Slashdot Mirror

Your example is from a police shooting, and as such has no bearing on the discussion at hand (unless you mean to say that not even police can be trusted not to misuse firearms).

I actually never mentioned police, but now that you bring it up, police are also far more jumpy. Just like everyone else.

You attack my principle as being thick-headed and then go on to make the completely unsubstantiated leap to say that means I believe people are always rational when they are afraid.

No, I was saying that people being irrational when being afraid is an important fact, but it's one I can't make any clearer, and that one I can't be bothered arguing should you contend the opposite. There's only one word for what you just did: hyperbole. Try to stick to what is actually said.

Do you believe likening self-defense advocates to heroin junkies or calling people "gun nuts" is not going to provoke an emotional response from most people (the response being different only based on whether the person agrees or disagrees with your position)?

It depends on what your opinion of those people are. I mention it, not to illicit emotional response, but to break through the fortress of self-justifying circular reasoning that underpins the classic gun-nut arguments. If you do it in any kind of self-effacing manner, you just give the gun nut an opportunity to start dictating the rules of the debate, and then suddenly, before you know it, you're arguing under the premise that guns are necessary tools, when in fact, they are only necessary tools, to the majority of people, because the whole place is saturated with more guns. Personally, I think likening society's gun addiction with heroin addiction is a course of reason, not emotional hyperbole.

"An ocean of blood" is not hyperbole and an emotional appeal?

That was the turnaround I referred to. That indeed was supposed to illicit an emotional response from the douchebag who claimed that anti-gun laws kill people.

Fortunately, US politicians do not have the power to disarm the populace. If they did, it likely would have been done long ago.

Fortunately!? For whom? Everybody loses from guns!

You say my very valid claim of appealing to the emotions of others (whether it was your intent or not is irrelevant) is an attempt to dodge the substance of your argument. Where is any evidence to back up your claim that bans provide positive results? I asked for numbers, and you completely ignored the question.

Hey, if you read my comment history, you'll see that I said:

Banning firearms in a single are when penned in on all sides by legal gun trades is nuts. It's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean.

What I object to is unlicensed (or practically unlicensed) guns being allowed in a country as a whole. As for some "figures":

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

This was just from a brief google search. Scroll down to the graph. You shouldn't need figures, because it really should be common sense.

Given that bans are completely ineffective at removing firearms from the hands of criminals, and are really only truly effective at removing them from the hands of people who are prone to obeying even poorly-conceived laws, the reduction in violent crime and homicides obviously has to be the result of something else.

Ha! This is exactly what I was talking about! You have now ever so subtly altered the viewpoint you are arguing against to someone who supports firearm bans, and not only that, you have used some impressive sleight of hand to slip in a common fallacy into our discussion, almost under the radar. This is exactl

Well he was talking about gun 'ownership', if you look at the wikipedia numbers there are 90 guns for 100 residents, so obviously the US gun owners have more guns on average than a gun owner anywhere else in the world. I live in CA myself and I know very few people that actually have a gun, still too many to my own taste, but I don't deny their right to own one. So it's still plausible that more people in Canada *own* guns than in the US, the owners in Canada just don't stockpile them under the kids bed like you see on Cops (the tv show) once in a while.

If you look at the numbers you gave us US has 3.3 times more gun per inhabitant than Canada yet the US has 7.9 more murders by firearms. From this I would say that the US gun owners are at least twice as trigger happy than the Canadian gun owners.

You are wrong: Canada does NOT have more guns per capita than the US. If you have any statistics to back up what you're saying I'd be interested in seeing them.

I can cite some stats (see Table 1). Looks like firearms homicide rates for the US are way higher than for most other western countries. Granted this is partially a societal issue, but I bet the high availability of guns also has a lot to do with it.

> Canadians own more guns per capita than people from the US. Bring it on!

False. Per-capita gun ownership in the US is about 3 times higher than in Canada.

Regardless of whether it's higher or lower, though, I'd rather you left it there than brought it on; call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather trade dollars than bullets.

"It could be won, but even if it can't we should still fight it to at least reduce the damage done. Drug abuse is a disease, much like manic depression and other mental disorders are diseases"

No these arent diseases.. these are choices. No one makes you do cocaine even if your addicted. Its a mental PROBLEM (arguaby because its illegal its more of a problem) but its definately something you can overcome yourself without medical care. same with alcoholism and the addiction to tobacco products. The reason they are diseases is because the medical establishment makes alot more money treating a problem then just smacking people and saying, dont fucking do that if you want to be the picture of health.

But the larger point is that we shouldnt be fighting against these drugs at all. All drugs should be legal, safe and controlled. If i want to work a full day and come home and smoke two pipes of opium every night, legally obtained, what the fucks business is it of the governements?

