Re: Guns
 

I cant speak for the US, but in Canada there are plenty of restrictions relating to types of weapon, magazine sizes etc etc. I cant say I get your point.

Not every gun owner is interested in even killing a deer, or even a racoon, never mind frying the ****er?

Re: Guns
 

Fair point.

If a human being flips out and substitutes recycled paper targets for human beings they'll probably kill quite a few with their gun.

If they flip out with their fishing rod they may hurt one or two people but a lot more people will be able to run away or use more effective instruments to
curtail them.

Yes a deranged could spend months trying to learn about building nail bombs that may or may not go off reading dodgy crap that may be available on the internet. But they don't need to do that because the easy option of popping into the local walmart is there.

You surely cannot believe that with no guns we'd have the same amount of murders???

Re: Guns
 

It's catch 22.

You'd have to be deranged to own a gun; but if your deranged you can't own a gun.

The rest of us just have to hope we are not in the crossfire of these lunatics and the children that they moved here for....

Re: Guns
 

Your implication here is that there's something fundamentally different between Americans and the people of the rest of the people of the world. I don't think that holds. Canada has been exceptional in having a heavily armed populace, with easy access to ammunition and a relatively low rate of armed massacres. Other countries where the population is heavily armed, South Africa, Mexico, Colombia have rather a lot of shootings.

Canada's often lauded on this board as being twenty years behind the times and I think that's fair. The fashion for school shootings will come to Canada as the fashion for bell bottoms fades away.

Re: Guns
 

It would be interesting to know what the UK gun murder statistics are pre/post Dunblane? Whether there is conclusive evidence that can be draw from the tightening of regulations then.

I agree on the nail bomb example. I do think that some of these deranged take a pleasure in being an active slaughter (as conditioned by the culture). It's the same kill-instinct that the hunters tap into, but obviously far more twisted by their mental state and circumstances.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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

Re: Guns
 

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?

Re: Guns
 

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!

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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."

Re: Guns
 

Justified pest control or not?

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

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.

Re: Guns
 

Re: Guns
 

Sorry, then we are in agreement regarding better controls. Others posting are proposing bans.

Re: Guns
 

Then of course theee is this mans outright misogyny fed by websites and fora.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rums?CMP=fb_us

Re: Guns
 

I think the real problem when something like this happens is the public get defensive if the probable cause of the tragedy can be linked to them or someone they know (indirectly of course). Some will blame guns, so gun enthusiasts will get defensive & find something else to blame like mental health, people with (or who know someone with) mental will then get defensive & so on. No one steps back & takes themselves out of the equation to look at it objectively.

Someone on Fox news the other day got chastised for suggesting Rodgers might have been gay & struggling with feelings that he considered wrong (after reading his manifesto I was actually thinking the same). Now that is not a dig a gay people or anyone suggesting all gay men have the tendency to go on a killing spree, so why get so defensive?

I think it's important to recognise these underlying factors & learn from them as a society. If guns were part of the problem, be brave enough to admit it & say well what can be done about it, even if it's something simple like noticing a kid down your gun range who looks like they're having a bad day & talking to them.
Walking around with your head in the sand & thinking I'm alright Jack is not helpful. It's probably why this sort of thing is a bigger problem in the US where the main attitude seems to be more about looking after No.1 & having a weird obsession with being successful, branding anyone a bit different as an outcast

Re: Guns
 

Oh right, introduce tractors just to muddle the argument! I suppose you know that, in Canada, farm equipment kills many more people, especially children, than guns.

Re: Guns
 

I do.

We were testing the potential of using a front bale spear as a shooting platform and she suffered an injury when, as she slide off, she didn't push away hard enough and scraped the back of her leg along one of the two smaller spikes. Fortunately, she didn't have her rifle with her at the time, as I dread to think how many gophers she would have shot:p

As a result, she only shoots from the bucket now. Thank heavens for quick attach!

Re: Guns
 

That's a gateway weapon you know. The beer can plinker shown above tells me that she now has access to a semi-automatic and, indeed, is often kept awake by the sound of machine guns and grenades. A slippery slope that began with that .22

Re: Guns
 

I have no doubt about that.

The girl pictured is a very good shot and, in the time that we have lived where we do now, has "progressed" from a BB gun to her "youth" .22. She only popped cans with her BB.

Once we zeroed her sights she found that she could shoot quite well and, when the gophers emerged from their winter retreats, she decided that she would try shooting them rather than using other methods to kill them.

Her sister doesn't like guns and decided to purchase a recurve bow instead. She now takes great pleasure in shooting the shit out of targets on spare round bales with arrows. Over their respective ranges, they are equally deadly.

I don't know if our property could cope with being landscaped by grenades.

Re: Guns
 

Fortunately, that war torn landscape is not here but in Africa.

Re: Guns
 

Just adding to the car deaths vs. gun deaths issue.

A quick Google tells me that there are reportedly 22,278,252 drivers on the Canadian roads. Another quick Google tells me there are 34,880,000 living in Canada. 63% Drive.

Number of registered gun owners = 1,960,380. 5% registered Gun owners.

