[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Doesn't make much intuitive sense to me. I didn't expect a large difference, but you'd think there'd be some difference. I wonder if you'd se more of a diference if you just studied that subset of murder called "crime of passion" where someone loses their wits and the "Bam! Alice. Straight to the moon." You'd think that access to a gun would make the homicide rate for that kind of crime higher simply because it can happen so quickly. Gun, flex index finger, done. Much easier than going all the way down to the tool room, finding the hammer, coming upstairs and then bludgeoning your wife with it.

Yes and no. Crimes of passion might be affected by gun control, but guns still have to be securely stored (at least, by law) somewhere. Open gun safe, remove trigger lock, load gun, remove safety, BAM! In the end, crimes of passion will happen, no matter what's available, and even if there might be a slight difference, I don't think it'd have that much of an impact on the overall homicide rates.

[andyt]

You think the underlined holds true, then?

$1:

Criminal record checks, 28-day waiting periods, the long-gun registry: none has done anything to stem Canadian firearm homicide rates, according to a new study by an emergency-medicine academic.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Fair enough. But can give an example of where it's hurt and killed people to register their guns?

Mighty big strawman you have there. One does not need to be injured or killed in order to have one's rights taken away. Just as no one needs to have their life saved by the registry in order for it to be useful.

That strawman is a comment made by the researcher who conducted this study, it's in the article. I would say it shows he has a pretty strong bias, if he can make statements like that.

His comment isn't nessecarally related to the study however. The study says no such thing.

But, he also states:

$1:

All three methods of analysis, wrote Dr. Langmann, “failed to definitively demonstrate an association between firearms legislation and homicide between 1974 and 2008.”

But then:

$1:

“We have the same numbers … and we’ve found the opposite,” said Amelie Baillargeon, communications coordinator for the Coalition for Gun Control.

One of them must be wrong.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

You think the underlined holds true, then?

[quote]Criminal record checks, 28-day waiting periods, the long-gun registry: none has done anything to stem Canadian firearm homicide rates, according to a new study by an emergency-medicine academic.

[/quote]

How the underlined portion didn't have any effect on homicide rates? Of course. No offense, most criminals aren't going to use legally purchased guns. Crimes of passion will occur in people who had some emotional breakdown due to a loss of a job, finding your spouse cheating, etc. In the end, a gun might make carrying out said crime of passion easier, but it could just as easily be done by a knife, hammer, or something else.

That's the key though. Criminals aren't bound by gun control laws. As such, people who are going to be affected by gun control are commonly the same people who won't go out and break the law. Buying an illegal gun off the street wouldn't bother an armed robber, rapist, or drug dealer.

[andyt]

No real argument about the criminals. I still think a criminal record check is a good idea, why make it even easier for them. A 28 day waiting period could deter some crimes of passion or suicides - they may resort to other means, but those would probably not be as deadly. Again, if you're a legitimate gun user, surely waiting 4 weeks isn't going to cause you serious problems.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Fair enough. But can (anyone/you) give an example of where it's hurt and killed people to register their guns?

Yes, I can.



And before you call that a 'strawman' perchance you will read this:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

[PluggyRug]

With some training and practice anyone can control a gun.
I just don't want some namby pamby politician doing it for me.

Don't see any criminals at my gun club which makes me wonder where they get their training.

[Dragon-Dancer]

They could still be at your gun club. I'll bet they are involved in all that unreported crime we keep hearing about.

[Freakinoldguy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Don't see any criminals at my gun club which makes me wonder where they get their training.

Surrey.

[BartSimpson]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Don't see any criminals at my gun club which makes me wonder where they get their training.

Surrey.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

No real argument about the criminals. I still think a criminal record check is a good idea, why make it even easier for them. A 28 day waiting period could deter some crimes of passion or suicides - they may resort to other means, but those would probably not be as deadly. Again, if you're a legitimate gun user, surely waiting 4 weeks isn't going to cause you serious problems.

Crimes of passion are usually in the moment. As in, they see something, they commit the crime. Any consideration of going out to buy a gun, criminal background check or 28 day waiting period wouldn't stop that. Same with suicides. If somebody wants to kill themselves, a 28 day waiting period for a gun won't stop them. They'll find some alternative, be it pills, carbon monoxide poisoning, or whatever else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with criminal background checks on a gun, and knowing the government, it probably takes close to a month to get the criminal background check completed, if my recent experiences with my immigration status are any indication. Having some limit on actual guns is my contention.

[fifeboy]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

They could still be at your gun club. I'll bet they are involved in all that unreported crime we keep hearing about.

Well Dragon, I think we should all work together to turn unreported crime into reported crime. From now on, whenever I see someone who does not clean up after their dog, I'm calling the PMO.

[eureka]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I read this article and said, "where to start?" But others are doing a good job so I will start with one point only. Why, please why? when one speaks about falling crime stats (including murder) in the U.S., is it always pointed out that concealed carry is causing the decreases, not changing population dynamics?? But in Canada we are told that it's changing population dynamics causing the decreases, not gun control measures?

I think that the evidence when not skewed by the Gun Nuts in the US shows that concealed carry does not reduce firearm incidents. I have, in the past, looked for the statistics on that and they do not support concealed carry as a deterrent.

The state context is always ignored by the proponents of that invitation to unsafe use of weapons.

[uwish]

i call BS on that Eureka, the FBI has completed numerous studies about CCW and the effect on crime. Many states have done their own investigation to see the affect and they all point to the same general conclusion. Violent crime rates drop but property crimes increase. There is over 15 years of CCW data available to look at. I have not seen ONE that says anything other than that conclusion.

So my question to you is..would you rather be raped, beaten/robbed/murdered OR have your car stollen...you pick.

I know what my choice is.

[BartSimpson]

eureka eureka:

I think that the evidence when not skewed by the Gun Nuts

And right there you lose any chance of making a point. See, anyone disagreeing with your views on gun control is therefore a 'gun nut' and their opinions and research and facts are conveniently made irrelevant by dismissing them as a 'gun nut'.

You do the same in the global warming topics, too.

Facts are irrelevant to you and you've made that abundantly clear...even when the facts support your argument you oppose them.

You remind me of concrete: all mixed up and permanently set.