The rest of your post seems to be gun nut ranting, and although the first part of my post advocates an american libertarian view on substances, i would never condone private ownership of guns at the level of the states. There is a reason why canada only has several hundred gun murders a year and the states has a magnitude more. The real thing you should be doing with those guns, and the only reason i think people should have them, would be to overthrow your government. A waco type event every month would definately start making people listen. Otherwise, your just shooting your fellow citizens so the government doesnt have to.

No, the 7 million canadian guns figure is total estimate (the declared # is lower, but I don't know what it is). So you have to compare registered-to-registered, or compare total-estimate to total-estimate (I did the latter). This page indicates 0.25 guns per capita in Canada and 0.82 guns per capita in the US (one would hope they used fair and equivalent numbers to come up with those figures... but who knows).

But that wasn't my point anyway. The number of guns per capita in Canada and the US may very well be exactly the same. That would not suprise me much at all. If anyone has links to hard stats, I'd be interested in reading them. However, in all cases the number of guns per capita (from what I can see) is less than 1.000, and that was my point. To suggest that there are "more guns than people" is sensationalist.

I went to pains to point out that the numbers I quote are subject to varying interpretations. Please double check them yourself. In any case, my post was not a gun-control rant... it was a "I dislike sensationalist statements" rant... nothing more.

"Bowling for Columbine" tried to make a point like that, but is it valid?

I'm not convined that there are "more guns than people in Canada." The population of Canada is 32 million. The number of guns is difficult to determine, but is in the range of 7 to 11 million (corroborated here, and numbers of 7-16 million are used in some official canadian government rhetoric). That's alot of guns... but not more guns that people. It's 0.28 guns per person, on average.

The population of the US is about 295 million. The number of guns in the US (also hard to estimate) is, according to one estimatem, around 200 million (corroborated here, although that includes estimates of undeclared guns; a different site indicates at least 60 million declared guns). That's 0.68 guns per person, on average.

Those stats are debatable, of course. Estimating such things is hard. I also fully acknowledge that the websites I pointed to are not especially trustworthy sources (some are about gun-control, hence they will typically use the biggest stat for number of guns to make their point). However, the take-home message is that, indeed, there are lots of guns both in Canada and in the United States, yet the number of gun-related deaths (per person) in the US seems worse than in Canada. This is the point that "Bowling for Columbine" was trying to make... however it is a great exagerration to say that there are "more guns than people" in Canada.

"Bowling for Columbine" tried to make a point like that, but is it valid?

I'm not convined that there are "more guns than people in Canada." The population of Canada is 32 million. The number of guns is difficult to determine, but is in the range of 7 to 11 million (corroborated here, and numbers of 7-16 million are used in some official canadian government rhetoric). That's alot of guns... but not more guns that people. It's 0.28 guns per person, on average.

The population of the US is about 295 million. The number of guns in the US (also hard to estimate) is, according to one estimatem, around 200 million (corroborated here, although that includes estimates of undeclared guns; a different site indicates at least 60 million declared guns). That's 0.68 guns per person, on average.

Those stats are debatable, of course. Estimating such things is hard. I also fully acknowledge that the websites I pointed to are not especially trustworthy sources (some are about gun-control, hence they will typically use the biggest stat for number of guns to make their point). However, the take-home message is that, indeed, there are lots of guns both in Canada and in the United States, yet the number of gun-related deaths (per person) in the US seems worse than in Canada. This is the point that "Bowling for Columbine" was trying to make... however it is a great exagerration to say that there are "more guns than people" in Canada.

Actually, the U.S. has way more guns than Canada, even per capita. Something like 0.25 for Canada and 0.82 for the U.S. We kick their ass when it comes to gun ownership. I got those numbers from some Canadian gun control site, but they are probably accurate.

Canadians have about .25 guns/person, the US has about .89 guns/person.

Or might not. Statistically, the case is awfully weak. In Australia, England, and every state in the U.S., there's been a decided tendency for murder rates to increase after gun control laws are made more strict.

Funny, this this table (which contains data for quite a number of countries around the world) tells a much different (and complicated) story. Which just goes to show that the issue is not so nearly cut and dried as you seem to think.

As I mentioned, read up on the Warsaw Resistance. The Jews in Warsaw did exactly that. Starting with a couple dozen firearms, they held off the German army for a month.

In the end, the Germans gave up and burned the city.

First of all, I conceed that people can, for a small time, defend themselves against the government, assuming the circumstances are right. However, in the end, the government will win. Why? Resources, plain and simple.

Now, about burning down Warsaw, it appears you may be overstating things. According to this, they simply burned down the houses in the Warsaw Ghetto, not the entire city... something I'm sure the Nazis were willing to do to any Jewish ghetto, if necessary.

Why did this happen in the US and not anywhere else? Is that game sorely sold in the US? No.

Check this site for Gun data.

The link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas.

Canada is the closest neigbourgh and why is the ratio so low? They ban all handguns and you need to register all rifles.

I'd be more worried about Gun control than game ratings. You can buy a gun at walmart and yet you can't buy CD's with parental advisory stickers??!? What's going on in this country?

