Guns, guns, guns ... let's have a REAL discussion

I largely agree with what you say (I live just north of Toronto, by the way). I'd just add one thought - statistical comparisons between countries, strengthening gun laws, and curbing production may be worthwhile activities, but I can't help but think that they're tinkering. I suspect that a strong root cause is attitudes toward guns and their place in society. Unless that changes more than it has in recent years (and I have no idea how it might), I really don't expect the situation in the US to change very much.

What gets me is that the pro-gun lobby in the US just ignore the mass of evidence that shows that the more guns there are in society the more people end up being killed.

I have seen it argued today that cars can kill people, ignoring the fact that handguns (with the exception of ones used in competition shooting) are designed for one purpose alone, to kill people. Cars, last time I checked, are not designed to kill people. Indeed the designers of cars go to great lengths to ensure that their products don't kill people.

They also like top claim that restricting access to guns will not stop criminal getting their hands on them. Probably not, but that is to miss the point. The person who carried out the recent shootings was not a career criminal as far as we are aware.

In the UK we now have a blanket ban on private ownership of handguns. This was done in reponse to a mass shooting carried out by a person using guns he legally owned. Since that ban there has not be a reduction in the use of guns by criminals, but there has not been any repeat of the kind of shootings that led to the ban.

I must take exception to some of these statements. Do you really believe a gun inventor wakes up one morning and desires to invent a new "killing" machine? Of course not. And, while I agree that cars are not made to kill, the problem still exists that any idiot can get behind the wheel of one without any sort of background check, no matter what state of mind he or she is in or no matter what he or she is high on. We have laws to the contrary, so do we need more vehicle laws? No, the need is not for new laws, but rather for lawmakers to use the laws we already have in place. Let's make prison not quite the country club it is now. If you wind up there, you'll get to work out, eat three good meals a day and watch cable TV. The only liberty prisoners lose is the liberty to walk out. If we had back-breaking work we made them do as in the past, prisons may not be so crowded. But wait, the ACLU might file a suit against the warden for violating the convicts' right to lay around.
What do you really think (and be honest) will happen if we ban all handguns? Some people are so narrow-minded to think that all handguns will simply disappear as soon as they are outlawed. Do you believe there are no more handguns in Canada, or just no more lawfully owned handguns in Canada? You may not like our bumper stickers either, but the saying is true that "only outlaws will have guns" if guns are outlawed. My pocketknives are just as much a weapon as every firearm I own. Why don't we highlight all the stabbing incidents? Maybe because those aren't attention-getters like shootings? Well, let's just outlaw all the knives. That way ALL the stabbings will cease forever, right? I don't think so. Whether you want to admit it or not, USA was founded on the right to keep and bear arms. All our other rights hang upon this right. Ask yourself this: How can I protect my rights if my right to protection is taken away? Exactly.
People don't like us "country-folk" having permits to carry concealed weapons. Have you ever applied for such a permit? I have, and statistics show that many, many people get denied for one. Then their application is a permanent record.
Don't get me wrong. Any school shooting is tragic. I can say with assurance there is not a single NRA member that is happy about what happened at Virginia Tech. Otherwise, I would drop my membership immediately. But the root of the problem is not found in a half a pound of forged metal. It is in the hearts of men. I have quite a few guns, and none of them have ever been fired at a human. But if this ever does happen (other than in a self-defense situation), it was not due to a change in the attitude of the firearm just lying there in my safe, but rather a change in my heart.

David,

I have comment for you. Handguns, with the exception of those used in competition shooting (and normally only take a single round at a time and take time to reload) are designed to kill people and nothing else. Thus yes, I would say a dsigner of a handgun does have in mind designing something to kill people when he is doing his work.

I also have a question for you. If gun owneship is supposed to make society safer why does the US have such a high murder rate ? No country in the EU has a murder rate anything like the US. You cannot blame being soft on crime, the EU does not have the death penalty (a condition of membership in fact). So just why are more people murdered per capita in the US each year than in the EU ? And why are more of those people killed using firearms than in the EU ? And why, if gun ownership is supposed to prevent this, does the far higher incidence of gun ownership in the US not seem to make any difference ?

