The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tony_S

No Koolaid here...I consider myself a pretty rational, intelligent person. I'm not a gun freak. I own 3 rifles, two bolt actions, one semi auto (.22) and two shotguns, one semi auto, one pump action(none are that scary black color). I think I could be considered an 'average' type gun owner in Canada. Not a gun nut, but not a tight azz either. I sit back and listen to both sides and form an opinion based on both sides argument.

My opinion...Most of the crap spewed by the Anti's' the msm and politicians, is just that, crap. The good majority of it is based on emotion, ignorance of firearms themselves, personal agenda and on the politicians behalf, a desire to 'quell' the masses(shut them up).
Better, more in depth background checks? I would be in favor of that. I don't think it would really help in most cases, but in some it could.

Banning 'high capacity' magazines? Complete horse **** that would achieve absolutely nothing.
How many people could this guy kill in a crowded theater with a legal 'low capacity' magazine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
18 rounds in six seconds. Granted, not many people can shoot like this, but half that speed wouldn't be an issue for a **** load of people. If Joe Blow can pop off 9 rounds in six seconds, how many people could he kill in the 2 to 5 minutes it would take for the police to respond?
OK then, lets ban ALL semi auto's! It'll never happen, but lets pretend.
I'll kick in my neighbors door while he's out grocery shopping and steal his pump action .12 gauge along with a couple of boxes of 00 buckshot. Next stop...a crowded movie theater.
Do you have any type of understanding of the slaughter and mayhem a person could unleash in that simple scenario? In close quarters(a dark movie theater)you'd kill as many, or MORE people with that simple shotgun than you could with that scarey black bushmaster even with a high capacity mag.
OK, another fantasy...there are no more guns! All gone!
Get on Google and tell me how long it takes to figure out how to make a simple...pipe bomb for example? 6 or 8 of those with short fuses...crowded theater...you get the picture.
You CAN'T control the weapon....only the crazy bastard behind it, and even that would be a failure in most cases.
Humans kill each other...all over the world, for thousands of years. The atrocities never change, only the weapons we use to commit them.
Off my soapbox.

So nothing in the argument is preventing you from you continuing to use your guns for legal purposes.

When hunting in Canada...how many rounds do you need versus are allowed in a clip? Are you harmed in your usage.

If the movie shooter had 5 round clip versus 100 round clip would it make some difference like better background checks?

Crime is often as discussed an opportunity moment. Making guns easier for criminals to get is bad. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding folks good.

Comparing easy to find guns versus home made bombs...not a good comparison. If easy then nuts would be using them. Making the actions harder means fewer incidents.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

No. I require facts.

If we start passing laws because we're each "using our noggin" we'll end up twisted beyond all recognition.




I'm glad you said that. It gets at the essential difference between you and me. I will try and summarize:

1. You answer questions with questions. That is immature. It's something kids do when they realize they've said something ridiculous.

2. Your comments lead me to believe that your mind is closed. You never show any attempt to understand your opponent's argument. Rather, you look for facile "victory" based on grammar wherever you can scratch it up. If so, reason will not work with you. It's like me trying to teach a hog to speak German. It wastes my time and annoys the hog.

3. This one is really, really important:

I have the freedom to whatever I want, as often as I want, wherever I want and with whomever I want as long as I'm paying for it and it's not harming anyone else or restricting their similar freedoms. I do not have to justify that to you or to anyone else. Those God-given freedoms come with being a human person.

I also have certain intrinsic human rights. These don't come from government or you, either. They are mine and I am beholden to no man for them. Two of the most fundamental are my right to defend my life and my family - and have the means to do so - and my right to speak. None of that can be taken away and those would do so are my enemy. It does not matter to me one iota whether you try to take those away in one gulp or if you attempt to nibble them away, thinking I won't notice or that I won't put up a fuss if you only bite off a little. That would be a mistake.

You have those same rights but if you won't exercise them, that's your business. Don't make the same assumption about me.

Those who believe I need to justify to them any of my freedom or basic rights are, IMO, trying to play the role of my God. The position is filled. Even if it weren't, I will not take that bit. Period.

That's a bit rough because it's a summary. But I think you get the drift?

Now.......where's your facts?

Ummm... I wont insult you back or call you names in this debate. I chalk it up to your passion which I get. However...the argument that you should do what you want because it is your right is a circle argument. It is my right to not have a person with a 100 round clip walk into a theater. So it becomes whose right is more important. My right to safety or your right to shoot a 100 round clip.

