Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Colpy]

Now, re: gunpolicies.org......1. It claims not to be official. 2. Did you happen to notice that Gun Homicides in the US per 100,000 between 1993 & 2009 averaged between 340 and 298?? 3. Did you also happen to notice that Gun Homicides in Canada per 100,000 for the same period were .69 and .46??

First of all your stats are BS. Learn to use a decimal point. The murder rate for ALL causes in the USA is about 5.0 per 100,000..........NOT 300.

The use of gun homicides as opposed to the overall homicide rate in the debate over gun control proves absolutely nothing. In fact, it is a ploy by the anti-gun people to deceive you...............obviously. the only possible and reasonable justification for any gun control at all is that it saves lives, and by that I mean a statistically valid number of lives.

Here's a bulletin for you: people are just as dead if they are shot, purposely run over with cars, burned to death in arson, stabbed, beaten to death with clubs, poisoned, or drowned in the bathtub.

If the claim that gun control saves lives is to be verified, it must also be demonstrated that those intent on murder simply can't go to an alternative method (knife, baseball bat, or arson in the case of mass murder) with roughly equivalent success. Or for that matter, that they can't obtain firearms from outside the legal framework, thus outside the ability of the gov't to control.

Good luck with that.

 

[petros]

Hey Colpy. Put any bush meat in your freezer yet this fall?

 

[Colpy]

Hey Colpy. Put any bush meat in your freezer yet this fall?

Naw, big game is not even open yet.........just shot some ruffed grouse.......my favourite kind of hunting anyway. They are shoot, cook n' eat ASAP....

 

[DaSleeper]

She'll be back....She went off line wihout logging off as you posted...means her name stay on for another two hours.
Common sense tells me what I need to know, and I stopped trying to convince dingbats a long time ago...:smile:
Sometimes when I go shooting, I go just to relax and make noise...not really trying for all tens..
That's the closest analogy to a forum I could find;-)

Hmmm.......I'm a dingbat??? too bad I'm a very smart one eh??? By the way,while I am a very qualified medical secretary, I have been an accountant in a large brewing company, an hotel manager, a cook in a recreational camp, a stenographer to the president of NE just out of school and before I was sixteen, I even worked in a general store. Now I am retired I own & manage a 200 acre farm when I am not travelling. So, one could say, I am a kind of successful dingbat. LOL.

OH your poor wibble feelings hurt...You never noticed I didn't quote you there, but was answering Colpy, and the dingbat coment was a general reference to anti-gun people?

Also I never log-off from my pcs or out of forums, except when I intend to be away for any length of time. Oh, and you really do need to look at little closer at what you assume is your common sense, there is really quite an interesting world out there, that would widen your outlook considerably.

Now, life is calling and I have things to do and friends to meet.

Didn't need you to tell me that, your log on log off procedure is there for everyone to see, and your internet security savy terific;-)
BTW congrats on learning how to quote properly.....if you need any more help....let me know...:smile:

 

[petros]

Hell yeah...stand on the wings grab the legs and pull, wrap in bacon, some Mrs Dash and oh boy.

6 ducks, 12 geese so far for me.

There is a buck that keeps pissing me off. He comes out from the bush to eat and 31 minute before sunrise he wanders back in. 3 mornings he has done that. Damn things are smarter than they look.

 

[bluebyrd35]

First of all your stats are BS. Learn to use a decimal point. The murder rate for ALL causes in the USA is about 5.0 per 100,000..........NOT 300.

The use of gun homicides as opposed to the overall homicide rate in the debate over gun control proves absolutely nothing. In fact, it is a ploy by the anti-gun people to deceive you...............obviously. the only possible and reasonable justification for any gun control at all is that it saves lives, and by that I mean a statistically valid number of lives.

Here's a bulletin for you: people are just as dead if they are shot, purposely run over with cars, burned to death in arson, stabbed, beaten to death with clubs, poisoned, or drowned in the bathtub.