Yes, mom or dad bought the game, but what the hell were those kids doing with an unlocked gun? Those parents are as guilty and should be jailed by now.

It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.

In 1998 per capita gun ownership was :

.25 guns per every Canadian (only 1 in 4 Canadians owns a gun)

.82 guns per every American (overwhelming majority of Americans own a gun)

In 1998 per capita homicide rates per 100,000:

4.3 Canadians killed

11.4 Americans killed

This is taken from http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm I found through google. Yes it's pro gun control but the references are there if anyone wants to go to the library and check the stats.

This person asked for facts not people's lame opinions backed up hearsay.

I'm not sure where Moore got his statistics but they are completely outside of any statistics on gun ownership that I've ever seen.

See International Comparisons at,

The coalition for gun control

for more statistics (compiled from Centre for Justice Statistics; FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada Homicide Survey; Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice (Kwing Hung) June 2001).

The stats I found first at Google are from 1997/8, but I doubt it's changed that much. First, gun ownership per capita is much higher in the US, 0.82 vs 0.25, a three-fold increase. As for the two orders of magnitude difference in total homicides (NOT the rate), that's explained in large part due to the order of magnitude increase in people. Although the increase in the rate of murders commited with firearms is impressive at 0.5/100K Canada to 4.4/100K US, almost a full order of magnitude.

It's also interesting to note that the US still has a higher non-firearm murder rate at 1.3/100K Canada vs 2.3/100K US. The US also has a higher robbery without firearm rate with 78/100K Canada vs 102/100K US. Also interesting is how much closer the total firearms deaths are. 4.3/100K in Canada vs 11.4/100K in the US. Only a factor of 2.7 apart. This is due to the fact that the large numbers of suicides commited with firearms tends to even the lopsided murder numbers.

Oh, here's the URL Canda vs. US Gun Stats Intersting stuff for thought no matter what side you're on in the debate.

Handguns arent about protection. If they were, then why on earth would countries with the lowest number of guns have the fewest gun deaths, and those with the most guns have the most deaths?

Go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and find the /real/ crime statistics. Then come back and tell me what you think of the NRA's bullshit. Because that's what those statistics are - bullshit.

You say you don't know much about Australia's style of government? Then why the fuck do you feel qualified to comment on something like this?

You talk about Australia respecting it's citizen's rights? Well, how about the right to go about our daily life without dealing with a firearms murder rate like the US's? The US has a firearms homicide rate that's /15/ times as high as that in Canada, and almost that much higher than it is in Australia. Personally, I'd rather live without /that/ piece of crap than worry about some stupid idea like /your/ precious 2nd amendmant.

The US is the only place in the world where the majority seriously believe that /everyone/ has a god-given right to own machines that are specifically designed for killing. The rest of the world sees gun ownership as a priveledge, and a priveledge that carries with it heavy responsibilities. Australians are /happy/ to have laws that ban most guns. Canadians are happy to have similar laws. Likewise the population of the UK, and most of Europe.

And if you think I'm any less 'free' than you are, /you/ need to get your head out of your arse. Take a look around your wonderful home of the free, and tell me if you really /are/ as free as you'd like to think. And then come /here/, and look around for a bit, and tell me if I'm living under the thumb of an oppressive government that wants to make a puppet of me.

Yes, our government has made mistakes, and yes some of them are really bloody stupid. But so has your government. The difference is, the Australian government presides over a country where the firearms murder rate is a small fraction of what it is in the US. I'm proud of that fact, and you can go fuck yourself if you think regulating gun ownership is too high a price to pay for this.

himi

OK, I hoped I wouldn't have to dive into a resulting flamewar, but this deserves a response.

The answer is I wouldn't even consider living within an urban area where this was even a realistic possibility within my lifetime.

How could you consider even living in a city with your children if there was even the slimmest chance of this happening?!? Who cares if you know how to operate the gun. What about your kids walking home from school, staying at a friends house, etc. I don't want to lock my kids in a steel cage to protect them.

Not to say this never happens up in Canada, but practically, it just doesn't happen. I'm 26, and I can say I've never personally seen or heard a gun fired on the street in the city or near my home in my lifetime.

So I watch the statistics and if things are too probable for comfort, I MOVE. The probablilities of someone coming into my home are way less than say, my kids finding the gun+ammunition (even if they're stored seperately) than someone bursting into my home.

Let's try to dig up some Vancouver stats to justify my argument...

OK: http://king.thestar.com/thestar/homicides/graphs/v ancouver.html

So about 6 homicides per 100,000. Count my family, chances about 24 per 100,000, extended family, lets' say 1 in a thousand per year. That's for all weapons, not just guns.

More stats here. Last year there were about 1,000 firearms deaths in Canada, about 85% of those being SUICIDE. So 150 gun homicides total per year in a country of roughly 30 million. That's about 2 per 100,000.

Maybe I'm just being naive because I haven't been shot yet. I'll let you know when I am.

Oh well, there goes my karma...