David, you're wasting your breath. These people don't think the hearts and minds of people belong to themselves, exactly. They think that people are controlled and brainwashed by nefarious outside forces that force them to take life lightly and kill readily. They think that only by imposing "good" outside forces can people be manipulated in constructive ways, for manupulated we must be. We cannot be allowed to think or decide for ourselves. Guns are magic and by their very existence force people to pick them up and use them.

Experiences like mine, when I lived for some years in one of the few towns in the US in which gun ownership was mandatory, doesn't count. The fact that there were no murders and few other crimes against person or property there doesn't count. The fact that I and everyone I knew had ready access to guns but didn't magically turn into violent maniacs doesn't count.

Speedwell,

Handguns in US in private hands - approx 200 million.
Handguns in UK in private hands - approx 0.

Murders in the US per year per 100,000 - 8.40
Murders in the UK per year per 100,000 - 1.97

Using your logic the UK should be a far more dangerous place than the US yet the data shows your chances of being murdered in the US is far far higher.

There seems to be two possible explanations. Either gun ownership does not make any difference (or in fact makes things worse) or the US is actually an even more violent place than might otherwise appear and than without widespread gun ownership the muder rate would be in excess of 10 per 100,000 a year.

Care to tell us which, or profer another explanation ?

Wow, David, you summed up all the silly arguments and regurgitated them. Before I rebut I would just like to start by saying that I don't have a problem with legal safe ownership of guns, but we need to have an honest conversation about this issue and decide what price we are willing to pay to own guns. In my opinion, when the cost is our children it is too much.

The argument that gun makers don't design guns to be better at killing is just naive. What else is the goal of designing a gun. The fact that we get better laser sites on more concealable weapons kind of hits home there. That coupled with the continual goal of designing smaller but more penetrating bullets it is kind of obvious what they are doing. Of course, part of the industry is working on non-lethal solutions and the police seem to think this is a good thing. The problem with the NRA is that they don't want to have a conversation about doing everything it takes to make guns safe and work on alternatives.

You are correct that laws won't sort this problem overnight and banning most guns will take a long time to fix. Like prohibition, the upheaval in our society will be great. Unlike prohibition; however, I can't make an assault rifle in my bathtub, so once we have cured ourselves of this problem (however long it takes) the generations that follow will forever thank us. I also want to add that your point about prisons isn't an issue at all. No one wants to go to prison. It is a punishment that can work. The problem there isn't guns; however, it is overcrowding by having crazy laws about drugs and prostitution. Making gun ownership criminal will have a positive effect in the long run.

I'm tired of the argument that only criminals will have handguns if we make them illegal. Where do criminals get hand guns? From people who bought them legally. Gun companies don't purposely sell to criminals. It is our liberal laws on guns that allow them to be easily obtained by breaking into cars and homes. Making them hard to own will make them less available. Not overnight, but eventually and that is what we need to work for. Your argument about stabbings and knives is just ridiculous, you can't kill 32 people in a blind killing rage with a knife. That is the problem, guns make it too easy to kill and that is why they are uniquely the problem.

I am from Virginia and I have lived in Utah. Two states with the craziest gun laws. Virginia in particular has ridiculous laws as it is very easy to buy a gun there without any sort of background check. Also, obtaining a concealed weapons license is trivial in either state as long as you aren't a criminal.

I come from a long line of country folk who hunt and need protection from their environment. I would never advocate a ban on all guns as I can see there value in many situations and I like the idea of owning my own gun. The problem is that the numbers state the obvious fact that if I bring a gun into my house my wife and I immediately become much more likely to die by a gun and that is not a gamble I'm willing to take. Sure, I am less protected but from what is really what I'd like to know. If a criminal comes into my house with a gun it is only because the law says that I am likely to have one which makes the criminal have to up the ante to protect their own interest.

We live in a society. It is illegal for me to own bomb, a tank, a missile etc. etc. Why? Because as a society we have weighed the choice and decided what cost we could pay. We did the same with seat belts and now cars are much safer (in most states). If we had an honest discussion about guns and the role they have in our society we would make smart decisions about them as well.