My common sense argument would be we can have both which you fail to comprehend. You can store your 100 round clip at a shooting range and go nuts. I can have a nice movie without a 100 round clip walk in. Problem solved.

Here is some data for your fun ready Rocky. It shows definitive proof of how laws work. Also goes back to the other guys Jamaica argument and your part about guns restrictions not making anyone safer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list

Gun ownership in the US highest in the world by a large margin. US gun murder rate is also highest in the developed world by a large margin. US gun murder rate is more comparable with third world countries. If you compare US with first world...loss...big loss for the US. Great news however. If you compare US with third world countries...they look much better.

So in other words...when normalizing the discussion to common sense...where you have developed countries that respect life like Canadians do, have an honest police force and good gun laws...gun murder rate is very low. Statistics like these simple ones don't lie Rocky. You can run but you can not hide.

Keep your Canadian guns...have at it. Even have drums stored at a shooting range. Best of both worlds for everyone concerned.

If I was to think about conspiracy theories I would have to start thinking guys like you are paid by the UN to make this an all or none discussion versus coming together in a collaborative and cooperative fashion to understand some basic safety concerns and mitigate them while enjoying some fun group gun banging.

In an all or none battle...it is a win/lose. If cooler common sense heads prevail...you can achieve a win/win.

[honda450]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

When hunting in Canada...how many rounds do you need versus are allowed in a clip? Are you harmed in your usage.

If the movie shooter had 5 round clip versus 100 round clip would it make some difference like better background checks?

Don't know many hunters here in Alberta that use clips. Fill me in. Were they were mostly used in war time to load magazines rapidly?

What kinda of "bullets" did they use? LOL

Another guy who don't know nothing bout guns and how they work.

I can make my 5 shot "legal clip" into a 20 shot "non legal clip" in about a minute.

But I can use my M1 Garand with a 8 shot enbloc clip semi completely legal, I just throw it into the magazine. LOL It ejects after 8 shots and within seconds I just throw another clip into it. Watch your thumbs, dang that hurts. LOL

Dang just going to get my AR Mini 14 out today and let loose. hehehe

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by honda450

Don't know many hunters here in Alberta that use clips. Fill me in. Were they were mostly used in war time to load magazines rapidly?

What kinda of "bullets" did they use? LOL

Another guy who don't know nothing bout guns and how they work.

I can make my 5 shot "legal clip" into a 20 shot "non legal clip" in about a minute.

But I can use my M1 Garand with a 8 shot enbloc clip semi completely legal, I just throw it into the magazine. LOL It ejects after 8 shots and within seconds I just throw another clip into it. Watch your thumbs, dang that hurts. LOL

Dang just going to get my AR Mini 14 out today and let loose. hehehe

This was posted before as part of the discussion.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/b...323-72-eng.htm

Whether you use 1 or 5 bullets hunting big game...when would you need 100...that is the point. For sportsmen I suspect everyone would agree 5 is plenty and even for some 3 should be sufficient. Purists would say all you need is one if you are a good hunter.

For those unsure of the regs between the RCMP and Alberta regs it will show how there is no practical need for 100 round clip hunting. Therefore if you need it for fun...make the law such that they get stored at a gun range.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/hun...s/genregs.html


Sorry you missed the point.

Cheers

Sun

[honda450]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

This was posted before as part of the discussion.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/b...323-72-eng.htm

Whether you use 1 or 5 bullets hunting big game...when would you need 100...that is the point. For sportsmen I suspect everyone would agree 5 is plenty and even for some 3 should be sufficient. Purists would say all you need is one if you are a good hunter.

For those unsure of the regs between the RCMP and Alberta regs it will show how there is no practical need for 100 round clip hunting. Therefore if you need it for fun...make the law such that they get stored at a gun range.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/hun...s/genregs.html


Sorry you missed the point.

Cheers

Sun

No I get the point. Still don't know what hunters use a 100 round clip or even if they are made. LOL Thats not even the right terminology, but you keep using it.

A 100 shot mag or a 5 shot mag is no more dangerous in the right hands.

Storing one of your so called clips at a gun range?

For petes sake they are magazines not clips. They are different.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It is my right to not have a person with a 100 round clip walk into a theater. So it becomes whose right is more important. My right to safety or your right to shoot a 100 round clip.