If the claim that gun control saves lives is to be verified, it must also be demonstrated that those intent on murder simply can't go to an alternative method (knife, baseball bat, or arson in the case of mass murder) with roughly equivalent success. Or for that matter, that they can't obtain firearms from outside the legal framework, thus outside the ability of the gov't to control.

Good luck with that.

I do not need luck. I am sure you know even by inserting the decimal point where it belongs, your argument is bullsh.t. There is a difference between 3.40 or 2.98 and .69 and .40......per 100,000, like how many actual lives in total population??

Why would you think I do not know about dead?? I have seen dead by lightning, drowning in bathtubs and pools and rivers, suicide hangings, and sexual asphixation ones, automobile accidents, motorcyle accidents, chewed up by augers starting at the feet
children run over by discs (large double blades pulled behind tractors to work the land) farmers & their children run over or crushed by their own tractors, children burned from falling into camp & BQ fires, crib deaths, accidental, deliberate & suicides by guns.

I remember showing a young lady her brother's corpse in a stark autopsy room and trying to comfort her. I didn't even have to pull the gurney all the way out of the freezer as she recognized the red and white stripes of the socks she had knitted for him. So don't pull that justification kind of crap on me.

Because death occurs in many ways, no way justifies easing of any legislation that causes death. Next you will be citing deaths by cellphones as a justification for less gun control. Life is precious and tenuous. The emphasis must be on preservation rather than on the freedom of some to have their deadly toys without every precaution being taken to protect the innocent and the stupid or criminals.

Surprising isn't it what a medical secretary/receptions, drs.assistant and the sole body, in a small emergency department for years, got to see and deal with?.

Well, I see the guy for the annual furnace cleaning has arrived.

,

OH your poor wibble feelings hurt...You never noticed I didn't quote you there, but was answering Colpy, and the dingbat coment was a general reference to anti-gun people?

Didn't need you to tell me that, your log on log off procedure is there for everyone to see, and your internet security savy terific;-)
BTW congrats on learning how to quote properly.....if you need any more help....let me know...:smile:

Awww ..... do you really think your pitiful attempt at justification successful?? Good gawd, why would I need your help....my grandson is an internet tech for a big Ottawa company & sets up systems for big and small companies in the US and Canada. Lucky me, I have protection out the whazzoo.

 

[Colpy]

It is interesting that the number of gun deaths in the USA does not seem to bear out your assertion that the number of guns has nothing to do with an increased murder rate. In fact almost no study bears out your assertion. Instead almost all nations that have seen an increase in the number of guns available to the average citizen have seen increases in gun related deaths, and unless you can find a study that shows the opposite you are quite simply wrong.

I refer you to this study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health.
Guns and Death - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

You ALMOST had me with that one....then I read it through it carefully........

First of all, section 1. Tthey "reviewed available research". Uh-huh. Me suspects the "available academic research" came from the Brady Campaign, and very little from the NRA.

Non peer reviewed non-research really is little more than an opinion piece........

My suspicions were intensified by the next phase......

Section 2.......they "studied" international rates.........of 26 cherry-picked "high income" countries, out of the 193 nations on earth. Oh, now my spidey senses are tingling!!! Not even THE most high income countries, but SOME high income countries, with NO baseline to ensure neutrality....hmmmmm. I know 3 of the top ten gun-owning countries on earth are among those with the lowest murder rates on earth......so...........

Section 3. This one confirmed all my suspicions and saved me the trouble of reading the rest.....something I could verify with my own "research". According to this paper, states with the highest firearms ownership rates have the highest murder rates .........after "adjustments". UH HUH.

Googled "gun ownership by state", got this as top link:

Gun Ownership by State (washingtonpost.com)

Googled "murder rate by state", got this as top link:

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Here are the results of my comparison:

Wyoming has the highest per capita gun ownership at 59.7% of responding households armed.
Wyoming has a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000. (Canada's is 1.8 per 100,000!!!!)

