Gun Control - An argument in favor?

I understand the American mystique about firearms. I was raised in rural Western New York State and bagged my first rabbit at 11, pheasant at 15 and deer the following year. I was a competitive skeet shooter, my father a pistol man, he was rather deadly with a .357 Smith and Wesson.

But, here in Canada there is no such love affair, respect perhaps, and among the sensible shoe set, fear.

The land of baby seal clubbers and hockey players takes a dim view of people who want to use guns for anything but sport, and even those face harsh fines and community service if they do not store their weapons and ammunition safely.
If you use a gun here to commit a crime, you WILL go to jail, a sentence usually reserved for serious repeat and violent offenders, and corporate cheats and tax evaders...they do time..

And so I came across this, this interesting and short item of October 11, 2013 about a metropolitan area of just over 4 million and the 5th murder of the year...that's right FIVE, as in one more than four and one less than six, is a news item.

What area of 4 million in the US has a murder rate in single digits? And if this were the US would not 5 murders be headline news because its so small?

Is there a connection between strict gun control and an anti-gun culture and a low murder rate? Or, are Canadians simply too boring to kill each other?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...in-vancouver-s-5th-homicide-of-2013-1.1990838

I cannot get an on line copy of one of our "subway' rags, but one of them is headlining it "Another Gangland Hit!"

 

Gun control is doing what your father did...hitting your target.

Gun confiscation is what the Democrats want to do.

 

El Paso is a city of one million people, and right across the river from Mexico's most dangerous city which is Juarez. El Paso has about one murder a year. El Paso is in Texas, which has the second most liberal set of gun laws in the country.

 

I think in this case, it's better to notice the culture and not the guns. I'm for stricter gun controls in some ways, but I'm surely not a 'disarm America' kind of guy. It was noted on this forum by someone from Canada that there's not a lot of angst between races, discrimination is a thing of the past and if you look at their laws and support for the lower class, it's much higher, so there's generally less things to be angry about there in both economic terms and social terms. This by no means is the reason for their low crime rate, I think it goes deeper than that, as it's a thing of respect and how respect is gained. In America it seems that power gets you respect, showing respect first in order to gain respect. It's over simplifying and I'm by no means a scholar of Canadian culture, but I do think it's a culture difference that sets them apart from us and why they're less violent as a nation. I think if they had the same gun laws we have here, you wouldn't see a significant difference in their homicides.

Other people have different theories, such as us being the land of prescription drug zombies and other such borderline conspiracies. I do wish more was done in terms of education of gun safety as a requirement to own a gun and harsher penalties for firing it at another person (stand your ground is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in terms of gun laws), but that won't really do much to change our culture of violence. As well, when you look at the United States' history as a whole, we tend to worship our military, which is a subtle way of worshiping violence in general.

It's a complex issue and one that gun laws won't solve on it's own. It would have to be a complete change of American culture in terms of respect (for each other and for firearms), discipline in terms of reactionary measures to perceived threats and of course, penalties for failure to seek justice first. For instance, if someone breaks into a home to steal a stereo and a person shoots them, both parties should be charged. One for theft and the other for assault with a deadly weapon.

As well, it's also noteworthy to point out a lot of gun deaths in America are categorized as suicide. Quite a few actually. I don't know the numbers off hand and am too lazy to look it up, but if I remember correctly, some 30% of gun deaths in America are suicide which drastically lowers the gun homicide numbers from the generalized 'gun deaths' statistic. As well, our murder and crime rates have been steadily going down for the past 30 years, though I cannot discern why that is since nothing has really change a whole lot in terms of laws and punishment. I suppose the 2 million or so prisoners we have could be a result of that, but somehow I doubt it.

 

Its a fairly straight question with what I think is a straight answer. Americans fought for their freedom, they earned it and the right to own firearms. Taking them away is symbolic of losing the very freedoms citizens before us gave their lives for. To willingly give up freedoms to people who want to take them away from you is the most vile Anti-American stance you can take.
Reality is no one will ever be able to take them away. How are you going to take guns away from people if you gave up your freedom to own one? You cant. You gave up that chance. Any human who willingly gives up their freedom doesn't deserve it. That's why people fight and often die protecting it. Because freedom above all is the single most important human trait.

 

Good post while I am more of a anti-additional control kind of person. I can respect reasonable positions.

While it might sound silly the best evidence I have seen for the crime reduction is banning leaded gasoline. The crack epidemic of the 80's and early 90's also inflated the numbers.

