Ban of guns in urban areas

[Danny_29]

[QUOTE=Gatehouse;1958702]].

A very poor, very simplistic article from the WP "sums up your views?'

It's a quick article with actual studies.

It's clear that you are easily influenced, and eshew any sort of personal critical thinking when you base your views on such a complex issue by reading an article in the WP. - personal attack, no need.


.

So you are only concerned about "gun deaths" and not "deaths?" If someone murders with a knife, that's ok?

The conversation about violence is completely different then gun deaths, guns just happened to be dragged into it.

But of course we are back to something I already brought up- if gun control works, why is there so much gun violence in places that heavily control civilian gun ownership?

This article links to studies that say the exact opposite, while acknowledging the flaws in the studies themselves, but do show that certain measures of controls were effective and others were not.




Accidental deaths are the result of poor gun control, but not the type of gun control you are thinking of.

Not true, there is plenty of things you can do to educate people to reduce preventable accidents.

Accidental deaths are prevent3ed with training, not magazine restrictions, where you can shoot your handgun restrictions, how long your barrel is restrictions, or any of the other BS restrcitions placed on citizens

I agree and the article acknowledges this as well, not all gun control methods are effective. Training is a huge part and would you be opposed to more mandatory training as a gun control tactic?
.[/Q

[BimmerBob]

If LAWS prevented crime in any way shape or form we, in our legislated Canadian world, would have no crime whatsoever as we have so many LAWS already that a person can hardly move without breaking one of them.

The simple fact is that LAWS prevent nothing whatsoever, ONLY the acts of LAW ENFORCEMENT combined with an appropriate PENAL SYSTEM serve to prevent crime and if either of them is not functioning well the entire process is ineffective. One law that says it is illegal for a human to kill another human seems, to me, to be enough to take care of any killing that may be contemplated or envisioned. Any thought that further firearms restrictions will help to save "one innocent person" is simply silly and such an illogical conclusion that those that propose them just enhance their own stupidity and those in government that propose them are simply trying to feather their own nests and capitalize on the stupidity of those that believe them.

People (not those protecting themselves from abuse or criminal activity) that kill other people on purpose need to be permanently prevented from ever doing it again and those that premeditate to commit murder need to extinguished.

[Gateholio]

It's a quick article with actual studies.

There are many studies that disagree with the WP, studies too. And you could always do a little of your own research. The WP article brings up Australia, like so many pro gun control articles do. You would think that their homocide rate dropped dramatically after rounding up so many guns in 1996? But actually it had a big spike upwards and didn't return to 1996 levels for 5 years, and - just like Canada - the homocide rate has been dropping ever since. Actually Canada's homocide rate has been dropping for decades,starting long before Canada introduced the new gun control measures of the 1990's


.

The conversation about violence is completely different then gun deaths, guns just happened to be dragged into it.

Well, the thread is about gun control, right?

This article links to studies that say the exact opposite, while acknowledging the flaws in the studies themselves, but do show that certain measures of controls were effective and others were not.

This is why you might want to do some of your own reseaarch from a variety of sources, rather than reply on a WP article to form your opinion. There are PLENTY of places with heavy gun control but high violent crime. Chicago, New York City. Mexico. California. And then there are plenty of places with little gun control and little crime like Vermont.

Not true, there is plenty of things you can do to educate people to reduce preventable accidents.

Yeah, i think I just said that, when I said :

Accidental deaths are prevent3ed with training, not magazine restrictions, where you can shoot your handgun restrictions, how long your barrel is restrictions, or any of the other BS restrcitions placed on citizens

I agree and the article acknowledges this as well, not all gun control methods are effective.

So please, please, answer the quesiton:

Which idividual gun laws save lives? And how?

Training is a huge part and would you be opposed to more mandatory training as a gun control tactic?

Education is NOT gun control, please don't confuse them.

[Danny_29]

In response

I agree with you thoughts on the article surrounding Australia but data suggests that Australia's action did actually work, just not as effectively as they thought.

Violence can occur with or without guns, violence in society is a whole seperate subject, gun violence specifically is a very small portion of this discussion.