Alaska had the second highest per capita gun ownership at 57.8% of responding households armed.
Alaska has a murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000.

Montana was in number three spot, with 57.7% of households armed.
Montana has a murder rate of 2.6 per 100,000

South Dakota was fourth, with 56.6%.....
South Dakota has a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000.

West Virginia was fifth, with 55.4%.........
West Virginia has a murder rate of 3.3 per 100,000

NOT ONE OF THE TOP FIVE GUN OWNING STATES HAD A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE MURDER RATE FOR THE USA; (5.0 per 100,000) Four out of five were not even close!!!!!

Now, here are the five LOWEST gun owning states.........

Hawaii, with 8.7% of households armed, has a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000.

New Jersey, with 12.3 percent armed, has a murder rate of 4.2 per 100,000.

Massachusetts, with 12.6 percent armed, has a murder rate of 3.2 per 100,000

Rhode Island, with 12.8 percent armed, has a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000.

Conneticut, with 16.7 percent armed, has a murder rate of 3.6 per 100,000.

The murder rates in these states are lower than average as well, but actually have a higher mean than the top gun owning states.......

Which kinda shows the Harvard boys are playing a nasty game.

 

[DaSleeper]

Awww ..... do you really think your pitiful attempt at justification successful?? Good gawd, why would I need your help....my grandson is an internet tech for a big Ottawa company & sets up systems for big and small companies in the US and Canada. Lucky me, I have protection out the whazzoo.

Yer a funny lady :smile: You be sure to bring your laptop with you, when you join the other snowbirds in florida, some of us would miss you terribly....

And remember the words of that famous man "There are known knowns and there are unknown knowns"
I like to put it this way...."There are things that I know, that you don't know I know"

 

[CDNBear]

I like to put it this way...."There are things that I know, that you don't know I know"

 

[Bar Sinister]

You ALMOST had me with that one....then I read it through it carefully........

First of all, section 1. Tthey "reviewed available research". Uh-huh. Me suspects the "available academic research" came from the Brady Campaign, and very little from the NRA.

Non peer reviewed non-research really is little more than an opinion piece........

My suspicions were intensified by the next phase......

Section 2.......they "studied" international rates.........of 26 cherry-picked "high income" countries, out of the 193 nations on earth. Oh, now my spidey senses are tingling!!! Not even THE most high income countries, but SOME high income countries, with NO baseline to ensure neutrality....hmmmmm. I know 3 of the top ten gun-owning countries on earth are among those with the lowest murder rates on earth......so...........

Section 3. This one confirmed all my suspicions and saved me the trouble of reading the rest.....something I could verify with my own "research". According to this paper, states with the highest firearms ownership rates have the highest murder rates .........after "adjustments". UH HUH.

Googled "gun ownership by state", got this as top link:

Gun Ownership by State (washingtonpost.com)

Googled "murder rate by state", got this as top link:

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Here are the results of my comparison:

Wyoming has the highest per capita gun ownership at 59.7% of responding households armed.
Wyoming has a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000. (Canada's is 1.8 per 100,000!!!!)

Alaska had the second highest per capita gun ownership at 57.8% of responding households armed.
Alaska has a murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000.

Montana was in number three spot, with 57.7% of households armed.
Montana has a murder rate of 2.6 per 100,000

South Dakota was fourth, with 56.6%.....
South Dakota has a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000.

West Virginia was fifth, with 55.4%.........
West Virginia has a murder rate of 3.3 per 100,000

NOT ONE OF THE TOP FIVE GUN OWNING STATES HAD A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE MURDER RATE FOR THE USA; (5.0 per 100,000) Four out of five were not even close!!!!!

Now, here are the five LOWEST gun owning states.........

Hawaii, with 8.7% of households armed, has a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000.

New Jersey, with 12.3 percent armed, has a murder rate of 4.2 per 100,000.