There seems to be two possible explanations. Either gun ownership does not make any difference (or in fact makes things worse) or the US is actually an even more violent place than might otherwise appear and than without widespread gun ownership the muder rate would be in excess of 10 per 100,000 a year.

Care to tell us which, or profer another explanation ?

Sure, here are some facts of which you are unaware. You focus only on murders, and your estimate of privately owned guns in the hands of people in the UK fails to take into account weapons held illegally. In the US, handgun violence is fatal more often than handgun violence is in the UK. In fact, gun crimes are committed in the UK at roughly the same rate overall. Some stats from a 2003 article by Joyce Lee Malcolm:

"In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."

I don't think having guns available increases the amount of crime in a society. I do however believe that when a conflict escalates between two people, that conflict is more likely to turn deadly in a society with guns. However, I don't understand how you can take away one persons right to own a gun, because another person abused it. I'm not saying you should be able to buy a rocket launcher, but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to buy a handgun if I'm a responsible owner. Then I would like to point out that in Texas, the violent crime rate is still dropping. They don't have more murders every year they have less. This is the same for assault, and robberies, and this is similar to almost everywhere. We are living in times of more peace than ever before, every year less people die and more people live.

Speedwell,

Sure I focus on murders.

And the simple fact is, no matter how you want to play it, is that in the US you are far more likely to be killed with a firearm than the UK. And yet your claim is that it should be MORE likely as the general population does not have access to firearms.

So I ask you again, explain why that is the case.

And another point, if I am mugged, or my house is broken into, I am still alive. If I am murdered I am not. I know which I would prefer.

Right, you'd prefer to be mugged and alive, than not mugged in the first place because the criminal knows you can defend yourself. I get it.

Personally I'd rather be dead than forced to live at the mercy of any moron who can get his hands on a gun, with the blessing of the government, who would rather prosecute me for having the wherewithal to defend myself (since I'm relatively law-abiding and tractable and can afford to pay fines), than the gun-wielding mugger or burglar, who is troublesome and usually poor. But that's just me. I'm allergic to the idea that my liberty and property rightfully belong to anyone who can take them at gunpoint. YMMV.

In which country are you more likely to be killed by unavailable or unsanitary medical care, incidentally?

The question here is whether there is a practical way to remove, shall we say, >90% of the firearms from circulation in this country. That still leaves 20M firearms, and they will not be distributed as they are now: a much higher fraction of the circulating arms would be in the hands of people likely to use them. So I'm definitely in the genie's-out-of-the-bottle school. I see no way to impose gun laws restrictive enough to make a real difference in violent crime without imposing a genuinely authoritarian program -- not, I think, the way we want to go. There is also a serious constitutional issue. Although one can reasonably argue that the 2nd amendment refers to "a well-regulated militia" the right to keep and bear arms does refer to "the People." Every other use of that phrase in the Constitution refers to individual rights. Serious people can argue for both interpretations, and anyone who claims that this is a settled issue is either not following the issue closely, or is an ideologue. My own view (opinion) is that repeal or modification of the 2nd amendment would be required, and that this simply is not in the political cards.

It's clear that the prevalence of firearms in this country is closely linked to the relatively high homicide rates in the U.S., and prople who aregue otherwise are simply ignoring the data. I just don't think that this situation is likely to change any time soon.

One last point. Referring to violent gun deaths in NYC on the one hand, and concealed handgun permits on the other, is a nonsequitor. It's almost impossible to obtain a CHP in any big east coast city, and places with liberal CHP laws are not notably more (or for that matter, less) violent than places, like NYC and Boston, without easy CHP access. The truth seems to be that -- contrary to arguments of both sides -- CHP laws make almost zero difference one way or another.

I would prefer to be alive and mugged than shot by criminal who was only carrying a gun becuase he thought his victims might. In the UK most criminals do NOT carry guns. Most police do not carry guns. As a result we have far less gun crime than the US. We have far far fewer murders.