 

Some great points there and I agree our culture is not prone to violence.

However the speculative point about whether the US would benefit from stricter controls has never been tested. Further, we DID have a problem in our cities some years ago, which has eased in part by stricter controls, especially on security, preventing gun theft.

Your points about race relations are dead on, I believe it has been I who has been making the point that Canada enjoys racial freedom...and a bit surprised at the frankness of that statement.

There may also be a point too, that we in Canada are shifting from seeing drug addiction as a crime to what it really is, a health issue.

 

Let's compare the demographics of Vancouver to say, Chicago, one of the deadliest cities. You will find that the demographic that causes almost 50% of gun homicides are only about 1% in Vancouver but about 32% in Chicago. Even then, it is cultural and that cultural difference may not exists as strongly in Canada.

Guns are not the problem in either case, it is culture or better yet, lack of social mores.

 

Well, Canadians fought for their freedom too...against the US..twice.

No one on this forum and certainly not me has suggested taking guns away...and that is NOT the case here. Any Canadian adult with no criminal record can buy a firearm after taking a course on the law, safe handling and theft prevention. I would suggest to you the Canada could NEVER enforce a complete ban and would never think of trying.

Frankly I am astonished that so many seemingly well informed Americans see regulation as "disarming America".

From recent events I suggest there is a whole segment of the population that has needed disarming for awhile.

It seems the ones saying "you can have my weapon when you pry it from cold dead hands are the ones who SHOULDN'T have a gun.

 

I was informed about this leaded gasoline study a few weeks ago..and its fascinating.

I am not at all skeptical and look forward to the next installment.

There is also the factor of leaded paint in there that some people are saying is a factor as well.

But the figures are almost identical across cultures which proves the thesis but goes in the opposite direction of explaining the differences in the crime rate between countries

 

Basically what you are saying it to take guns away from Americans because that is the cry against it. Most of the gun crime is not being committed by law abiding citizens and most of it is in certain geographic locations in certain segments of society and drug related. Ban drugs and you solve most of the problem. Unfortunately, more gun laws will work just as well as banning drugs has. It will not affect those committing most of the crime.

A small win in California. The Governor vetoed a bill that would have made any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine illegal. They already have bans for so called 'assault weapons'. What is common to those guns? Very few are used in crime so banning them really has little effect. What it shows is the 'agenda' for those that will continue to chip away at banning guns. They will not stop. Ever. It will take an educated populous to stop them and their propaganda but it looks more and more like that is a thing of the past.

 

Excellent point....but I am not buying all of it.

A lack of social mores is indeed what I have been thinking along with the collapse of family values...and...a culture that demands gun control qas opposed to one that see ANY attempt to regulate as "disarming America".

Veiled in your post is the assertion that blacks are responsible for the majority of crime in Chicago....

I will, at risk of being labelled a racist accept that for now. For the record, Vancouver's black population is far less than 1%, that would be a Canadian average I suspect. While there are more dark skinned people here than white by far, there are very few true blacks.

Having said that, the OP makes vague reference to the cause of these five homicides as being gang violence and it is. Asian gangs, with at one time machine guns and grenade launchers, a bit more firepower than the black kid in the ghetto...

So we do have race-based crime, just not blacks. The black people I encounter here are either native to Canada, descendants of the underground railway or immigrants from the Caribbean who I find to have the opposite disposition of what seems to be a prevailing US attitude.

So my long winded point is that it is not skin color in and of itself.

 

Well I think its because of the liberal left. No one really objects to regulation. The problem is the left if given the chance will baby step their way into disarming citizens. People know this so they fight any and all attempt to even touch the second. If you give them an inch they will remove your scrotum.
Ironically, if liberals weren't so grabby less people would be prone to immediately set off the warning sirens when people discuss regulation. The other problem is crime. We coddle criminals here and screw the law abiding citizens. This forces more people into situation (like myself) to buy one when you don't want one. We can get into the slime that broke into my house and were let off with a wrist slap but I don't want to. Bottom line, Im down 20grand, have to pay 50 bucks extra a month for security system, they were on Facebook posting their grinning mugshots and laughing about the system.

 

Actually no, the connection between drug users and gun violence is negligible, the gun use is in drug DEALING..

And in that regard jurisdictions that have reduced penalties for soft drugs like pot show a distinct decline in gun violence along with a drop in petty crime.

Once again though, NO WHERE in this thread have I or anyone even mentioned a ban....

