Liberals to promise a complete ban of all handguns?

[festealth]

Yah ok, stats have come a long way, have you used SSPS to come up with your conclusions? How do you think they come up with crime mapping now smartguy?

well...i'm not saying that all stats are worthless. i'm just saying that you can't just take the info given and take it at face value. obviously there's a higher chance that homes with guns will have way higher chance of gun fatalities than homes with no guns(hard to shoot people when you don't have a gun around), the stats just correlated it.

as i reiterate, you must back up the above listed info with stats on backgrounds of the families where the fatalities occured, who were actually shot and so on...to make the report more (in)conclusive.

 

[Kev]

Really? Maybe you should look at these recent stats:

http://www.google.ca/search?hs=uLH&...q=head+death+guns+in+canada&btnG=Search&meta=

Your link proved worthless.

What part of "if you wanted to find information to back your claim" didn't you get in my post.

And you doing a google search to back your claim.

manpower, pacemaker................

 

[Discombobbled]

well...i'm not saying that all stats are worthless. i'm just saying that you can't just take the info given and take it at face value. obviously there's a higher chance that homes with guns will have way higher chance of gun fatalities than homes with no guns(hard to shoot people when you don't have a gun around), the stats just correlated it.

as i reiterate, you must back up the above listed info with stats on backgrounds of the families where the fatalities occured, who were actually shot and so on...to make the report more (in)conclusive.

Don't mean to disrespect you or anything, but I studied under the premeir mapping criminologists in the country, and they come to different conclusions than you.

 

[georgebushmoron]

Hey GMB, what's with the signature? Looks like something from Excalibur?

Yeh!!!!! Finally!
That's Mordred ("Vengeance"). And that's the spell that enabled his conception.

 

[Discombobbled]

Yeh!!!!! Finally!
That's Mordred ("Vengeance"). And that's the spell that enabled his conception.

Do I get a prize or something? An ok will be fine

 

[rampart]

Nice alternative?

So what is the alternative? The Fascist Conservatives in Reform clothing? Guys who would sell this country to the Bush Regime in a heartbeat. Remember Mulroney and his chummy chummy with Reagan. Give me a real choice. Give me someone who loves this country. Give me someone who is honest and cares. Give me someone who will speak for everyone. Give me someone who will take the spirit of Chuck Cadman and turn this nation into the example of promise and hope for a better future.

 

[Flogger]

Give me someone who loves this country.

Paul Martin loves this country so much that he doesn't even fly the Canadian flag on his ships.

How about banning criminals, sounds like a much better idea to me.

And to the people that say you don't hunt with a handgun.... many people used to (in the bad old days when you could buy dynamite in the hardware store and the streets were unsafe at night) and would still if it were legal.

 

[georgebushmoron]

Do I get a prize or something? An ok will be fine

What do ya want?? A case of beer?
OK

I'm actually impressed someone picked it up.

 

[Cali Scott]

"For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the analysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an analysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates. Killias found no evidence of a compensation process whereby other means were substituted with firearms. (Killias, M. "International Correlations between Gun Ownership and Rate of Homicide and Suicide." Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1993;148 (10): 1721-5)"

Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries.
Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home:

* Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home.

* The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, where the guns are kept loaded and unlocked.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

This ignores the fact that taking LEGAL guns away from law abiding citizens will have absolutely no effect on the handgun related crime rate.

Do you REALLY believe that not having handguns will do ANYTHING to the suicide rate?!? That's just plain daffy.

I wonder why Japan doesn't appear on this list?

I don't know where this author obtained his figures but the ones for Australia are complete bullshit! In Australia, twelve months after the ban was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Go to Google and search "Australia Gun Ban" to see how bad it's been for them.... The fact is that banning handguns DOESN'T WORK!!! It's not the guns that kill. It's criminals and hotheads that don't think before they act. OBVIOUSLY, if you want to kill someone a gun is the easiest and fastest way but banning guns will not make murders go away by any means. This is especially true with the U.S. and its plentiful supply of illegal firearms right next door. Simply put, it will never work, not in a million years.

* The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, where the guns are kept loaded and unlocked.

Well no effing sh*t! Of COURSE! Only a complete moron leaves his guns around and accessable to children!

* Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home.

More bullshit; where does this guy get these figures? How on earth can one say that it's more likely? Especially considering all of the MILLIONS of homes WITH handguns in which NO murders occur. Obviously those figures are left out of the author's equations completely.

This is firearms and doesn't indicate whether they're handguns. Do you really believe that people won't do this with a rifle or a shotgun? People kill people, PERIOD. If you want to kill someone you will do it with whatever means possible whether it's a kitchen knife, hammer or handgun.

Should one ban automobiles because in the hands of irresponsible people, they also kill?

THe fact is that once handguns are out there, getting rid of legal ones will have ZERO negative impact on crime. In fact, if you look at Australia, you will see that the exact opposite occurs.

For a good, objective look at he gun control debate read "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies" by David B. Kopel.