Massachusetts, with 12.6 percent armed, has a murder rate of 3.2 per 100,000

Rhode Island, with 12.8 percent armed, has a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000.

Conneticut, with 16.7 percent armed, has a murder rate of 3.6 per 100,000.

The murder rates in these states are lower than average as well, but actually have a higher mean than the top gun owning states.......

Which kinda shows the Harvard boys are playing a nasty game.

I suggest you find a better source for your counterarguments than the United States, as any state in the US has an elevated rate of gun deaths compared to countries like Canada. Comparing different parts of the US to another part is really not much in the way of evidence when one considers all US states have an abnormal level of gun violence. I did note, however that the states you chose are those with the lowest population density. The fact that none of those states have any urban concentrations approaching even those of Newfoundland might have something to do with the low murder rate. Perhaps having to drive miles to shoot someone dampens the homicidal urge.

You don`t like my source? - of course not - it completely disproves your almost religious devotion to guns. However, I had numerous sources that showed the same data. I simply chose one that was the most authoritative. BTW the fact that you do not like the conclusions of the Harvard study does not mean it is wrong, and you have presented no evidence to show that it is.

However, I have lots of other sources, all of which confirm my point.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Gun violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk
Gun Facts

I suspect I could find several dozen more sources to promote my arguments, but why should I bother? Your devotion to guns isn't even remotely logical; instead it resembles a religious obsession and it is the primary reason I usually ignore discussions with gun aficionados. I doubt that any fact I present would be accepted by you, no matter how conclusive the evidence.

Just one more question for you however. Just how do you explain the fact that the United States, with the most guns per capita in the world, has a rate of gun deaths five times that of Canada, a nation that is similar to the US in so many other ways?

 

[ironsides]

How many read Guns & Ammo? Give you a pretty good idea what we can do in the States.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/10/19/how-to-buy-class-three-weapons/#

I


Just one more question for you however. Just how do you explain the fact that the United States, with the most guns per capita in the world, has a rate of gun deaths five times that of Canada, a nation that is similar to the US in so many other ways?

No Second Amendment, never had one, probably never will. That is one way we are dissimilar. Won't get into psychology of the people, or the more concentration of population.

 

[Colpy]

I suggest you find a better source for your counterarguments than the United States, as any state in the US has an elevated rate of gun deaths compared to countries like Canada. Comparing different parts of the US to another part is really not much in the way of evidence when one considers all US states have an abnormal level of gun violence. I did note, however that the states you chose are those with the lowest population density. The fact that none of those states have any urban concentrations approaching even those of Newfoundland might have something to do with the low murder rate. Perhaps having to drive miles to shoot someone dampens the homicidal urge.

And I suggest you start thinking for yourself instead of looking to stats from people with an obvious agenda.

First of all, you should go back and read the first post in this long long thread...........and no, I didn't cherry pick....I picked states along the border that had similar populations to those in Canada.......

Secondly, you should actually read my posts before you say crap like this: " any state in the US has an elevated rate of gun deaths compared to countries like Canada"...............Allow me to quote:

Wyoming has the highest per capita gun ownership at 59.7% of responding households armed.
Wyoming has a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000. (Canada's is 1.8 per 100,000!!!!)

Oh, and I didn't "choose" the states, I took them directly off a list of states by gun ownership rates, highest on down.

But, just to back up my claim anyway........let's go to Statscan, to rates from 2009.............(the latest available)

In 2009, the murder rate in Alaska was 3.1 per 100,000.
Step across the border into the Yukon...........in 2009 the murder rate in the Yukon was 5.94 per 100,000.

Must be all those huge urban centres in the Yukon.

An anomaly???

In 2008, the murder rate in Alaska was 4.1 per 100,000.
In 2008 the murder rate in the Yukon was 9.04 per 100,000.