BANS DO NOT WORK ON ANYTHING....

I am stunned that a moderate call for consideration of stiffer regulations is seen as a call for "disarming America."

 

You will find the same here as far as disposition but many here see only what they see in the crime stories. There are a variety of reasons for the cultural difference but the worst is the particular leaders that push the victim mentality instead of personal responsibility. In the concentrated cities, high unemployment, drugs, gang activity, many of the young know no different and do not see a path out and wish to blame others.

Highest gun crime States (not separating violent crime from suicides) are the States in the Southeast, the States along the border like New Mexico and Arizona, and a State like Alaska (high suicides). There are many reasons for gun deaths. The only statistic I have ever seen and feel is valid is that more guns lead to more suicide by gun. It does not correlate to more suicides, just a different choice. Even that statistic is tenuous since there is no real count of guns, where they are, who owns them.

 

Well the slippery slope argument is used in everything....

We want some reasonable pot laws, where people with diseases and mental illness can get affordable access...

And a segment of the population, usually law and order types, say "Oh, this is a slippery slope it will lead to hard drug use....despite the fact there is NOT ONE study that suggest that and in fact shows that hard drugs use declines when pot is readily available.

I wonder if the right, guys like my dad who loved his .357 and especially his 1911 .45 caliber automatic that he retooled himself [he was a tool and die maker and remade 90% of that guns parts...it was beautiful], are not doing themselves a disservice with that argument?

You see, as the situation gets worse, and it will, the screamers get heard above the reasoned debate and you end up with nightmares like Obamacare...

I would say that if the right put thir heads together they could show leadership on the issue and find some acceptable restrictions, silence the extremists before they get too strong...

 

Now that is funny. True but I doubt if they could find their butt with a flashlight. Leadership is one of the things missing from Washington on all fronts. At least there are some politicians there that have the courage of their convictions but the ill labeled 'leadership' of both parties will not tolerate that.

 

Much like Australia

Here you will go to jail if you have a gun on the street - no excuses.

But then look at our gun murder rate

 

In most places in our country, you will go to jail if you have an illegal fire arm. Sometimes that can be for 10 years , or even life if its your third strike. If you commit a crime with a fire arm, BIG (*)(*)(*)(*)ING TROUBLE. 99.9 % of legal gun owners are no threat to anyones safety. Not much can be done with out trampling our legal gun owners rights. What is your suggestion OP?

 

You know, Canada has been there more often than the US....a leadership void.

What I know is that if you ignore it, it continues, a vacuum sucking itself. If you start to demand things...leaders arise.

The problem as I see it, is that true leaders are afraid to rise up now in Washington. I've seen some good people, regardless of political stripe get trashed by the system.....

In politics, leaders are not born, they are made...usually out of need. What I tell people now is start a parade...it won't be long before someone jumps up and say "let's go this way.." and a leader is born.

 

What is your gun murder rate? I have a feeling that like the rest of the Commonwealth it is very low...unless that garbage about Australians descendents from criminals has bearing, which would astonish me...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateAs you can see pretty low

 

I read about it a couple of years back it does seem sound. Have not read the more recent studies.

Cross country comparison is extremely difficult. While my opinion is the US is just a more violent culture. It starts at the top(federal govt.) and spreads throughout the population. The diversity, income inequality, war on drugs, and many other factors contribute to the problem. Ironically the rural areas of the US the place with the highest gun ownership has a much lower homicide rate. Basically on par with other civilized countries. That even applies to African Americans in the Rural areas.

Some other countries like Russia have much stricter controls than Canada yet they dwarf the US in homicide rate. I am a hunter and have been since I was 5 or so. Had a BB gun even before that so having firearms is natural to me could not picture life without them. I do not concealed carry and not really fond of handguns have no issues with people that do it is just not my thing.

 

In the united states, the extreme right wing which has the loudest megaphones at the moment think that any law is automatically going against freedom despite the fact it might help them and it works as a good way to shift the conversation out of the realm of reasonable. It's basically a name calling trick which derails any conversation instantly but done in such a way that you can't technically call it name calling.

Basically what I'm saying is that with people like this, moderation is not possible. And many times, neither is a constructive conversation on how to deal with violence in general. As soon as you say 'regulation', that's apparently what they think is code word for 'take all our guns!'. And sadly, that's far from the truth of what regulation is.

 

So often the public is attracted to the cult of personality, looks, smooth talkers but people with little experience in the real world.