But what is the metric for that? Any mass shooting leads to calls for "something to be done".

That's an assumption and I don't think it matters when the victims are unarmed. This is one of the arguments made after Dunblane and it didn't make any particular difference in Cumbria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

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.

Again, that is my point, you can't.

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/

Well I agree, three RCMP officers are dead, they didn't die for our amusement and I'm sure their families don't give a shit what we think.

That's an argument for a law based on emotion, which is why people get their backs up, because kneejerk laws are stupid. Actually I saw one of the sisters of one of the RCMP officers who was murdered making a statement on CBC and she went on at length about how her brother taught her about wildlife through his love of hunting and how it brought them closer together.

I hope the ----sucker who killed him saw it while he was in jail.

If the priority is to maximise killings - and the multiple weapons used tends to suggest that is usually the objective - what does it matter if they are unarmed?

They can run while the killer is reloading. The more time wasted reloading the fewer the number of victims before the killer is stopped.

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

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????

You are correct.

But his second point is still not backed up by anything regardless.

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

This is a thread on guns.

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

Benefits please????

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

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.

Washing baskets don't kill people. People kill people.

What if seals are trying to steal your fish?