And I note you still have not explained why so more Americans are murdered each year than Britons, and why so many more are killed by firearms. I suspect you will not answer becuase you cannnot.

Haven't been following the comments of all the Sb's lately, but I was wondering:

If all this fellow had at his disposal was a knife, how many fewer do you think he could've killed before he was subdued?

Brian,

Four or five at most ? Probably less. I have never actually tried it myself of course but I imagine it takes some effort to kill someone using a knife.

It's worth noting that the firearms used were almost certainly illegally obtained on the black market, not legally obtained at a gun store. We know this because, according to the Washington Post, their serial numbers had been obliterated.

This fact suggests significant premeditation and planning. Serious creepiness.

Matt, I suspect you're right. It's shocking that someone armed only with a medium-caliber handgun and a small-caliber handgun wounded 60 or killed people, without being disarmed.Using a handgun is not easy. In documented police shootings it's typical that one in three bullets fired by police officers hit the intended target. These are police officers mind, who in general are relatively well-trained and certainly highly motivated. One doctor reported that the typical Va Tech patients he was treating had three gunshot wounds. In aggregate, this means that the shooter reloaded not a few times but many. A bare minimum of four reloads. Probably six or more. Each reload takes a couple of seconds, and both hands, even for a well-trained shooter. A fit person can close 12-15 feet in two seconds. It is surprising and horrifying that he was not disarmed.

First, thanks Speedwell for the obseravtion that I am wasting breath, as you are correct. But, I didn't learn my lesson. Really, thanks to everyone, pro or con on the issue, for your comments too. I am so proud to live in a country where you can voice your opinion.
Second, I still stand by my arguments. Okay, guns CAN kill, which I never denied that fact. So let's go ahead and outlaw them. Alcohol CAN kill, so let's get that also. Oh, cigarettes CAN kill, so we'll eliminate them while we are at it. We already confiscated the knives in the last post. The fact is all of these things CAN kill. Somebody please tell me what GOOD can come out of a drink or a smoke. The answer is "none", but that is my opinion. Let's hear the stats on alcohol and cigarette-related deaths. How many of these types of deaths occur each year, but we don't want to take people's personal pleasures aways from them. That's government intrusion. Never mind that shooting is MY personal pleasure. Let's regulate that to the hilt. Go look at your speedometer on your cars. Most register at least 100mph. We have cars on the highways right now capable of topping 200mph, yet the last time I looked the limit is still 70mph max in Tennessee. A car capable of this speed is ridiculous, but where is the regulation? All I have to do is be a whopping 18 years old to drive one.
And don't throw the existence of the death penalty into this conversation. You are simply reitterating what I said earlier. We don't need any more laws. Having the death penalty and using it are two different things. By the way BTM, if you have enough money, you sure can make an "assault rifle" in your own home, just like you could make gin in your bathtub (That is illegal, but don't worry, we have laws against it). Using that prohibition era analogy, who had alcohol when alcohol was outlawed then? Only the outlaws. And do you REALLY think that intruders will leave their guns at home if they know you don't have one in your house? If someone is so derainged and lacks respect for my property, where will he stop to get what he has come in for? I will not sit idly by and let someone rape my wife while I twiddle my thumbs, wishing I had something to stop him besides a rolled-up newspaper and 911. I promise you he WILL be stopped, and I'll gladly take the consequences. Also, I agreee that the concealed carry laws in VA are lacking to say the least. TN is much more difficult.
We are not talking about an incident with someone who can legally carry. We are talking about someone with stolen firearms. Let's get some stats on the deaths from people who were liscensed to carry and sued their gun. The test I took to carry still sticks with me. The instructor said "YOU are responsible for every bullet that comes out of that barrel.". I know a lot of you do not share my opinion of guns, but when I hold them in my hand, I do so with repsect. I know that it is a dangerous device. I handle a powerdrill with similar respect. If I drank, I would not drive. I would respect the drink. Some people do not want to use guns, knives, cigarettes, alcohol nor automobiles safely.
You can take every gun I own away and it would not have spared one of those precious lives lost at that school.