 

[Cali Scott]

Yah ok, stats have come a long way, have you used SSPS to come up with your conclusions? How do you think they come up with crime mapping now smartguy?

You are talking about the COLLECTION of data, Fastealth is speaking of the INTERPRETATION of data. BIG difference.

Really? Maybe you should look at these recent stats:

http://www.google.ca/search?hs=uLH&...q=head+death+guns+in+canada&btnG=Search&meta=

Okay, so how would you propose to get rid of the guns that are in the hands of criminals then? Are you so naive as to believe that they would register them or turn them in? If the criminals STILL have guns and the honest populace is unarmed then what do you suppose will happen to the statistics then? Go Google this: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...icial_s&q=Australia+Gun+Ban&btnG=Search&meta= for a precedent set by another portion of the Commonwealth. If it doesn't work there, it definitely won't work in Canada because there are more guns next door and profiteer's who will gladly risk smuggling them up there.

Hit number 5 on the Google search you provide speaks of a 16 year old shot in the head with a pellet gun. Should those be registered or banned as well?

Looking at the stats on that link it would seem that a LOT of these deaths are not even handgun related. The parents of these kids that get ahold of the guns that they own should be thrown in jail themselves. NEVER allow your children to have access to your weapons, never! Mine are all in a gun safe and a quick access gun safe. That's where they should be stored or at least with a trigger lock on it.

 

[Fudd]

OK I've cooled down now after Martin's little sleazy stunt of timing his announcement to correspond to the anniversary of John's Lennon's murder. Still a little pissed though.

In terms of using stats, graphs and research to prove a point. I've worked as a research assistent during school and found that it's very easy to make the data say what you want.

This is done by either declaring certain data invalid for one reason or another or using only a selective sample size. Other instances is when the research money is coming from special interest groups. If your doing research for a specific group who's footing the bill, researchers are most likely to find for the group. The research is already biased due to the nature of the financial arrangments. Researcher themselves can and are baised at times, especialy if they have some sort of personal aggenda. Some research is just outright junk science where the whole premise and theory is just garbage.

The most deceptive and dangerous is cases where a government ministry is footing the bill. In many cases, these ministries are under a political master who pressures the study to come out with a specific aggenda. And because the study is funded by the government, the public is more inclined to believe the results even though it may be wrong.

In short, don't believe all these so called scientific studies.

1) You should ask who is funding the study?
2) Do they have any interest in the studies outcome?
3) Is the researcher reputable and competent?
4) Is the research sound and repeatable?

 

[richrad]

world is getting less and less free. if you remember what happened in new orleans couple of months ago when suburb residents were forced to leave and an old woman was tackled by a police officer because she would not leave her home, you would understand that its all part of the american plan. canada is following the americans all the time. this is retarded to the extreme. for a while i thought that i was lucky to be living in canada, the freest country on the face of the planet, but i can see that hell is about to break loose.

 

[festealth]

Don't mean to disrespect you or anything, but I studied under the premeir mapping criminologists in the country, and they come to different conclusions than you.

well....since you got more experience in the field and i'm just some guy who just happened to come across this topic, i'm not gonna argue against you. i was just throwing out my point to those who would just simply look at the chart and say, "house with guns, people gets shot, guns bad". so basically i'm just asking people in general to research further before coming up with their own conclusions

 

[dittman]

i have no use for handguns but i fear my govt more then i fear my neighbor with a handgun

 

[mick_eight]

Don't mean to disrespect you or anything, but I studied under the premeir mapping criminologists in the country, and they come to different conclusions than you.

So you took one of Kim's classes. Do you know what Leyton said about the subject? Maybe not. He is a long way from BC

 

[tao]

There's an old army saying:
This is my rifle
And this is my gun
One is for shooting
The other's for fun.

 

[Fudd]

I think almost everthing has been said in support of banning, but I'll just add one more comment.

Mark Lepine, remember that psycho. If there would have been a ban of assault weapons before he suddenly went nuts, those women would still be alive. After the killings, that type of weapon was banned and no more Montreal style massacres have occured.

How much simpler can it be?

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...If there would have been a assault rifle ban in place before he suddenly went nuts, those women would still be alive.

'Cause theres no way he could have acquired any other type of gun.
Honestly, as good as it sounds, there's no way in hell that a ban will reduce crimes.
That's about as ludicrous as saying that making drugs illegal will eliminate addicts.

 

[Kev]

[/URL]

well....since you got more experience in the field and i'm just some guy who just happened to come across this topic, i'm not gonna argue against you. i was just throwing out my point to those who would just simply look at the chart and say, "house with guns, people gets shot, guns bad". so basically i'm just asking people in general to research further before coming up with their own conclusions

No he doesn't have more experience than you. Thats horse shit hes trying to sell you....and you should argue (or debate) as i prefer because..hes just one uninformed opinion on a topic he has no clue.

 

[Cali Scott]

i have no use for handguns but i fear my govt more then i fear my neighbor with a handgun

Well, your government would fear you a LOT less if you were unarmed. Thomas Jefferson was a huge supporter of the right to bear arms. He believed that it would keep the government in "check".