If we are allowed to invent "rights" based on emotion, fear or just inventing a right - as you do - then I claim the right to win this debate.

How's that working out for you? If you can do it, why can't I?

You need to establish - with FACTS - that my right to own a 100 round clip necessarily means that the chances you will be killed have increased. Stop with the "theatre" rubbish; it is a shallow appeal to emotion. The issue is whether you will be murdered, not whether you will be shot with a .223 while eating popcorn and holding a Coke.

Prove that banning 10, 20, 30, 100 or 1,000 round clips will decrease the odds of your criminal death.

Here is some data for your fun ready Rocky. It shows definitive proof of how laws work. Also goes back to the other guys Jamaica argument and your part about guns restrictions not making anyone safer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list

Gun ownership in the US highest in the world by a large margin. US gun murder rate is also highest in the developed world by a large margin.

That is false logic which has been debunked here again and again. If you intend to play whack-a-mole, I'm gone.

You still haven't come up with any facts.....

ps: If and when I call you names, you won't have to invent it. You'll know.

[greylynx]

OMG



If you are a hoplophobe do not go to this site.

http://www.sportsmansguide.ca/net/cb....aspx?a=811245

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

This was posted before as part of the discussion.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/b...323-72-eng.htm

Whether you use 1 or 5 bullets hunting big game...when would you need 100...that is the point. For sportsmen I suspect everyone would agree 5 is plenty and even for some 3 should be sufficient. Purists would say all you need is one if you are a good hunter.

For those unsure of the regs between the RCMP and Alberta regs it will show how there is no practical need for 100 round clip hunting. Therefore if you need it for fun...make the law such that they get stored at a gun range.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/hun...s/genregs.html


Sorry you missed the point.

Cheers

Sun

As a non-firearms owner, it wouldn't be fair to ask you what this rifle is, complete with a 50 round drum but I will anyway. Everything on it is legal, is non-restricted and you can buy them from the usual places in Canada. Anybody with an ordinary PAL can buy it.

That rcmp ref must be for your own use, as firearm owners normally know the regulations.



You don't give up the on "need" thing do you. Nothing has to be justified to you. I don't "need" one, you know that, but I "want" one because it's fun and there are a lot of rabbits....

[CNP]

Originally Posted by greylynx

OMG



If you are a hoplophobe do not go to this site.

Well, I had to look that up...............hoplophobe, wonder what the origins of that word are?

[honda450]

Originally Posted by ehntr

As a non-firearms owner, it wouldn't be fair to ask you what this rifle is, complete with a 50 round drum but I will anyway. Everything on it is legal, is non-restricted and you can buy them from the usual places in Canada. Anybody with an ordinary PAL can buy it.

That rcmp ref must be for your own use, as firearm owners normally know the regulations.



You don't give up the on "need" thing do you. Nothing has to be justified to you. I don't "need" one, you know that, but I "want" one because it's fun and there are a lot of rabbits....

Dang Pappy Sundance wouldn't even know what end to look outta that thing let alone load it.

That one of them high capacity clips? LOL

Cool looking rifle. By the way.

[Rocky7]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ca...267/story.html


Since when did the "appropriate response" to seeing a man carrying a rifle involve pointing loaded pistols in his face?

The RCMP are so far down the rabbit hole they can't think for themselves.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If we are allowed to invent "rights" based on emotion, fear or just inventing a right - as you do - then I claim the right to win this debate.

How's that working out for you? If you can do it, why can't I?

You need to establish - with FACTS - that my right to own a 100 round clip necessarily means that the chances you will be killed have increased. Stop with the "theatre" rubbish; it is a shallow appeal to emotion. The issue is whether you will be murdered, not whether you will be shot with a .223 while eating popcorn and holding a Coke.

Prove that banning 10, 20, 30, 100 or 1,000 round clips will decrease the odds of your criminal death.



That is false logic which has been debunked here again and again. If you intend to play whack-a-mole, I'm gone.

You still haven't come up with any facts.....

ps: If and when I call you names, you won't have to invent it. You'll know.

Your failure to see the facts does not diminish the facts. You have the data in the link that shows the US is closer to third world countries for gun murders than first world countries. It shows the other first world countries have better gun laws than the US. Therefore the US poor gun laws put more guns in the hands of bad guys which causes more deaths.