This comes down to a second amendment argument and therefore what is meant between the words "people" and "militia" in terms of a right to bear arms. In the main supreme court case that touched on this issue, Miller vs US in 1938, the court said:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

They ruled unanimously that a law prohibiting the carrying of fire-arms (albeit of a specific type) across state lines was constitutional. How this arguement/ruling has been hijacked since that time is beyond me.

David, I completely fail to understand your argument.

One more thing... By the logic of current federal drug laws there is no reason alcohol
and cigarettes should not also be illegal. They are drugs and are no different from marijuana, cocaine or heroine aside from different pharmacological mechanisms. They share addictive properties and can be destructive to society when abused. While I concede that there is ambiguity in the writing of the second amendment, an examination of the notes and public arguments of the Framers makes it quite clear that the intention was to establish well regulated state militias and avoid Federal intrusion on that right. At that time it was a Federalist / Anti-Federalist argument and the amendment is a compromise between the camps to protect the citizenry of the states from a potentially abusive Federal Government. At that time the term "to bear arms" had a military conotation, there is little argument on that point. I believe that the "strict constructionist" standpoint has been to ignore historical antecedants of language.

There is no reason I can see why the 2nd amendments call for a regulated and armed militia requires private citizens to own handguns. If the militia is required to defend me from "evil-doers" I'd prefer they have rifles.

And to my knowledge nobody is seriously proposing a ban on long guns.

Further, if I was to want a weapon for home protection it would be a shotgun, as if I'm forced to use it, I'd be less likely to miss my target, and the pellets wouldn't penetrate multiple walls and kill my neighbor

Theodore, my argument is simply that law-abiding citizens should be allowed the priviledge to own a firearm. While I believe it is a right, I feel we gun owners should consider it as a priviledge. In the case you mentioned, had Miller simply registered his sawed-off shotgun beforehand, there would have been no Miller v. US case. Each of these rights we speak of all refer to "the people". I cannot fathom how one can argue that our founding fathers intended for the 2nd Ammendment to apply only to the military when they used this same "the people" in the language. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is no different than the right of the people to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.. It is a right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is already infringed upon. I cannot legally keep an 88mm antiaircraft gun in my yard. What is really being debated is how powerful is the citizenry's armament allowed to be. An extreme argument might be that as long as we get to carry pocketknives we are "armed"

The only thing that's clear about the 2nd amendment is that it is shoddily written. If it were well-written, no one would be able to argue about what it says or what it means, and on that basis alone it should be revised or abolished. Again, though, I don't think that that is a realistic political possiblity.

Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with being limited to owning shotguns and rifles. My friends and relatives who came out of Poland and Hungary during the middle of the 20th century tend not to agree, though. They take the right to keep and bear arms rather seriously.

David, go read the writings of James Madison and others concerning the debate over the second amendment. They are available in every major library in the US. You will find that you are completely and utterly wrong. Only a modern interpretation of the term "to bear arms" supports your case. Surely the Framers did not anticipate how would we interpret these words. It is also unlikely that they would have concieved of handguns. In the Miller case there was no gun registry. Read the case, its also available in every major library in the US.

George, I completely agree, but I would submit that the writers of the constitution knew as much (on several of the amendments) and made the debate on them a matter of public record so those conversations would be a guide to future interpretation. Unfortunately, those records are largely ignored in the political realm. I think they are not ignored in the courts but there does appear to be a tendency by certain justices to put them aside when it pleases their opinion.

Speedwell wrote:

Personally I'd rather be dead than forced to live at the mercy of any moron who can get his hands on a gun, with the blessing of the government, who would rather prosecute me for having the wherewithal to defend myself (since I'm relatively law-abiding and tractable and can afford to pay fines), than the gun-wielding mugger or burglar, who is troublesome and usually poor.