How many journeys per year do you make in your car I would estimate I drive at least twice a day. Which would make it ~700 journeys a year, If you assume this for all drivers then Canada drives 15,594,776,400 times per year.

# of deaths per usage is very minimal.

You can't say that cars kill more people because there are infinitely more people engaging in the activity in comparison to guns.

Re: Guns
 

Of course you can say cars kill more people, 35000 is more than 20000! or if you prefer Canadian numbers 500 homicides is less than 2000 road related deaths.

If you are going to go to all that trouble then you might as well calculate firearms related deaths on a "per bullet fired" basis, after all its really the bullets that do the damage... each bullet analogous to a road trip or Km traveled.

There are about 500 homicides a year in Canada, 25 deaths per 100000 registered owners, but how many are commiteed by illegal users I wonder?

Then factor in that many of the homicides are not gun related and the stats become further watered down. It seems 27% of 598 homicies were gun related, so 161 gun related murders, or 8.2 per 100000 registered users. Less than the 9.5 deaths per vehicle and as you point out only 5% of the population are registered. Ive fired a gun this year (I think, maybe it was last year now), and im not a registered user. I could be wrong, but I doubt many gang members bother with getting a permit.


I suspect that the core of the argument was lost on you in any case as it was more about whether the rights of the responsible majority should be eroded because of the already illegal acts of a tiny minority. Also, the whole thing was more to do with the US than Canada in any case.

Re: Guns
 

Weird. The dark side of the internet.

Re: Guns
 

Looking at the statistics and usage is probably the best way to rationalise with some one, like yourself, who doesn't seem to understand that a gun is designed to kill and destroy and the other objects you keep referring too have other prime purposes.

By actually doing statistical analysis like this it paints a clear picture that guns and people owning guns is a dangerous thing that should be taken seriously.

Lastly do we have to persist with this "analogous" word. :o

Re: Guns
 

You were suggesting that if we ban guns (which is not my stance) then we should ban cars because they kill more people.

Your point was not lost on me but if you want to regulate or ban something then you need to justify it better than 'this kills more than this' (very scientific response), You would have to quantify and justify it in a little more detail.

Re: Guns
 

I am guessing that you have never gone shooting?

Me neither until a couple of years ago, and up to that point I too was of the opinion that guns must be for killing and destroying. Thats not really the case though, the vast majority are never used near a live target and certainly the whole aim of the handling procedures is to ensure that human life is never in danger.

Stats seem to show that gun ownership is no more dangerous than car ownership. It is taken seriously, there are many rules and regulations, and they seem to work here in Canada pretty well.

The prime purpose is not at all important, its the end results that matter. I'd paint an analogy for you, but I wouldnt know what else to call it:p

Re: Guns
 

That wasnt my stance at all.

My position is that guns are not the root of the problem. They are a part of the problem, but ultimately its a disturbed person who pulls the trigger.

I think we should look at the real root cause of why people go on a rampage and commit mass murders and put preventative measures in place that deal with the people, rather than focusing all our attention on the guns and painting all gun owners with the same brush, just as we would never paint all car owners as irresponsible street racers or drunk drivers. Certainly guns should be well regulated, but like automobiles, the ones owned by law abiding responsible, educated owners are not the ones you need to worry about. Its the others that legislation needs to be focused on.

The whole car thing was simply to illustrate how stupid it is to focus on the gun as the problem rather than the shooter, who could just as easily achieve notoriety by intentionally mowing through a school bus lineup in a truck.

Re: Guns
 

I haven't gone 'shooting' as such I had training in the UK whilst in 'cadets'.

I also practice archery in Canada not for hunting just at the range I personally believe in having the tools required for 'survival' (not that I'm a doomsday prepper or anything, basic survival skills are a must IMO).

I would not like to see guns banned or even regulated that much further than having mental health checks and re-licensing every year or two.

I just found your comparison between guns and cars extremely...
well I'll keep it civil.

Re: Guns
 

I think gun-related sprees definitely get more press.

If you Google mass stabbings, there are so many, all over the world and also including the US.

There's also vehicular ones, a good example being this nut-job;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-13-more.html

Generally it is down to a person who has 'unravelled', so as others have said, better dealing of this would reduce, but would never eliminate these instances.

Re: Guns
 

Could you please explain to me why the vast majority of the armies in the world currently use a calibre of round for their soldiers' primary weapon that is not intended to kill if all guns are "designed to kill"?

Re: Guns
 

The gun is designed to kill. The bullet is designed to maim, which takes much more enemy resources to deal with.

Welcome back, btw. :)

Re: Guns
 

Thank you.

I am aware of the philosophy but I think you have it the wrong way around. The effect of the bullet depends upon the bullet. Bullets that can be fired from the same weapon can be specifically designed to maim or to kill, without the weapon being modified in any way.

I doubt that any sane person would try to argue than a rifle used by a biathlon participant, or an Olympic target shooter, are designed to kill.

As I am sure you will appreciate, no one could seriously wish to kill anyone while wearing multi coloured spandex