You can ignore the facts and saying you don't believe over and over again with hands over your eyes and figures in your ears does nothing but show you are the close minded one that can not see the facts as seen in this data.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Your failure to see the facts does not diminish the facts.

You have no facts. I have asked three times for facts that support your desire to ban large magazines. All you can offer up are appeals to emotion, fear mostly.

Fear is not a fact.

You'd better think long and hard before you decide that is how you want your society governed. Long and hard. The fear you offer up as "fact" will spread. It is contagious. It will spread to those who police you, too. You will not like what you create:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ca...267/story.html

Since when did the "appropriate response" to seeing a man carrying a rifle involve pointing loaded pistols in his face?

The RCMP are so far down the rabbit hole they can't think for themselves.

Someone's down the rabbit hole alright. Way, way down there.

I read the part about the Mother saying that the actions of the Police were appropriate but I couldn't find the "pointing loaded pistols in his face" part. I guess that you just made that up to jazz the story up a bit.

[CNP]

High on emotion, don't how the lady can relate so calmly...

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3251...ond-amendment/

[greylynx]

No wonder the yellow legged horsy boys drew their weapons on this special needs person.

Look how shiney those gun stocks are? Just like a Browning or a Weatherby.

Anyone who shoots a Browning or Weatherby should be arrested.


http://gadget.brando.com/the-rifle-u...1607c38d1.html

[Rocky7]

Canada banned high-capacity magazines in the early '90s.

Kim Campbell, that bastion of conservative thought who retired in disgrace to California with a boy-toy, was responsible for the legislation that did it.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Abo...ntrolStory.pdf

Marc Lepine used a Mini-14 with a high capacity magazine. The brainiacs of the day, like today, reasoned that the actions of criminals should determine the freedoms of the law-abiding. Regulate the thing and all will be well. Or maybe they only had the stomach to go after low-hanging fruit. Whatever.

Sundancefisher had no facts.

I have one. More than one, actually, but this will do:

ALL of Canada's gun control laws since 1974, including the high capacity magazine ban, have had no effect on reducing homicide in this country. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...-linked-study/

The contrary Montreal study used either 2 or 3 variables. Dr. Langmann used several, 8 variables, IIRC. Langmann's study is the best scientific evidence we have, bar none.

It is true that Langmann's study did not deal directly with the relationship between suicide and gun control laws. He reasoned that, since total suicide deaths have not decreased, what is the point in dithering over whether a batch of laws have caused an increase in the use of guns or the use of rope? To some of us, that makes sense. (rope is actually more lethal, btw)

In any event, I assume we can agree that banning high capacity magazines cannot possibly affect the outcome of suicide with a firearm?

That is not emotion. Those are facts.

See the difference yet?

[jkav]

Rocky,

I'm beginning to believe that the man profiled in this article is you:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62y...n-natio,30984/

In which case: why didn't you tell us?

Best,

J.

[Rocky7]

Are you really Hunter Dave?

Bye.

[jkav]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Are you really Hunter Dave?

Bye.

No; I'm me. My post, like the Onion article I linked to, was meant to be humourous.

Best,

J.

[Zuludog]

Originally Posted by Tony_S

No Koolaid here...I consider myself a pretty rational, intelligent person. I'm not a gun freak. I own 3 rifles, two bolt actions, one semi auto (.22) and two shotguns, one semi auto, one pump action(none are that scary black color). I think I could be considered an 'average' type gun owner in Canada. Not a gun nut, but not a tight azz either. I sit back and listen to both sides and form an opinion based on both sides argument.

My opinion...Most of the crap spewed by the Anti's' the msm and politicians, is just that, crap. The good majority of it is based on emotion, ignorance of firearms themselves, personal agenda and on the politicians behalf, a desire to 'quell' the masses(shut them up).
Better, more in depth background checks? I would be in favor of that. I don't think it would really help in most cases, but in some it could.