I think this underlines the main problem.
The problem in the US isn't the presence of absence of guns. There are plenty of civilised societies in the world where people own guns. Only the US seems to have the murder problem.
The problem here is the culture that surrounds guns. There's a certain culture about defending yourself, that's partly developed because there's a certain culture amongst criminals about arming yourself, and that's partly developed because... get the idea? This is, literally, an arms race, and in an arms race, nobody wins.
The only way to defuse an arms race is to bring both sides to the table to agree to calm down.
And that's the reason why "gun control" isn't an answer: Guns aren't the problem. What the US needs is to reform attitudes more than anything else.

I'd like to preface this post by saying that I've been reading this blog for a while and rather like it. That being said, I am somewhat shocked by how completely you seem to have gone off the reservation in this post.

I read this post, and then the comments, and I thought to my self, it would be nice if both sides engage in a discourse.

The "anti-gun" side asks for a balance in our society. They compare countries that have lax laws with those that have strict laws ... proper science - you take a situation and change a variable. Sure it's not perfect but it's the best data we have.

An interesting beginning to discourse, to discount all other variables between countries. Economy, cultural values, urban density, etc. There are such drastic disparaties in variables between regions of our own single country to make such comparisons specious at best.

Then you the "pro-gun" arguments. Full of platitudes and mantra chanting and false comparisons (cars vs guns??? that is not what you call changing a single isolated variable). Second amendment defenders your lack of valid arguments is just proof of your untenable stance.

Continuing the theme of reasoned discourse, a lovely attack on your opponent is always in order. As is dismissing any second-amendment arguments as invalid a priori.

What most citizens want is a balance. The "pro-gun" individuals freak out - don't over react - don't do a damn thing. Unfortunately it would seem like the gun lobby has brainwashed your side. They've armed you with "frames", marginal arguments, and idiotic statements. Sure all the laws in the world won't change a thing unless the laws are realistic and curb gun production. So I guess that unlike the rest of the first world the US would work on that creating an environment that reduces gun production. But that's pretending that the government wasn't at the service of the gun industry.

I would first argue the point that what most citizens want is balance. I don't believe that, as I believe that most citizens are, at best, barely involved in any kind of political reasoning or reflection. Most, if they even vote, vote the party line without any serious consideration.

Curbing gun production would seem to be a good idea, but I fail to see how it would achieve its intended goals. I would imagine that clandestine gun manufacture would spring to life in a heartbeat as, contrary to a comment above regarding prohibition and bathtub cocktails, it doesn't take that much equipment to manufacture a working firearm. A lead pipe and a nail will make a relatively reliable shotgun. Some milling equipment, drill presses, CNC toys and you've got yourself a factory. Shall these be banned as well? And why would guns not be imported illegally from other countries? I doubt criminals would worry to much about the illegality of weapons smuggling, seeing as they're criminals and all.

By the by, Pro-Gun Brainwashing: Straw-Man? If you would prefer a serious attempt at making this point, by all means please provide a reasoned set of examples.

Oh and to you "country-folk" I couldn't' give a rats ass about your rights to conceal a weapon. The greatest toll is in the urban innercity. When some middleclass white kids get shot it is splashed allover the news, but you never hear about poor black kids in the city getting shot. Never. My wife worked at the federal defenders office in Brooklyn, NY and now at legal aid in Lowell. A couple of her clients (young black males) would get killed by random acts of violence, and you would never read about it in the paper.

I will admit that this raised my hackles. Before I calmed myself down and realised that an intelligent discussion of the topic shouldn't give way to insults and stereotyping. As for the greatest toll being the urban inner city, you're likely right. I live in Baltimore, #1 murder capital of the country if I remember recent tallying (also #1 for violent robbery! Yay B'more!) I hear a lot about poor black kids getting shot. Multiple times daily. How many of those guns do you think were legally purchased? Would banning handguns , as per the UK, have prevented a single incident? Probably. Would it curb violence in a statistically significant manner? I doubt it. If they have to, criminals will go back to using lead pipes and baseball bats.

As for the anecdote regarding urban black youth murders not making the papers, what is your point? Does this relate, even tangentially, to a gun control discussion?