By the way, the WORST jurisdiction in North America for murder from 2007-09 was Nunavut (CANADA), with a 2007 murder rate of an astounding 22.38 per 100,000, and rates of 12.65 and 18.64 over the next two years. This is much higher than the WORST states in the USA.

Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

BTW....there are NINE US states with murder rates equal to or lower than those in Canada......they include Vermont (a state with NO gun control whatsoever.........want to carry a pistol? Buy it, load it, drop it in your pocket....completely legal) North Dakota, Wyoming, Minnesota......the only state on that list with a significant gun control regimen is Hawaii....... which is much like Canada.

 

[Bar Sinister]

And I suggest you start thinking for yourself instead of looking to stats from people with an obvious agenda.

First of all, you should go back and read the first post in this long long thread...........and no, I didn't cherry pick....I picked states along the border that had similar populations to those in Canada.......

Secondly, you should actually read my posts before you say crap like this: " any state in the US has an elevated rate of gun deaths compared to countries like Canada"...............Allow me to quote:

Oh, and I didn't "choose" the states, I took them directly off a list of states by gun ownership rates, highest on down.

But, just to back up my claim anyway........let's go to Statscan, to rates from 2009.............(the latest available)

In 2009, the murder rate in Alaska was 3.1 per 100,000.
Step across the border into the Yukon...........in 2009 the murder rate in the Yukon was 5.94 per 100,000.

Must be all those huge urban centres in the Yukon.

An anomaly???

In 2008, the murder rate in Alaska was 4.1 per 100,000.
In 2008 the murder rate in the Yukon was 9.04 per 100,000.

By the way, the WORST jurisdiction in North America for murder from 2007-09 was Nunavut (CANADA), with a 2007 murder rate of an astounding 22.38 per 100,000, and rates of 12.65 and 18.64 over the next two years. This is much higher than the WORST states in the USA.

Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

BTW....there are NINE US states with murder rates equal to or lower than those in Canada......they include Vermont (a state with NO gun control whatsoever.........want to carry a pistol? Buy it, load it, drop it in your pocket....completely legal) North Dakota, Wyoming, Minnesota......the only state on that list with a significant gun control regimen is Hawaii....... which is much like Canada.

I note you used the word "crap." I guess you are running out of intelligent ways of expressing yourself. And I stand by what I said. Compare areas of Canada to similar areas of the USA and Canada comes out ahead. Comparing a state like Wyoming to all of Canada completely skews the stats. The largest city in the state is only 60,000 people - only a large town even by the standards of provinces like Saskatchewan. No province in Canada has a capital city that small except Charlottetown. Of course, comparing the gun death rate in PEI would be quite unfair so I won't bother.

Also I note you interpreted my statistics in your favour. I did not say murder rate, which is what you list for Wyoming and your other examples, I said gun deaths, which leaves Wyoming and Alaska looking a little less idyllic. In fact it leaves those states in the top four highest rates for gun deaths in the US. And leaves Vermont at about five times Canada's rate per capita.

Also you are dead wrong about Nunavut having the highest murder rate in North America. That dubious honour belongs to several large American cities, and the gun deaths in nations like El Salvador and Honduras are about three times that of Nunavut.

Also, considering that the highest number of guns per capita is in Nunavut, Yukon, and the NWT are you not defeating your own argument? My contention is that more guns per capita mean more gun deaths per capita. The examples of the NWT and Nunavut prove my point exactly. However, I am sure that you can find some part of the US with a murder rate lower than Canada if you look hard enough. Perhaps you could try Disneyland next. And I realize that you are immune to statistics that contradict your gun dogma, but here is one more link showing that higher national gun ownership equals higher gun deaths. Also from StatsCan since you seem to accept that as a source.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ads-annonces/82-003-x/pdf/4194126-eng.pdf

Just in case you don't want to read the entire article here is a relevant quote.

One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries. Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home: Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in a home without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home. The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, when guns are kept loaded and unlocked.