Banning 'high capacity' magazines? Complete horse **** that would achieve absolutely nothing.
How many people could this guy kill in a crowded theater with a legal 'low capacity' magazine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
18 rounds in six seconds. Granted, not many people can shoot like this, but half that speed wouldn't be an issue for a **** load of people. If Joe Blow can pop off 9 rounds in six seconds, how many people could he kill in the 2 to 5 minutes it would take for the police to respond?
OK then, lets ban ALL semi auto's! It'll never happen, but lets pretend.
I'll kick in my neighbors door while he's out grocery shopping and steal his pump action .12 gauge along with a couple of boxes of 00 buckshot. Next stop...a crowded movie theater.
Do you have any type of understanding of the slaughter and mayhem a person could unleash in that simple scenario? In close quarters(a dark movie theater)you'd kill as many, or MORE people with that simple shotgun than you could with that scarey black bushmaster even with a high capacity mag.
OK, another fantasy...there are no more guns! All gone!
Get on Google and tell me how long it takes to figure out how to make a simple...pipe bomb for example? 6 or 8 of those with short fuses...crowded theater...you get the picture.
You CAN'T control the weapon....only the crazy bastard behind it, and even that would be a failure in most cases.
Humans kill each other...all over the world, for thousands of years. The atrocities never change, only the weapons we use to commit them.
Off my soapbox.

^^^ VERY, VERY well put.

It seems both sides can produce stats that appear to support their position, so arguing statistics is kind of a moot point. I hope, everyone can also agree that no one wants to see gun violence, especially kids getting shot in schools etc. Looking at the big picture it is easy to see a common denominator in these mass killings, crazy people intent on causing harm. I'm not sure if there is a way to stop a dedicate, malicious, homicidal person from harming others. Background checks "might" help some but they won't stop the criminally determined intent on harm but they might stop some other yahoo's who don't show the maturity to own firearm but aren't necessarily homicidal. I'm not sure of the answer but knee jerk gun banning and restrictions won't solve anything other than making the naive "feel safer" and the politicians appear to have done something constructive.

I personally don't see the need for so called "black guns", high capacity magazines and a few other things that are facing increased regulation. I also don't see the need for jet ski's, crotch rockets that can go 200 mph, microwaves, poodles, cats, Justin Bieber, bingo and LOTS of things. The point is we ALL use and have many things that we don't "NEED" and lots of them are dangerous. I bet everyone here has many of these things in there house (and garage) right now. I DO HOWEVER support the right for people to use and own these "dangerous" things, even though they don't "need" them. This includes semi-auto rifle, pistols and even high capacity magazines and also cats, motorbikes and smart cars.

I hear people on here attacking the "gun nuts" and "conspiracy theorists" and are quick to try and ridicule them with the "tin foil hat" label. These "nuts" are the ones who are fighting for your freedoms and mine. I do believe in the slippery slope theory and not just when it comes to "gun control". It's ironic how lots of people believe in the slippery slope when it comes to civil liberties etc but dismiss it when it doesn't fit their view on things like gun control. Once you lose something it is VERY hard to get it back. Just look how long it took to get the LGR abolished.

No doubt this issue is dividing sportsman, hunters and gun owners and the ones benefiting from it the most are the anti's. The politicians are loving it because it gives them an issue to fight for and distracts us from their incompetence and corruption. I mean who doesn't want to save kids, right?

I'm not advocating we follow anything pro-gun just to produce a united front but take a strong look at yourselves before you quickly join the people whose knee jerk reactions aren't going to produce any results. Ask yourself if you'd really want to live in a place like Australia or Great Britain where gun control has worked oh so well? I'm not sitting at home hoping that someone invades my home so I can use the "castle law" to try out my "latest toy". I think (and hope) that most of you aren't either. I'm not a so called gun nut but am pro-gun, provided that they are used in safe, responsible & legal manner. It would be a shame to see this be the tip of the iceberg and in a few years we have no legal gun ownership at all.

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by doetracks

IMO it's unfair to compare Switzerland to the United States "as a country".

I am unfamiliar with Switzerland, but I am a bit MORE familiar with the US. It's been established that firearms laws vary from locale to locale within the United States. It's been established that areas with strict gun control show larger percentages of firearm related violence, and those with less control (perhaps no bans on ownership or CCW), smaller percentages.

It's like someone from somewhere else asking "so, how's the weather in Canada, today?".

Im not the one that continues to point to switzerland as the answer. Its the anti-gontrol zombies that believe everything Alex Jones says is true.

Gun laws in the USA very from state to state and so do crime rates. You must ask yourself the following:

Does New York city have higher crime rates because it has strict gun laws or did New York Impliment strict gun laws to help combat high crime.