I grew up in Montreal - just like any other CANADIAN city, it's safe to walk anywhere anytime, that despite the fact that Toronto and Montreal are way more dense, diverse and filled with immigrant communities than most American cities. But in the last two AMERICAN cities I've lived in (NYC and Boston) you would never think about walking anywhere anytime. Sure it is not just guns, it is schools, it is equal opportunity but I guess we are more concerned about mantras and ideologies to be able to figure out solutions.

Nice push for Canadian nationalism. I'm glad you're proud of your homeland. Not particularly productive, though. (An aside, are Toronto and Montreal more dense than even New York? LA? Chicago?) Why do you believe Canada has safer cities? You say it's not just guns, but also schools? Equal opportunity? I fail to grasp this final sentence.

I feel that your rush to an such an emotionally charged set of arguments only supports the point Knop was making. But then, since when have rationality and careful consideration of the consequences been part of our government, or even our culture? Not for a long time I'd say. And that saddens me far more than the occasional tragedy which is then used as a catalyst for sweeping, ill reforms.

MF,

I admit that my post was a little hot headed, and not that even handed. I am just frustrated by reading pro-gun arguments based on anecdote and theories. I would like to see data from the pro-gun side. How many crimes have been halted by guns? What is the effect that guns have on a society.

Canadian and American societies have a lot more in common than Canadian and European societies. But on gun related murder and suicide, Canada is closer to Europe. Sure there are many differences but the level of hand guns must play some part. (Note that although both Canada and the US are full of guns, most arms in Canada are hunting riffles.)

This comparison (US vs. Canada) doesn't spring from nationalism, I've lived many years in both countries and to me it comes naturally to compare those two experiences. In fact I believe that there are many things that Canada could learn from the US, but not in the realm of guns. Montreal is pretty dense - denser (pop/area) then Boston or Baltimore. Why do you think there is such a difference between Canadian cities and American cities with respect to violence? And yes it's not just guns but also resource distribution and a better infrastructure. But guns and a culture that places a premium on violence based solutions plays a big part. I just don't get why hand guns have to be so widely available.

As I've state above - I believe that it is the large number of guns that is the problem. They spread like some virus from sates like Virginia to the rest of the US. According to the papers, most guns in NYC and Boston originate from places like Virginia.

As for the illegal production of guns - I don't buy it. Even in times of prohibition they had to come up to Canada to make most of their liquor. I don't think that it would be that easy to start up a factory. It would seem to me that the US has a healthy gun industry and these companies lobby hard to keep it that way. But the US once had a healthy cigarette industry. If enough people wake up things can change.

Most arguments from the pro-gun lobby strike me as either naive or ignorant of the facts about murder rates, etc. but the constant appeals to the constitution really get me annoyed. It's just a document! A document written over two hundred years ago in a situation entirely different from that which we find ourselves in now! Sure there a load of great ideas in there, it's literally a revolutionary piece of writing and helped found what can be a great nation. You have to realise that it's not some kind of holy relic.

Maybe it's time for people to take a fresh look at it and realise that the English aren't threatening any more, there is no likelihood at all of invasion and therefore there is no need for an armed militia standing ready. As mentioned many times before, take a look at Europe - no private gun ownership and we seem to be doing just fine. We don't all carry killing machines and guess what? We don't tend to have these massive killing sprees!

Can't help but draw parallels with fundies using Leviticus to justify their homophobia...

Oh, and this line from David is one of the most inane things I've ever read: "Okay, guns CAN kill, which I never denied that fact. So let's go ahead and outlaw them. Alcohol CAN kill, so let's get that also. Oh, cigarettes CAN kill, so we'll eliminate them while we are at it."

Hmm. OK. Alcohol CAN kill but it only kills the user, unless you count drunk driving in which case it is an indirect killer. Cigarettes CAN kill but they only kill the user unless you count the tiny amount of deaths from passive smoking. Guns CAN kill. They are DESIGNED to kill. They are pretty much useless for anything EXCEPT killing (unless you have a fetish for particularly expensive gun-shaped paperweights). They can kill the user AND they can kill 30-odd students in the vicinity. This is, as always, amply illustrated in the various sets og violent crime/gun crime/ murder statistics from the US as compared to countries with gun control.