BTW you didn't attempt to answer my last question. Why is it that the US has a gun death rate five times that of Canada? And why is it that every nation on earth where the number of guns has increased has also had increased gun deaths? There must be a link there somewhere. Instead of cherry picking your statistics, which in spite of your protest is exactly what you have been doing, it is time for you to simply admit the simple fact that the more guns there are in a society the more gun deaths there will be, as your apt examples of Nunavut, the NWT, and Yukon show.

 

[Colpy]

I note you used the word "crap." I guess you are running out of intelligent ways of expressing yourself. And I stand by what I said. Compare areas of Canada to similar areas of the USA and Canada comes out ahead. Comparing a state like Wyoming to all of Canada completely skews the stats. The largest city in the state is only 60,000 people - only a large town even by the standards of provinces like Saskatchewan. No province in Canada has a capital city that small except Charlottetown. Of course, comparing the gun death rate in PEI would be quite unfair so I won't bother.

Also I note you interpreted my statistics in your favour. I did not say murder rate, which is what you list for Wyoming and your other examples, I said gun deaths, which leaves Wyoming and Alaska looking a little less idyllic. In fact it leaves those states in the top four highest rates for gun deaths in the US. And leaves Vermont at about five times Canada's rate per capita.

.

I say "crap" because that is exactly what it is.....the instant someone tries to narrow the discussion to only gun deaths, they are trying to mislead you.........If the claim is gun control is necessary to save lives, then the proof of such is that death rates are lowered by gun control..........not death rates by gun, but death rates overall. If a hypothetical person wants to kill someone, or themselves, and they have a .357 Magnum available....yep, they will probably use that. BUT if they have that taken away, and use a baseball bat on their victim, or get a gun illegally, or they hang themselves.....gun control has NOT saved anyone.

That is why the only VALID comparisons are between total death rates......the "gun death" thing is a pet peeve of mine.

So.....the murder rate in such places as Wyoming is lower than in Canada......and in eight other states. The suicide rate in the USA is actually lower than the suicide rate in Canada (but only by a miniscule amount). But therein lies the vast vast majority of "gun deaths" .........and demonstrates that gun control does NOT prevent suicide.........gun suicide has slipped substantially since the introduction of strict laws, but the overall suicide rate has not. That tells any logical person that trying to stop suicide by removing guns is futile, and it indicates the fallacy of using "gun death" statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

BTW....I thought the claim was that guns caused murder, NOT living in inner cities.......you are arguing against yourself when you use the environment as a factor.......

Also you are dead wrong about Nunavut having the highest murder rate in North America. That dubious honour belongs to several large American cities, and the gun deaths in nations like El Salvador and Honduras are about three times that of Nunavut.

.

My Bad......I usually think of North America as being the USA and Canada............my brain fart.

Nunavut has the worst murder rate in the USA and Canada.........Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador all have much, much higher murder rates......and VERY tough gun control.

 

[petros]

FACT....Wherever you find poverty and illiteracy you'll find high murder rates.

 

[Colpy]

Also, considering that the highest number of guns per capita is in Nunavut, Yukon, and the NWT are you not defeating your own argument? My contention is that more guns per capita mean more gun deaths per capita. The examples of the NWT and Nunavut prove my point exactly. However, I am sure that you can find some part of the US with a murder rate lower than Canada if you look hard enough. Perhaps you could try Disneyland next. And I realize that you are immune to statistics that contradict your gun dogma, but here is one more link showing that higher national gun ownership equals higher gun deaths. Also from StatsCan since you seem to accept that as a source.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ads-annonces/82-003-x/pdf/4194126-eng.pdf

Just in case you don't want to read the entire article here is a relevant quote.

One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries. Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home: Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in a home without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home. The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, when guns are kept loaded and unlocked.

BTW you didn't attempt to answer my last question. Why is it that the US has a gun death rate five times that of Canada? And why is it that every nation on earth where the number of guns has increased has also had increased gun deaths? There must be a link there somewhere. Instead of cherry picking your statistics, which in spite of your protest is exactly what you have been doing, it is time for you to simply admit the simple fact that the more guns there are in a society the more gun deaths there will be, as your apt examples of Nunavut, the NWT, and Yukon show.