A little research would show you that the laws were actually a response to high crime rates that existed when they had more liberal gun laws. The anti gun control zombies like to point to areas that have low crime rates and limited gun control, unfortunately these areas are often rural, not densely populated, or tend to be rather affluent. Not surprisingly what works in these areas does not work in cities like NYC and Chicago or LA. Dont believe everything you hear from Fox news (ps its main stream media).

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Zuludog

I'm not sitting at home hoping that someone invades my home so I can use the "castle law" to try out my "latest toy". I think (and hope) that most of you aren't either. I'm not a so called gun nut but am pro-gun, provided that they are used in safe, responsible & legal manner. It would be a shame to see this be the tip of the iceberg and in a few years we have no legal gun ownership at all.

Nobody is. That is Gun Zombie propaganda.

I've had occasion to point a loaded gun at somebody - legally. I know of 3 others. One lives here, the other 2 don't. None of us pulled the trigger. It's not a memory anybody wants. I'm not saying that is typical or it isn't typical and I'm not saying my experience is any more than my experience. I'm just saying that last bit you posted is typical of guys like me who speak up and are labelled. Consider where the labels come from when you hear them, please.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You have no facts. I have asked three times for facts that support your desire to ban large magazines. All you can offer up are appeals to emotion, fear mostly.

Fear is not a fact.

You'd better think long and hard before you decide that is how you want your society governed. Long and hard. The fear you offer up as "fact" will spread. It is contagious. It will spread to those who police you, too. You will not like what you create:

Your choosing to ignore the fact and keep asking for facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list

Look at the data. Download the data and see for yourself.

US with it lax gun laws is lumped in with third world countries for gun murders

Other western countries with regulations on high capacity mags and drums are way lower.

US is an anomaly with it's high gun murder rate. Reasons. Lax laws. Proof if you care to read it. I suspect you will once again just say. No facts. Show me facts.

Argentina
Barbados
United States
West Bank & Gaza
Liechtenstein
Uruguay
Peru
Sierra Leone
Chile

These countries have murder rates out of 100,000 in the following order

3.02
2.99
2.97 US
2.95
2.82
2.8
2.63
2.28
2.16

Top 45 gun murder rate countries

Honduras
El Salvador
Jamaica
Venezuela
Guatemala
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Trinidad and Tobago
Colombia
Belize
Puerto Rico
Brazil
South Africa
Dominican Republic
Panama
Bahamas
Ecuador
Guyana
Mexico
Philippines
Paraguay
Anguilla
Nicaragua
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Zimbabwe
Costa Rica
Argentina
Barbados
United States 2.97
West Bank & Gaza
Liechtenstein
Uruguay
Peru
Sierra Leone
Chile
Albania
Maldives
Congo, Dem Rep
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Kazakhstan
Macedonia
Bangladesh
Vietnam
Uganda

bottom 45 countries with lowest gun murder rate

Liberia
Portugal
Sweden
Croatia
Zambia
Netherlands
Nepal
Armenia
Northern Ireland
Denmark
Greece
India
Cuba
Estonia
Malaysia
Austria
Latvia
Moldova
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Spain
Czech Republic
Germany
Lithuania
Slovakia
New Zealand
Australia
Qatar
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Mongolia
Mauritius
Slovenia
Turkmenistan
Israel
Poland
England and Wales
Hungary
Algeria
France
Norway
Korea, South
Romania
Singapore
Japan

Canada is pretty close to the bottom pack with 0.51 murders per 100,000

US is 27th for murder weapon of choice being a gun at 60%

and falls in line nicely with these countries

Ecuador
Italy
Albania
Zimbabwe
Dominican Republic
Maldives
Macedonia
Guyana
Bahamas
United States
Costa Rica
Paraguay
Mexico
Vietnam
Belize
Argentina
Peru

Canada is 32%


US comparison to the world on number of gun homicides

34678
12539
11309
11115
9146 US
8319
7349

and falls in line beautifully with these countries

Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Venezuela
United States
South Africa
Philippines

Wonderful.

Hope you like the read.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You have no facts. I have asked three times for facts that support your desire to ban large magazines. All you can offer up are appeals to emotion, fear mostly.

Fear is not a fact.

You'd better think long and hard before you decide that is how you want your society governed. Long and hard. The fear you offer up as "fact" will spread. It is contagious. It will spread to those who police you, too. You will not like what you create:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Your choosing to ignore the fact and keep asking for facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list

Look at the data. Download the data and see for yourself.

