Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11290723)

Correct. Zero. None. But what with that being highly unlikely then fewer incidents and fewer victims would be pretty good.

Originally Posted by confused_uk (Post 11290870)

That is my point, there's no way of knowing who is a responsible person & who isn't, so there's a lot of people who shouldn't have one that do.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11291477)

On that basis no-one would be allowed to do anything, as I think the average IQ is around 110. Trying to make laws based on intelligence levels is absurd.

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11290935)

The reality is most shootings are carried out by individuals who obtained their fire arms through legal means and were not criminals until that point.

Originally Posted by confused_uk (Post 11291148)

My view is when something tragic happens why doesn't everyone take a step back, review all aspects of what happened see if anything could be changed or bought in that could maybe save a life in the future.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11291475)

That's an assumption and I don't think it matters when the victims are unarmed.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11291487)

That's not true, most firearm-related homicides in Canada at least are committed with firearms that were illegally obtained.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11291487)

That's not true, most firearm-related homicides in Canada at least are committed with firearms that were illegally obtained. I remember when they were talking about a handgun ban back in 2006, even the chief of TPS was forced to admit based on their statistics that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime in Toronto were not legal - although definitions of what is "legal" vary.



Also not necessarily true, firearm-related homicide has been going down in the US for the last decade while the number of guns in circulation has risen substantially.



It's not really relevant whether it's a "good or important" thing for society frankly. You cannot uninvent firearms and they are used widely and legitimately for a range of lawful purposes. There is a broad range of legislation in place that is intended to minimize the threat to public safety. That's how a free society works.

It's very easy to say you can get rid of a problem by "banning" it, but it doesn't seem to work that well in practice. And it definitely wouldn't work in Canada for a certain fact, given that we are next to the largest gun-owning nation on the planet. The practicalities of banning things aren't as simple as people make them out to be.

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/12...-grim-gateway/

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11291539)

I'm guessing that JamesM was referring to spree style shootings rather than guns used in run of the mill criminal activity.

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11291674)

Your arguments really are a load of tosh.

When is one of you gun lobbyists going to give us a single benefit of gun ownership????

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 11291957)

Perhaps when the restrictive lobby can give us some benefits to tobacco and alcohol beyond "we enjoy using them".

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11292062)

This is a thread on guns.

When someone kills 3 policeman with alcohol or tobacco you may have an intelligent post.

Benefits please????

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 11292078)

The fuuny thing is iaink will argue for alcohol restrictions and state control.

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11292101)

I see no benefits to smoking and have never bothered.

The benefits of alcohol are obvious.

It makes Hooters girls more attractive and the people around more interesting.

The Gun debate is tired now. No benefits or clear reasons to own a gun and the lobbyists trying to blame cars, alcohol, criminals, cigarettes, old age, crocodiles, the marshmallow man and anything else they can on the senseless shootings that occur on a regular basis in North America.