driving without insurance is unlawfull .

Originally Posted by scootb (Post 11289744)

It has been proven in America that tougher gun laws does NOT lower firearm crimes,no matter how much you might wish or think that they do!

Originally Posted by Jericho79 (Post 11289965)

The only thing that America has proven is that more guns = more gun crime. You cannot deny that fact.

Originally Posted by magnumpi (Post 11289828)

Lol yeh there is no one driving without a licence today is there ? Why would they? It's against the law of course, just as driving without insurance is unlawfull .

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11289982)

Yes you can: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_052311 and more recently: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...uary-june-2013

At the same time as the amount of guns in circulation has risen: http://www.atf.gov/statistics/index.html (manufacture and import statistics)



Not fact, all Caribbean countries for example have pretty strict gun laws (because they were imposed by European countries) and several have way higher rates of armed crime than the US does.



Well at this point I don't think it makes a difference.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 11289928)

I agree. No point in having any laws, people are just going to break them anyway.

Originally Posted by Jericho79 (Post 11290045)

The first two links speak to violent crime- not gun crime. To argue against "more guns = more gun crime" you have to take the position that "more guns = less gun crime" which doesnt really make sense.... or "less guns = more gun crime" which is equally ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11290242)

You need to stop using such broad qualifiers, it's entirely possible that there could be more more guns and less gun crime or less guns and more gun crime. Criminality related to guns is not dictated by the number of guns in circulation, necessarily:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

Shows quite clearly that firearm-related homicide in the US is going down, and at the same time the population is increasing.



Only unreliable because it proves your statement was wrong - the number of firearms in circulation has clearly gone up, the rate of firearm-related crime has clearly gone down. You never drew a difference between illegal and legal firearms in your original statement of "fact".



Define that.

It's not as clear cut as you thought it was...

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11290265)

What Steve is trying to articulate is that you should not blame the gun and having guns is a good thing because people use guns safely it is criminals who don't.

This man could easily be as dangerous with a frying pan, ice skate or ball point pen. He is a bad egg. There is no way the police would have been able to tackle him.

Access to guns has nothing to do with it. People are dangerous. Guns are not. Guns are practical like cars.

Originally Posted by neilg14 (Post 11290428)

They've arrested the suspect with him apparently saying "I'm done."