US with it lax gun laws is lumped in with third world countries for gun murders

Other western countries with regulations on high capacity mags and drums are way lower.

US is an anomaly with it's high gun murder rate. Reasons. Lax laws. Proof if you care to read it. I suspect you will once again just say. No facts. Show me facts.

Argentina
Barbados
United States
West Bank & Gaza
Liechtenstein
Uruguay
Peru
Sierra Leone
Chile

These countries have murder rates out of 100,000 in the following order

3.02
2.99
2.97 US
2.95
2.82
2.8
2.63
2.28
2.16

Top 45 gun murder rate countries

Honduras
El Salvador
Jamaica
Venezuela
Guatemala
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Trinidad and Tobago
Colombia
Belize
Puerto Rico
Brazil
South Africa
Dominican Republic
Panama
Bahamas
Ecuador
Guyana
Mexico
Philippines
Paraguay
Anguilla
Nicaragua
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Zimbabwe
Costa Rica
Argentina
Barbados
United States 2.97
West Bank & Gaza
Liechtenstein
Uruguay
Peru
Sierra Leone
Chile
Albania
Maldives
Congo, Dem Rep
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Kazakhstan
Macedonia
Bangladesh
Vietnam
Uganda

bottom 45 countries with lowest gun murder rate

Liberia
Portugal
Sweden
Croatia
Zambia
Netherlands
Nepal
Armenia
Northern Ireland
Denmark
Greece
India
Cuba
Estonia
Malaysia
Austria
Latvia
Moldova
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Spain
Czech Republic
Germany
Lithuania
Slovakia
New Zealand
Australia
Qatar
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Mongolia
Mauritius
Slovenia
Turkmenistan
Israel
Poland
England and Wales
Hungary
Algeria
France
Norway
Korea, South
Romania
Singapore
Japan

Canada is pretty close to the bottom pack with 0.51 murders per 100,000

US is 27th for murder weapon of choice being a gun at 60%

and falls in line nicely with these countries

Ecuador
Italy
Albania
Zimbabwe
Dominican Republic
Maldives
Macedonia
Guyana
Bahamas
United States
Costa Rica
Paraguay
Mexico
Vietnam
Belize
Argentina
Peru

Canada is 32%


US comparison to the world on number of gun homicides

34678
12539
11309
11115
9146 US
8319
7349

and falls in line beautifully with these countries

Brazil
Colombia
Mexico
Venezuela
United States
South Africa
Philippines

Wonderful.

Hope you like the read.

Read this:

You have no facts. I have asked three times for facts that support your desire to ban large magazines

Again. You provide NO FACTS that support banning large scale mags.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

Im not the one that continues to point to switzerland as the answer. Its the anti-gontrol zombies that believe everything Alex Jones says is true.

Gun laws in the USA very from state to state and so do crime rates. You must ask yourself the following:

Does New York city have higher crime rates because it has strict gun laws or did New York Impliment strict gun laws to help combat high crime.

A little research would show you that the laws were actually a response to high crime rates that existed when they had more liberal gun laws. The anti gun control zombies like to point to areas that have low crime rates and limited gun control, unfortunately these areas are often rural, not densely populated, or tend to be rather affluent. Not surprisingly what works in these areas does not work in cities like NYC and Chicago or LA. Dont believe everything you hear from Fox news (ps its main stream media).

There is a problem in NYC right now. The cops can only hold 7 rounds in their Glocks without becoming a criminal.

Do you thing Yogi the Homeee is going to follow the law? HA HA HA

I have a question for you.

With all these tough gun laws, the police will have no need for guns. Right?

This is a question to all of the hoplophobes.

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by greylynx

There is a problem in NYC right now. The cops can only hold 7 rounds in their Glocks without becoming a criminal.

Do you thing Yogi the Homeee is going to follow the law? HA HA HA

I have a question for you.

With all these tough gun laws, the police will have no need for guns. Right?

This is a question to all of the hoplophobes.

You have interesting theories where can i subscribe to your news letter?

Will criminals follow laws? You need to ask that question?

Im pretty sure the police will need guns.


What i can tell you is that in 2012 NYC has had its lowest number of murders since 1963. The city has 1/4 the population of Canada. They are doing something right in that city. I was there last year and took the train at all hours of the day and night and felt safe. Didnt need a gun didnt see any guns not attached to a soldier or a cop.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

You have interesting theories where can i subscribe to your news letter?