The cities you state clearly illustrates the cultural uniqueness of of gun violence, you can make specific cases in either direction but the data as a whole suggests otherwise. Try comparing London to New York.

We agree that education prevents accidental incidents , but I do disagree that education isn't a gun control tactic, currently in Canada you must take an educational course to buy a firearm.

The thing I hope we can agree on, this in response to your "what specific laws" question. Through research as I'm sure you've done as well you realize that the material and data is very murky, what I would support before ever offering an opinion on specifics is more money into research on what works and what doesn't. This is the first step to having practical and effective hgun control. I'm sure you'd agree that the lack of funding for such research is appalling, look up the stats in the states it's unbelievable. I'm on the side of science based policy.

A question to maybe help us get to some common ground, do you support a more progressive data based approach or the argument that guns prevent gun crime?

[Gateholio]

In response

I agree with you thoughts on the article surrounding Australia but data suggests that Australia's action did actually work, just not as effectively as they thought.

Violence can occur with or without guns, violence in society is a whole seperate subject, gun violence specifically is a very small portion of this discussion.

Gun control advocates always want to do this- separate gun violence. But you can't, unless you want to be dishonest. Reducing guns available to murderers may reduce gun homocide, but it doesn't stop homocide. Criminals will use knives, bombs or trucks.

Take away guns and there are less gun suicides, but hangings increase.

The rate of suicide and overall violence stays the same.

And of course we still have places like Mexico where gun ownership is very hard but it has perhaps the highest rate of gun violence in the world, and places like Switzerland with high gun ownership but low crime.

Funny how New Zealand has lots of guns available yet less violence than their Aussie neighbors, too.

The cities you state clearly illustrates the cultural uniqueness of of gun violence, you can make specific cases in either direction but the data as a whole suggests otherwise. Try comparing London to New York.

Londons violent crime rate is higher than NY. NY has strict gun laws compared to much of the USA, but the UK has draconian gun laws. Yet violent crime has been on the rise in London and much of the UK.

We agree that education prevents accidental incidents , but I do disagree that education isn't a gun control tactic, currently in Canada you must take an educational course to buy a firearm.

Yes, I do agree that being forced to take a course is a form of gun control. It makes getting guns more difficult for poor people, for sure.

And despite passing the PAL test being mandatory for 25 or so years, it hasn't had an actual impact on accidental shootings in Canada.

The thing I hope we can agree on, this in response to your "what specific laws" question. Through research as I'm sure you've done as well you realize that the material and data is very murky, what I would support before ever offering an opinion on specifics is more money into research on what works and what doesn't. This is the first step to having practical and effective hgun control. I'm sure you'd agree that the lack of funding for such research is appalling, look up the stats in the states it's unbelievable. I'm on the side of science based policy.

A question to maybe help us get to some common ground, do you support a more progressive data based approach or the argument that guns prevent gun crime?

If Canada used a data based approach to gun laws all gun owners would rejoice, as most of our current gun restrictions would be removed, and replaced with a system that focuses on the individual and not objects. A data/science based approach would give the anti gun groups heart attacks though, as Canadians happily took their handguns and AR15s hunting, and enjoyed belt fed machine gun target practice in the back 40.

[Singleshotneeded]

Oh! You must be referring to Omar Khadr the youngest person in Guantanamo Bay that the Canadian government left there clearly violating his rights. The things that make Canada great also work against it when they don't follow the rules.

He's a terrorist, he has the right to be shot, and he should've been on arrival in Canada...not given our tax money. Gitmo was too good for scum like him.

[Brew]

Danny29 do you own any firearms?

[325]

Danny29 do you own any firearms?

I’d guess no. Is Danny another iteration of jasmine??

[303savage]

I think that there should be a strict ban on guns in urban areas.”

Doesn't TRUDOPE know that the only people that a gun ban would be the legal gun owners who aren't the problem anyway.

Bring back the death penalty and use it. A life sentence is just a feeding ground for lawyers because every few years the criminal come up for review and they need a lawyer.

The ban on illegal drugs is working so well that the powers that be have set up safe injection sites for illegal drugs

[Walking Buffalo]

The more educated I become, the more convinced I am that ALL Liberal (Progressive) people should not be allowed to have guns.