Castanet

grammafreddy wrote:Makes sense to me. Disarm people and that's where the bad guys will go.

Nebula wrote:Doesn't the U.S. have more 'bad guys' per capita than Canada? Doesn't the U.S. have a higher level of gun ownership?

What's that got to do with anything?

Pockets of the US have quite restrictive gun laws and those areas have higher crime. In areas where there are more relaxed gun laws, crime is less.

Consider, too, that CT has very restrictive gun laws and yet, this guy managed to shoot up a school full of kids. Like that worked well for them, didn't it? Obviously these restrictions did not stop this guy. And they won't stop the next one who makes up his mind he's gonna take out a bunch of people. Laws don't matter to criminals and deranged folks.

Shouldn't the real question here be ... "How can we make our schools safer?"

My point, gramma, is that your correlation is simply not true. You are trying to say that having more guns cuts down on the murder rate or something like that. It simply does not seem to be true.

England and Wales has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 guns per 100 population. The murder rate by guns in 2007 was 0.07 murders/100,000 people.

Australians own 15 guns per 100 people (about double the U.K.). The murder rate by gun was 0.14 (double that of the U.K.)

Canadians own 30.8 guns per 100 people (about double Aus.) The murder rate by gun was 0.51 (3.6 times that of Aus.)

Americans own 88.8 guns per 100 people (more than double that of Canadians). The murder rate by gun was 2.97 per 100,000 people. (6 times that of Canada).

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

If I just look at the four countries above, it is clear that the higher the rate of gun ownership, the higher the murder rate (substantially so). However, there are also countries with low gun ownership rates that have high murder rates and countries with high gun ownership rates with lower murder rates.

grammafreddy wrote:Consider, too, that CT has very restrictive gun laws and yet, this guy managed to shoot up a school full of kids. Like that worked well for them, didn't it?

I understand that you are saying that CT has restrictive gun laws and a guy went into a school and killed 20 kids. That does not mean that if CT had loose gun laws that that guy would not have gone into a school and killed 20 kids.

grammafreddy wrote:Consider, too, that CT has very restrictive gun laws and yet, this guy managed to shoot up a school full of kids. Like that worked well for them, didn't it?

Nebula wrote:I understand that you are saying that CT has restrictive gun laws and a guy went into a school and killed 20 kids. That does not mean that if CT had loose gun laws that that guy would not have gone into a school and killed 20 kids.

No, but it does mean that restrictive gun laws do not solve the problem and will keep people from going on shooting rampages.

grammafreddy wrote:No, but it does mean that restrictive gun laws do not solve the problem and will keep people from going on shooting rampages.

It is my understanding the AR-15 used in the shooting was legally obtained. How restrictive could the gun laws in CT be?

Nebula wrote:It is my understanding the AR-15 used in the shooting was legally obtained. How restrictive could the gun laws in CT be?

That kinda proves my point, doesn't it? CT apparently is .. what .. #3 toughest in the US?

The real issue is safety - and making gun laws even more restrictive isn't going to fix this kind of incident when those who want to blow away a bunch of school kids will do it anyway.

It isn't just a school thing. There's lots of other places where people have been targeted by mentally ill mass murderers. And they aren't all "gunmen", either.

Nebula wrote:It is my understanding the AR-15 used in the shooting was legally obtained. How restrictive could the gun laws in CT be?

I can legally purchase an AR 15, right in Kelowna.

So much for your US versus Canada arguments. An AR 15 is no more difficult to obtain here than it is in CT, yet you keep saying Canada is safer than the US because of our gun laws.

Rwede wrote:I can legally purchase an AR 15, right in Kelowna.

So what?

An AR 15 is no more difficult to obtain here than it is in CT, yet you keep saying Canada is safer than the US because of our gun laws.

I'm not saying that. It is true that Canada has fewer guns and a lower murder rate by firearms. Is that it? Is that the reason we kill ourselves less frequently than Americans? I doubt that's the only reason.

You, however, continually try to show that having more guns is better. I believe you have NOT shown that.

Nebula wrote:
You, however, continually try to show that having more guns is better. I believe you have NOT shown that.

Kennesaw is proof positive of my point. There's no better example of identical social conditions and demographics, side-by-side, that prove that having more guns reduces the crime rate.

You, on the other hand, have proven nothing. You're comparing jurisdictions on the other side of the globe with the US, claiming they are comparable when they are so very different in culture, social conditions, and demographics.

How anyone can argue that less guns would not mean less gun violence is beyond me. It doesn;t necessarily mean less crime, but it can't help but reduce the use of a gun during a crime. the problem with using statistics from the US is that for this less guns=less gun violence to actually happen you need to:
1: actually reduce the number and type of guns that Americans own
2: Give it 20-30 years for this change to become ingrained in the way people look at guns.