Will criminals follow laws? You need to ask that question?

Im pretty sure the police will need guns.


What i can tell you is that in 2012 NYC has had its lowest number of murders since 1963. The city has 1/4 the population of Canada. They are doing something right in that city. I was there last year and took the train at all hours of the day and night and felt safe. Didnt need a gun didnt see any guns not attached to a soldier or a cop.

Sorry bud.

Lowest since 1963. Evidence based on one year. Thank you. I like the train part.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

ALL of Canada's gun control laws since 1974, including the high capacity magazine ban, have had no effect on reducing homicide in this country. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...-linked-study/

The contrary Montreal study used either 2 or 3 variables. Dr. Langmann used several, 8 variables, IIRC. Langmann's study is the best scientific evidence we have, bar none.

See the difference yet?

What did he use for baseline data to determine the regulations had no effect? How can he say that crime rates lets say in 1992 did not go down even though we had the regulations we have in place? What was the baseline data for 1992? Pretty hard to extrapolate a conclusion when you have no baseline data.

As for John Lott's work, the NRC of the USA (National Research Council) made up of 18 well educated and respected people including economists and criminologists reviewed Lott's work in about 2003 or 2005.. 17 of the 18 who reviewed it stated there is no correlation on more guns equal less crime based on the data Lott collected. Only one, a well known US criminologist said you could but he also stated later on that the rise in crime in England is due to the fact that England no longer incarcerates as many people as it did before. He flat out states that England used to incarcerate more people than the US but that has changed and the US now incarcerates more people than England. The report published in the Stanford Law Review regarding their review of Lott's work stated that once they corrected the input errors and added in more variables that were required found that Lott's conclusions were erroneous and in fact, one could argue that more guns equals more crime.

I always question results, I review, I see what others say because I want to know. Not saying that there is no value in their research, just saying one must be careful in how we use it.

To state because Switzerland has the gun rules that they have and that is why their crime rate is lower without examining cultural factors and differences with the US is misleading at best.

At the end of the day, it don't matter what we legislate, if Joe Q. Public wants to reign terror down on the people he will. Criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws of the land. In drafting legislation/policy I often chuckle saying here we sit tightening the loophole and there they sit in the coffee shop already figuring out how to make a new loophole. Fact of life I am afraid. Laws only apply to honest folk.

Okay you can flame away but be forewarned I am a trained firefighter, both structural and forest so I can handle the heat! LOL

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

What did he use for baseline data to determine the regulations had no effect? How can he say that crime rates lets say in 1992 did not go down even though we had the regulations we have in place? What was the baseline data for 1992? Pretty hard to extrapolate a conclusion when you have no baseline data.

As for John Lott's work, the NRC of the USA (National Research Council) made up of 18 well educated and respected people including economists and criminologists reviewed Lott's work in about 2003 or 2005.. 17 of the 18 who reviewed it stated there is no correlation on more guns equal less crime based on the data Lott collected. Only one, a well known US criminologist said you could but he also stated later on that the rise in crime in England is due to the fact that England no longer incarcerates as many people as it did before. He flat out states that England used to incarcerate more people than the US but that has changed and the US now incarcerates more people than England. The report published in the Stanford Law Review regarding their review of Lott's work stated that once they corrected the input errors and added in more variables that were required found that Lott's conclusions were erroneous and in fact, one could argue that more guns equals more crime.

I always question results, I review, I see what others say because I want to know. Not saying that there is no value in their research, just saying one must be careful in how we use it.

To state because Switzerland has the gun rules that they have and that is why their crime rate is lower without examining cultural factors and differences with the US is misleading at best.

At the end of the day, it don't matter what we legislate, if Joe Q. Public wants to reign terror down on the people he will. Criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws of the land. In drafting legislation/policy I often chuckle saying here we sit tightening the loophole and there they sit in the coffee shop already figuring out how to make a new loophole. Fact of life I am afraid. Laws only apply to honest folk.

Okay you can flame away but be forewarned I am a trained firefighter, both structural and forest so I can handle the heat! LOL

Did Langmann include the number of legally owned machine guns that exiist in Canada.

A multiple regression analysis looks beautiful until you test it againt the real world.