Please see above.

OF COURSE larger numbers of guns increases firearms death rates.......what it does NOT increase is murder and suicide rates overall.

And murder and suicide rates overall are obviously the only indicator of possible lives saved.

Let me put it this way....it is as if there were many many deaths due to alcohol poisoning, so the gov't bans Cap't Morgan's Dark......then compiles statistics showing the death rate from Cap't Morgan's Dark had fallen substantially.......and claiming many lives saved.......while totally ignoring the overall death rate by alcohol poisoning.............which of course would stay the same as people switched to Bacardi's.

The use of gun death statistics is a propaganda ploy used only by those with an agenda.

In other words, the second you use "gun death" rates, you lose me completely......and anyone else that has actually thought it through.

 

[petros]

I'd rather be shot than stabbed.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I say "crap" because that is exactly what it is.....the instant someone tries to narrow the discussion to only gun deaths, they are trying to mislead you.........If the claim is gun control is necessary to save lives, then the proof of such is that death rates are lowered by gun control..........not death rates by gun, but death rates overall. If a hypothetical person wants to kill someone, or themselves, and they have a .357 Magnum available....yep, they will probably use that. BUT if they have that taken away, and use a baseball bat on their victim, or get a gun illegally, or they hang themselves.....gun control has NOT saved anyone.

That is why the only VALID comparisons are between total death rates......the "gun death" thing is a pet peeve of mine.

So.....the murder rate in such places as Wyoming is lower than in Canada......and in eight other states. The suicide rate in the USA is actually lower than the suicide rate in Canada (but only by a miniscule amount). But therein lies the vast vast majority of "gun deaths" .........and demonstrates that gun control does NOT prevent suicide.........gun suicide has slipped substantially since the introduction of strict laws, but the overall suicide rate has not. That tells any logical person that trying to stop suicide by removing guns is futile, and it indicates the fallacy of using "gun death" statistics.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW....I thought the claim was that guns caused murder, NOT living in inner cities.......you are arguing against yourself when you use the environment as a factor.......



My Bad......I usually think of North America as being the USA and Canada............my brain fart.

Nunavut has the worst murder rate in the USA and Canada.........Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador all have much, much higher murder rates......and VERY tough gun control.

I'm getting a little tired about you blowing smoke out of your backside. The debate is about gun deaths - that is what gun control is all about; not your narrow view of things. In your desperation to present a positive spin on gun ownership you keep on narrowing the topic in the hopes that eventually you will be able to prove your point. But the fact is that nations that have effective gun control (not disfunctional societies like Honduras and El Salvador) have fewer gun deaths. So far in all of your posts you have failed to disprove a single one of my points; in fact your comments on Nunavut, the NWT, and Yukon (areas with the highest per captita ownership of guns in Canada) actually supported my arguments. Now you are down to making ridiculous statements about suicide. Sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger is almost always more effective than any other form of suicide, including jumping off two-hundred foot bridges.

So far as your comments on inner city gun deaths are concerned you completely overlook the fact that more guns in those areas have once again meant more gun deaths. However, overlooking facts is what you are good at. In fact you would have no argument at all concerning guns if you did not ignore the salient fact that societies with more guns equal more gun deaths. I note that you have not even attempted to disprove any of the studies I submitted illustrating that fact and once again keep on ignoring the question as to why gun deaths are so much higher in the US, a country that is culturally very similar to Canada.

I am going to leave it at that. There is no further point in debating with someone who is using guns as a substitute for religion. You are simply not open to accepting anything that contradicts your fixed beliefs. Unless you can actually add some new fact (and I doubt that you will since you haven't added any so far) to this discusion; this is my last post in this thread. You once asked me why I do not bother with gun debates and this is the reason. It always ends up with the gun lovers acting the part of a small boy standing in the middle of a rainstorm and shouting "I'm not wet," even as he is soaked to the skin. As I pointed out to a new member - I do not bother with discussions of religion and arguing with someone who worships at the altar of the gun is a similar waste of time.

