Originally posted by Toad
Actually, there isn't. I refer you to the sainted Mr. Moore's BFC and his sojourn into Canada. Canada is simply flooded with guns, as many or more per capita as the US.
It isn't the quantity of firearms; there's ample evidence for that just like there's ample evidence on the results frying your head. Although in your case, it might be rendering your head.
Actually, there is. Like I said - there is quite enough for guys like myself, Nashwan, curval et al. OK maybe it's not enough evidence
for you - but that's irrelevant. You're already swimming in your ocean of guns. But our lawmakers of 1920 were wise enough to see the folly of a guns free for all. And given that we've never had more than 100 gun homicides in any calendar year, I think they got it right.
I should also remind you of what I've said in the last 50 gun threads, and that is that there are TWO ingredients to a gun homicide. 1) The loaded gun itself; 2) The nutjob holding it. The composition of Canada's population is such that there is a much smaller black/poor/ethnic minority subset than in countries like Britain and the US. The same thing goes for places like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. Britain has the problem of ethnic/poor/black but not the guns. The US has both problems, in spades. <--ooops, forgive the pun. Nashwan has done his best to get you to see the light about where murders are most prevalent, with his map of Scotland post. But that light is not strong enough to penetrate your NRA approved blinkers.
A valid comparison, chum. There's no inherent "right" not to die from any cause because there's no "right" to avoid death. Death comes to all. Automobile accidents, old age, drowning, firearms, cancer, parental abuse... children and adults die.
Don't try that "death comes to us all" card. Of course it does, but you're just being evasive. There are many different kinds of death - including premature death, avoidable death, and death by unlawful killing. Don't try to wrap 'em all in the same package. Can you imagine if, during a murder trial in a court of law, the judge acquitted the defendant on the basis that his victim would have died anyway - eventually?
It's rather an amusing concept, and shows that you're really scratching for some fresh dry wood before the fire goes out.
The species got along just fine without automobiles for far longer than we've used them. They are no more "legitimate" than any other tool man invented. Nor or firearms any less "legitimate" than automobiles.
And in the case of Britain and many other European and non European countries, we've got along just fine without needing to arm civilians. "Automobiles"
are more legitimate than firearms because they have an obvious purpose, and without them our current lifestyles would become impossible, and also because they are not
designed for killing.
But it is a far more effective and efficient killing tool in our societies than the firearm. What's the English motor vehicle death rate again? Far above your firearms homicide rate, on the order fo 5X, IIRC.
Absolute bollocks. Cars kill more people here because there are
more of them than there are guns. What you're trying to say here is akin to saying that far more people in this world wash their crockery by hand than use a domestic dishwasher, therefore the washing by hand method is "more efficient".
Well of course the number of people who die on our roads is higher than the number of people killed by a gun. And the reason is quite simple: Whenever there is a commodity which is capable of being abused in such a way as to cause death, the actual number of deaths will be in direct proportion to the
supply of that commodity - whether that commodity be a bottle of whisky, an "automobile", or a gun. So of course the number of deaths in Britain resulting from car (excuse me, "automobile") accidents is going to be higher than the number of deaths resulting from bullets because we don't sell many bullets in this country. If we had no alcohol (as in Muslim countries) the number of cases of cirrhosis of the liver would be much smaller than it is. And if we had no "automobiles", the number of road deaths would be slashed. Are you following this logic so far? Good, because the last point is that if there were no guns in the US/Britain/anywhere, the number of gun homicides would be a great deal less. Our lawmakers in 1920 could see this, and acted accordingly.
Your only point is that YOU find automobiles more useful than firearms.
Yep, me and about 25,000,000 other motorists in Britain, plus many people who don't drive but can ride as passengers. And I would hazard a guess and say that if the US population was polled about which they found more useful - gun or automobile - automobile would win hands down.
Lazs! You're making me wince with your attempts to spell "benefit" <--please note! I know it's hard; I find typing "automobile" cumbersome!
Why would anyone in england need a car for instance with all the public transportation?
Because there isn't a railway station at the bottom of my garden, and there isn't a bus stop in front of my house. Come and see for yourself.
If guns prevent anything over 10,000 homicides a year then they are not just a right but a benificieal element. It is proven that in the U.S. that more guns equal less crime so.... to remove guns from our society is simply backward and tyrannical thinking.
Read my sig. block -yet again. I find it funny that anyone can credit guns with
preventing deaths when they are specifically designed to
cause deaths - and do, with ~10,000 victims annually in the US alone. This argument smacks of spending $5000 to repair an "automobile" that's only worth $3000, but might be worth $4000 after the repair.
but beet.... what kind of gun did you finally settle on for your home defense? Did you have to get a note from the queen?
I decided against a gun, as I might find bloodstained carpets to be distasteful.
