The governments of both, United States and Canada, along with the anti gun groups are pushing for tighter restrictions of firearms and an all out ban on certain guns. However, those who have firearms know that these restrictions and bans will not lessen crime, they believe it will make more victims of crimes as less people will have the ability to defend themselves. What is your opinion?
sort by best latest
Ha! Why am I not surprised that you have an AR15?
How do you feel about climate change, a woman's right to choose and whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya?
Firearm ownership is up sharply over the past 20 years while the death rates attributed to fire arms have fallen in half from 6.6/100000 to 3.2
Ralph Deed's. Why I am not surprised that you would say something so stupid and unrelated to the discussion.I believe climate change is unsettled science. I think abortion is a terrible thing and Obama was born in America to the best of my knowledge.
Great comment. We, the law abiding firearms owners need to take a stand against the stupidity of the unjust laws that some are trying to pass. Canada and the USA need to come together and stand together, work together. both have high gun ownership.
The irony in the attacks against groups like the NRA is that they do more than anyone to promote gun safety. In fact if you want a firearms safety training course I would highly recommend them. They had a great instructor for my wife.
Thank you for your comment. Very well said. I agree 100% with you.
It is not just North America, Norway has a fairly high gun ownership rate, as does Switzerland.
"On average,32 Americans are murdered with guns every day,and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.Every day on average,51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun." ourprice
Gun ownership rates do not relate to gun related death rates, as much as you think. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/natio...
Give everyone a vial of the Ebola virus and watch Ebola outbreaks rise. Multiple factors will influence the results, but there is a correlation.
In Switzerland due to the lack of a military nearly every male over 18 has an assault weapon. And one of the lowest homicide rates. There is no correlation. Many states with flexible gun laws have some of the lowest firearm related homicides.
With a higher gun concentration in the U.S. we should have even less gun deaths than Switzerland. Except we don't. So either Americans are just irresponsible with their guns or there is a correlation.
The US has the highest gun concentration per private citizen. If that were true we would have the highest gun murder rate per citizen. But we don't. There is no established correlation. Brazil has far more gun violence and far less guns.
If there is no correlation then pro-gun advocates have no grounds for guns as self-defense. Guns would have no effect on the level of gun deaths any more than a lack of guns.
That statement makes no sense. I don't have to kill a person to defend myself. Just the presence or suspected presence of an armed person can be a deterrent. People us firearms to defend themselves against intruders with a knife.
There is no correlation that more guns equals less gun deaths.
Correct..no proven correlation either way. An increase in home cutlery sales doesn't prove that we are more likely to stab each other. We are talking about inanimate objects. People and other societal problems are the issue, not the object.
And yet, legislation to prevent the wrong people from getting guns, is seen as an attack on guns and isn't allowed to pass. If it's a societal problem, then why do pro-gun advocates fight against societal fixes?
Because the removal of an inanimate object doesn't prevent people from doing terrible things when determined. But the global history of what gov't do when they disarm the population is riddled with tyranny. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I'm not talking about gun removal, I'm talking about things like universal background checks. It assesses the person, to see if they are stable enough to own a gun. It doesn't take guns away from existing gun owners.
Except people that shouldn't have them buy them illegally anyway. And all that happens is the innocent citizen is harassed. It is completely illegal to buy explosives for retail use. Didn't stop Tim McVeigh from building a bomb with fertilizer.
But an innocent citizen wouldn't be harassed. Responsible gun owners would be unaffected by things like universal background checks. Sure, a devoted criminal can still get a gun, but why can't we stop the non-devoted from getting them?
But they are harassed, It is nearly impossible to get a pistol permit in NYC, which is the place the innocent citizen needs it the most. Yet every low life in the city has a gun. I can buy one illegally in 15 minutes on any corner.
Then why aren't unarmed new yorkers protesting gun control? The only people I ever see fighting it are those who already own an arsenal of weapons.
There are dozens of lawsuits right now in NY against the safe act. Ultimately people gravitate towards places they agree with. Places like NY, Chicago and DC are very liberal politically. Yet their laws have done nothing to reduce crime.
Anyone interested in joining our Responsible Gun Group please click this link and join. https://www.facebook.com/groups/responsiblegunowne...
Great Q&A tczeck, not because you take a side but because the answers here clearly demonstrate the intelligence, logic and facts used by the pro-gun answers compared to the total opposite (and in Ralph Deeds case abstruse) reasoning antis give.
I prefer to be called anti death, if you don't mind. You cannot use that label like we use anti abortion. Anti abortioners want to outlaw abortion. With guns, people want them safer, not outlawed Truly anti gun is pro life, and that's a joke.
The policies meant to curb the flow of weapons to illegal uses are things like registration and background checks, both things Canada does, but are rabidly blocked in the US. The assault rifle misnomer is a bit of a strawman.