It's a simple point. If guns are ok, just because people want to have them, why not grenades?

Perhaps it's because grenades are dangerous, they kill people.

Because you say so? What is this mental satisfaction? What proof is there and how can it be taken away from the context that anyone going on a killing spree is pretty likely to be mentally abnormal anyway.

The real question in my mind is not so much to do with gun control, its what is different about the US that makes these incidents statistically far more likely to occur there rather than in other places with widespread gun availability.

I don't think they are far more likely. Other countries with similar levels of armed citizenry just don't value lives as much and so don't make a fuss about every massacre.

I imagine its pretty impractical for Canadian Tire to sell a grenade proof cabinet to keep them safely in.

I imagine the same logic is behind banning a grenade as is behing banning assualt rifles or fully automatic weapons. Why should there be any mystery to that.

Doesnt change the fact that millions of ordinary people keep long guns and registered hand guns safely and responsibly.

No I am thinking more along the lines of Columbine and extrapolating. The mental satisfaction is pure revenge. Misplaced revenge, but that's what it is surely. It's a human condition and nothing new.

BTW I agree that not every gun owner necessarily wants to kill things. Despite the fact that the original purpose of guns was as a killing device, there is no reason why in these more enlightened times we can't use them for target practice. No problem with that. It's just the issue of how to keep the guns out of the wrong hands that is the issue.

Perhaps not, but if the number of murders is entirely to do with the guns and not the society, then Canada would top the murder charts as it has most guns.

Something drives people to use those guns on other people. That needs to be addressed.

Keeping weapons out of the hands of people that are going to misuse them should be addressed.

Banning all guns as a response to a tiny minority of people using them to kill is analogous to banning all cars because a minority of users kill others while drunk driving.

The mystery is that you think one killing device is fine to have at home but not the others.

How many people have been killed after being shot with a .22 in the last year when compared with, let's say, a 9mm handgun or it's American equivalent?

You drive, right? Quite recklessly at times too I hear. How can you bare to keep such a killing device as a car at home.


Far more people are killed in and by cars every year than by firearms!

No, it is not. We've already done this a couple of pages back. Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion, shall we? Let's ban aeroplanes (because somebody used some to kill people once); let's ban unmbrellas (because twisted-minded assassins might use one to poison somebody; let's ban jetskis, because Kirsty McColl; let's ban tall buildings, because people sometimes fall off them or, worse, get pushed off them. See how silly it is to play these logic games?

And, anyway, I see nobody here except you talking about banning all guns outright. Restricting their use, sure. Making it much harder to buy, own and keep one, definitely. Doing something (what, I have no idea) to take some of the current inventory of firearms out of circulation - yes, please. But there will always be some people outside the military/law enforcement types for whom gun ownership, however restricted, makes sense. They should not be deprived of their hobby, but they'd better know that there will be dire consequences if their weapon is ever used in the commission of a crime.

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC!
I don't give a flying f*** how many people are killed by cars (well, I do, of course - what I mean is I don't care what the actual number is in the context of the current thread).

A car is not a device whose sole purpose is to expel a fast-moving projectile from the far end.

Your argument is akin to saying "lots of people die because they eat a peanut. But we can't do anything about that because people are still allowed to go hang gliding."

Justified pest control or not?

Its equally illogical to ban guns given that the vast majority are not used to commit crimes.

I have no problem with restricting them, but you can either come at that as;

A: No one has a gun unless they can demonstrate a damned good reason, plus adequate training

or

B: You need to apply for a gun and can have one unless we can demonstrate a reason you should not have one.


Given that the vast huge majority of current users are responsible and live incident free lives with their weapons I just dont think it makes sense to go changing to option A.


Certainly does not make sense to bring in draconian measures before spending a fraction of the resources it would take to gather up all the existing weapons on programs to understand where the psycho killers are coming from and addressing whatever aspect of american society makes people snap.

Its not changing the subject. Lots of people have cars and lots of people have guns. Many people have more than one of each because they derive pleasure from owning and operating them. Both can result in deaths if used inappropriately or recklessly. Both require licensing and training before you are allowed to own and use them. Both have legal consequences and the possibility of being prohibited from using if you dont act responsibly. There are many parallels to be drawn between cars and guns.

Yet one you want to ban (20000 deaths, some of which would undoubtedly come about in some other violent way), but the other (35-40000 deaths a year) is OK. Perhaps the conclusion is that one you use frequently and the other you dont so its no big deal to you if others should be prohibited from their peaceful enjoyment of them.

I. DON'T. WANT. TO. BAN. GUNS.