 

[Colpy]

I'm getting a little tired about you blowing smoke out of your backside. The debate is about gun deaths - that is what gun control is all about; not your narrow view of things. In your desperation to present a positive spin on gun ownership you keep on narrowing the topic in the hopes that eventually you will be able to prove your point. But the fact is that nations that have effective gun control (not disfunctional societies like Honduras and El Salvador) have fewer gun deaths. So far in all of your posts you have failed to disprove a single one of my points; in fact your comments on Nunavut, the NWT, and Yukon (areas with the highest per captita ownership of guns in Canada) actually supported my arguments. Now you are down to making ridiculous statements about suicide. Sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger is almost always more effective than any other form of suicide, including jumping off two-hundred foot bridges.

So far as your comments on inner city gun deaths are concerned you completely overlook the fact that more guns in those areas have once again meant more gun deaths. However, overlooking facts is what you are good at. In fact you would have no argument at all concerning guns if you did not ignore the salient fact that societies with more guns equal more gun deaths. I note that you have not even attempted to disprove any of the studies I submitted illustrating that fact and once again keep on ignoring the question as to why gun deaths are so much higher in the US, a country that is culturally very similar to Canada.

I am going to leave it at that. There is no further point in debating with someone who is using guns as a substitute for religion. You are simply not open to accepting anything that contradicts your fixed beliefs. Unless you can actually add some new fact (and I doubt that you will since you haven't added any so far) to this discusion; this is my last post in this thread. You once asked me why I do not bother with gun debates and this is the reason. It always ends up with the gun lovers acting the part of a small boy standing in the middle of a rainstorm and shouting "I'm not wet," even as he is soaked to the skin. As I pointed out to a new member - I do not bother with discussions of religion and arguing with someone who worships at the altar of the gun is a similar waste of time.

Well, we agree on one thing: Obviously, this conversation is going nowhere.

First of all, by including all methods of murder and suicide in an attempt to see if gun control actually saves lives, I am broadening the scope of debate. Gun control advocates are the ones that are trying to deceive you by narrowing the debate to gun deaths only.

Secondly, I am so very sorry you can not understand the fact that gun ownership has very little to do with murder. Obviously, firearms ownership is higher in Alaska than in the Yukon.....the populations are roughly the same ethnically etc.......explain the Yukon's much higher murder rate despite tough gun control??? You can't.
Thirdly, believe or not, people do survive shooting themselves.......about as often as they survive 200 foot drops. By your own logic, guns do NOT encourage suicide, or the USA would have a higher suicide rate than Canada. Actually, the rate is lower.

Fourth, as you seem unable to comprehend, if those determined to kill use different methods because of gun unavailability, then that fact of gun unavailability has NOT saved a life. You are no less dead if garrotted than shot. The "gun death" ploy is so obviously fraudulent that I wonder why anyone would pay any attention to any study that uses it in isolation.

Fifth.....yeah, I blew the Harvard "study" completely out of the water.

BTW, I don't worship guns.......

Nor do I worship the state..........and the belief we can all be made "safe" if only we surrender our liberty to Big Mother.

You have swallowed that particular bit of garbage whole-heartedly.........what you can NOT deal with is the facts, that by US state, by across border comparisons, or by country rankings show one simple fact: there is NO correlation between murder or suicide rates and gun control. Absolutely none.

Sorry to shake up your comfy little world view.

 

[ironsides]

Gun Control is just that, government control over what should be a right of the people. You have laws on the books for murder, armed robbery, armed assault etc. Now registering bullets could possibly be a big help in controlling crime, at least identifying who purchased a particular bullet. (shotguns excluded)