That is one of the reason that gun violence is different in most other parts of the world. The way that they look at guns is not from a "if I don't have one some criminal is going to kill me", but rather from a gun being used for hunting or sport (target practice). I would guess if you asked most Canadians why they own a gun it would be for the above reason, not because they need it for personal safety.

steelrules wrote:You know the anti-gun agenda by some on this forum just sickens me.
I posted a solution to these school shootings and was mocked for it buy people that think the guns are the problem.

The solution again is to put an armed retired police officer into the schools, 75% of the time when I drop my kid off or pick her up at school there's a police car there.
I feel safer knowing there's police in the building, and my daughter has a good rapport with the female officer.

So to he ll with those of who want our children defenceless in school.

The anti-gun agenda sickens you because you don't agree with it? You suggest putting armed guards in our schools. what about the movie theatre shooting? Armed guards there too. How about workplace shootings? Armed guards in all our workplaces as well? Let's deal with the root of the problem. Mental health and guns.

I don't care who is armed in a school, the minute that becomes a reality is when we have lost control of our culture. We need to stop the violence form occurring in the first place, not stop it half way through. the way to stop it is:
1: Change the whole gun culture mindset in the US by the adoption of greater gun control laws and then sticking to those controls for a few generations so that they become ingrained in their society
2: More mental health support to help identify and deal with these types of individuals before they go on this type of spree

Arming more people is not going to stop deranged individuals from doing these killing, making it harder for them to obtain the weapon they use will. It will not stop all of them it but it may start to stop some.

PS, do you live in Canada or the US? I ask as to give me some insight into your point of view.

LoneWolf_53 wrote:I haven't suggested "guns" be banned, simply assault style weapons, ones capable of firing large numbers of bullets in rapid succession, regardless of whether they are actual military guns, or some knock off, sold to the public under another name, that simply turns it into a semantics thing, and has no bearing on the overall issue.

LW,

Unfortunately, the problem isn't that simple and you can't solve it just by banning something. First of all, there is no definition of "assault weapon" or "militaristic looking". The rifles capable of firing large number of bullets (full auto) already been outlawed, and the shooting in question was done with a simple semi-auto rifle - which isn't that much different from a hunting rifle. When they outlawed "assault weapons" ten years ago, the law was pretty much useless because it was mostly protecting domestic manufacturers and created anecdotal results. For example, this gun was outlawed because it falls under assault category as described by the bill (pistol grip and folding stock):



...while this rifle was perfectly legal:



Banning high capacity magazines - although to me it sounds like the most sensible thing to do - won't prevent tragedies either - Virginia tech shooting was carried out with two pistols - 10 rounds capacity and 14. Hardly high. In this case, the guy brought 19 magazines with him - and reloaded it often.

So yes. A bit more complex that just banning few weapons here and there. Because at the end of the day, you're banning cosmetic features. In my mind, you have to go after the entire gun-happy culture, you have to put strict control into how weapons are purchased, used, and stored.

grammafreddy wrote:
That kinda proves my point, doesn't it? CT apparently is .. what .. #3 toughest in the US?

5th toughest, scores 58/100 in terms of saftey.

California tops out at 88/100.

Most states under Connecticut have single digit safety ratings.

5th best student in the class is 58%.

goatboy wrote:The anti-gun agenda sickens you because you don't agree with it? You suggest putting armed guards in our schools. what about the movie theatre shooting? Armed guards there too. How about workplace shootings? Armed guards in all our workplaces as well? Let's deal with the root of the problem. Mental health and guns.

I don't care who is armed in a school, the minute that becomes a reality is when we have lost control of our culture. We need to stop the violence form occurring in the first place, not stop it half way through. the way to stop it is:
1: Change the whole gun culture mindset in the US by the adoption of greater gun control laws and then sticking to those controls for a few generations so that they become ingrained in their society
2: More mental health support to help identify and deal with these types of individuals before they go on this type of spree

Arming more people is not going to stop deranged individuals from doing these killing, making it harder for them to obtain the weapon they use will. It will not stop all of them it but it may start to stop some.

PS, do you live in Canada or the US? I ask as to give me some insight into your point of view.

Kelowna I live in Kelowna goatboy and like I said earlier there's an officer in the school 3/4 of the time when I'm dropping off or picking up my kid. So once again we here in Canada are putting guns in schools "in the proper hands" and I for one like it.

steelrules wrote:
Kelowna I live in Kelowna goatboy and like I said earlier there's an officer in the school 3/4 of the time when I'm dropping off or picking up my kid. So once again we here in Canada are putting guns in schools "in the proper hands" and I for one like it.

The difference is she's there dealing with some other issue, not to be there to stop someone on a shooting spree. I have no issue with police officers in our schools, but not for the reason you want them there.

I applaud you for your safe and sensible handling of your fire arms. Unfortunately, these types of shootings and most other gun crimes are not committed by people like yourself. I'm sure you can also understand how the onerous procedures you had to go through to obtain your fire arms are also a deterrent to owning a gun and as such, make it harder for them to get into the hands of the unbalanced..