I’ve gone target shooting hundreds of times, with tens of people, yet no one was shot.
How could that be?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that gun possession makes it impossible to not kill anyone.
Sorry, I didn’t know the subject of my denial.
I will make you a deal, I will turn in my legal handguns if you can find a way to get the vast majority of the illegal ones out of the hands of criminals. I agree that the US would be better off without everyone having a pistol handy, but I refuse to live in a world the criminals have guns and I don’t. If there is some way that you can get most, not all, of the illegal guns gone, so are mine. I promise.
Capt
Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread:
We can have all patrol cars equipted with scanning metal detectors. When it is triggered, the person on the street will be searched, and arrested if in illegal posession of a firearm. Sound good, trading rights for security?
Is the availability of handguns any different in Detroit than it is in Plano TX?
What explains the ~ 30x difference in the homicide rate between the two cities?
How about New Orleans and San Jose? Almost 35x greater in the former compared to the latter.
Seriously Leaffan, read the article I linked to a few posts upthread. It addresses every point you’ve raised so far: “impulse” killings, the “lethality” factor, and more. The authors sum up every argument I could make against thinking that restricting firearms will reduce violence and they say it better than I could.
Nope I did not, perhaps you missed my point. I am willing to try to look for a solution
I am not looking for points on an “unsolvable problem”
Capt
Since when have I advocated for a police state to search everyone for guns?
Capt
My solution, not yours.
Looks like all we need to do is to prohibit anyone between the ages of 17 and 35 from owning a gun. Either that, or only let women own guns.
Aggregate data show a three or four to one difference in homicide rates between Canada and the US. Forget about cherry picking cities, the aggregate data prove my position.
Hand guns kill people. Reduction or restriction of hand guns lowers homicide rates. Again, you are in complete denial if you can’t realize these basic facts. I’m frankly stupefied why you would even question the validity of the data I’ve provided.
This basic fact is not clear to me. Explain the fact that there are bans on handguns in NYC, DC and Chicago and they have high murder rates, please.
Well duh, of course if you want to kill someone a gun is the weapon of choice if you can get them. The question is, how many of those homicides wouldn’t have happened if guns just plain didn’t exist? Some certainly but most? Or even many or even half? In the case of homicide you’re reversing cause and effect. And saying that “guns lead to gun deaths” is a tautology similar to saying “alcohol leads to inebriation”- on a superficial level of course it’s true. But the prohibitionist argument “therefore to eliminate (or at least sharply reduce) gun deaths/drunkenness, eliminate guns/alcohol” doesn’t work in real life. Prohibition of either guns or alcohol ignores the fact that millions of people don’t abuse them, that there are arguably benefits as well as drawbacks, punishes the innocent for the misdeeds of the guilty, and is little deterrent to the people most determined to misuse them.
ETA: and please don’t say that the lower crime/violence/murder rate in Canada where guns are more restricted in and of itself proves your point. Correlation does not equal causation.
Don’t know. What are the restrictions. How do they compare to Canada’s restrictions?
As I already indicated Chicago, a very similar city to Toronto, has 8 times the homicide rate. Hand guns are not allowed in Toronto, although there have been some hand gun murders from guns smuggled in from the US, thanks by the way.
What is the legislation in Chicago and how does it compare to Toronto?
I’m not cherry picking cities. Comparison of homicide rates within the US is more relevant to US policy than comparison to other countries. Why on earth would you think it’s more valid to compare homicide rates between Chicago and Montreal or Toronto than between Chicago and NYC? Or, for that matter, Buffalo and NYC?
You have a hypothesis: high US homicide rates are caused solely but the availability of hand guns. You claim this with scientific authority.
I offer you a change to put your hypothesis to the test. If it is a good hypothesis, it should have predictive value. If it doesn’t, then it’s no good.
Why doesn’t your hypothesis predict the very large fluctuations in homicide rates throughout the US? If you can’t explain that, then you are the one in denial. There are quit a few states in the US which have homicide rates as low, or lower than Canada as a whole. US policy is better informed by those places within the US that have low homicide rates.
In what ways is Toronto similar to Chicago?
Are you going to respond to Lumpy’s last post?
And let’s keep this whole US/Canada thing in perspective. The murder rate per 100,000 people is:
Canada: 1.6
USA: 4.2
If we look at just firearm related deaths, it’s:
Canada: 4.78
USA: 10.27
Again, there are much, much larger swings between cities or even states in the US than between the countries as a whole. It sure looks like you are losing a lot of information by looking only at country-by-country statistics.
Yeah, you’re right. Toronto and Chicago, two major Great Lake cities with similar climates and populations have nothing in common: especially the murder rate.
Lumpy’s last post posits that if guns weren’t available, then another method of murder would have taken place. I can’t argue with that, but I find it preposterous, ridiculous, and flawed.