Just to note here, being against guns has nothing to do with living in a safe place or not. I was born and lived all my life until very recently in a so-called third world country, a city and a neighborhood that are known to be very violent, been working with kids from the slums and had several experiences myself and of close people related to violence (and with non-violence) which I dont actually want to talk about right now, and this only serves to reinforce my idea that guns are extremely destructive and that the world would be better off without them.

While you may think that having a gun yourself is doing no harm if you keep it safe, I say that it is doing harm by supporting that industry and by the simple speech which you are reproducing that guns are necessary. I also say that even if this wasnt the case, and even if you keep it perfecty safe, the fact is that once guns are available there will obviously be many more cases where they are not safe and will cause damage to others. But we're obviously not convincing each other here, so be it.

agreed.
no disrespect intended, jbark.
we won't agree on this, so be it.

if it's not guns, it will be something else.
people are just animals.

a final note: you guys seem to equate owning a gun with violence. I'm one (Rivea is another)
who don't think to use guns to solve problems. they're primarily for self/home protection.
you can put a gun on a table, and leave it there. it will never kill anyone.

no worries. I m off to thailand today, so you'd have to try harder than that to ruin my day! smiles to all, whether they sport AK47s or not!

JBArk

The best weapon against crime is an environment where people have acces to proper education and subsequently jobs. Jobs that pay properly..Low unemployment, no poverty. And then a good law-enforcement system, enough cops on the street that are properly equipped to deal with any crime that may occur and heavy sentences that keep people who don't belong in a free society of the street.

In such places, you won't ever feel that you need a gun to protect yourself.

If you feel that you need to have guns to keep the government in check, then you're either paranoid, or your government is already way beyond the point of being kept in check.

I like to add that especially in the southern states of america, people have been fed with a deep paranoia against the government that can only become a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.
Company's like halliburton and therefore the politicians they have in their pockets perpetuate that deep anti-government sentiment so they can keep doing their dirty business.

All the anti-government talk has nothing to do with freedom, and the people who constantly use the word 'freedom' in their speeches to keep the government away, don't care about any of your freedoms. If that where so, they would already have legalised drugs, gay-mariage and euthanasia.

They just want halliburton, BP, etc. to keep using the cheap labour of slaves in asian, african and south american mine's and plantations and factories, rob native peoples of oil or mineral-rich or fertile land, and get all kinds of secretive government support without any inhibition and without ever having to face any responsibility..that's the only reason why they're so afraid of 'big-government' as they like to call it.

Gun manufacturers also fabricate all kind of phoney studies about how gun-violence, crime, etc. and gun possesion are unrelated.

I think to know whether gun possesion has a good impact on society or not, you'd have to ask a policeman how he feels about gun regulations. they're the ones who have to clean up the mess when it goes wrong, they would know better then you and i.

In that hypothetical situation, a ban on guns would be fruitless.

***

I still think it's misleading to tout statistics on gun violence in large, geographically, and culturally diverse nations. To say America has a high incidence of gun related deaths is inconsistent with proper data collection compared to that of European countries. Many of our states are the size of European countries. Obviously, you'll find more gun violence in specific places. Also, the statistics need to address who was shot and for what reason. How many were gang related? If a large number of people are dying to gang wars and the like, then it takes the average person out of the equation. How many are innocent?

I have the same opinion about the far-left. Although i get the impression that especially in america they're not much of a threat. I don't see america becoming a communist state any time soon. In europe the far-left is much more present. Especially in southern european nations like greece and italy, they keep commiting terror attacks and such.

I fear the influence of political extremism in the west. Especially in economically tough times.

That is some non-existent utopia you are talking about. And people have all these anti-government views for a reason, some of which are the examples you listed about haliburtons and other corporations deals with government. You say gun manufacturers fabricate phoney studies, I think there are more organizations that are fear mongering against guns then there are for guns. And why would asking a policeman how he feels about gun regulations even matter, each one is different, you infer they are all for harsher gun laws or something.

yes, i think that the majority of law-enforcers would at some point get a bit fed-up with the overavailability of certain types of guns after having to clean up the mess of the so-many'th shooting at a high-school.

I don't think what i'm talking about is a utopia. Beside the fact that scandinavia and canada may actually be a utopia.

lol canada a utopia? hardly...
with that clown Harper (a Bush crony) in power, it's definitely a far-cry from a utopia.
the Conservative party is a little more moderate, but still implements policies championed by neo-conservatives in the US.

And who may I ask is WE? What qualifies you or any other outside of the judicial system to judge me and what I do with a gun?

This is a HUGE problem in the State I live in. I live in The Great State of Washington. I am far left in some of my views and lean a little right on others.

Now to my point. I live in the far SW of the state. Its the only red county in the state. Though the geographical area I live in makes up a lage part of the land area it is very sparsely populated. The make up of the population is farmers, loggers and fishermen. Agriculture. The demographics is about 98% caucasian and 2% Hispanic, roughly. All of the laws in my state are made by the liberals that live in the Seattle area. They are able to rally the vote and pass initiatives that have a severe impact on how we live our lives out here in the country.

IMO The voters in the city have NO RIGHT to judge me and how I live my life with regards to guns. They are city folks who THINK they know whats best for the environment and the people. City folk are more often than not ignorant to what goes on out in the country. The should not be able to judge against those of us who do live in the country.

I see it as reverse discrimination. Just because the dumb asses in the city cant control their people doesnt mean the people in the country should be punished for it.

Look at all the gun crimes that happen in my state. They are not committed by the majority gun owners that make up a majority of the population here. They are not committed by hunters. Most all of the gun crimes are commited by ignorant inner city people who do not hunt who do not know diddly squat about guns.

I live in a gun culture, a gun society. In my neck of the woods we dont have problems with guns. Every one has em and we dont have problems. We do have a problem with city folk legislating our gun rights that were already established in the American constitution.



Really? Who is we and what makes we qualified? You dont come from my neck of the woods. You dont live in my culture. You have no right to judge.

Take care of the irresponsible criminals in the city and you'll see gun crime in America drop dramatically.

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!

This makes allot of common sense.
I hope we dont have to face that day.

Others are

Up till harper came it was pretty much a utopia in many ways (toronto and vancouver the best city's in the world to live in, etc.). I don't think harper's administration can fuck-up everything that's good about canada that quickly.

Getting off topic here but Im curious, what criteria are you using to say that toronto and vancouver are (or were) the best cities in the world to live in?

It was a global survey based on a wide array of criteria, from crime rate, quality of schools, pollution, trafic, etc.

I believe it was done by the economist, but i don't remember exactly.
It must be retrievable with google.
Zurich, geneva and frankfurt where also high on that list.

you forgot Vienna, which is frequently the top city, sometimes
topping Zurich. Vancouver is usually 3 or 4.
and i don't think toronto was on that list.

http://www.mercer.com/ar...iving-survey-report-2010

interesting that cities in the other high gun-toting-per-capita country
are that high up in the list

P.S. on the country-wide scale, US tops Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

I am not in principle against gun ownership. Largely I support gun ownership (although I don't agree people should be able to buy automatic weapons and hand grenades rocket launchers etc). I think its often the person not the gun that kills people.

But one issue I think the anti gun crowd has in favor is 'crimes of passion'. Crimes of passion that lead to gun violence seem to occur more in places where guns are easily available. Examples are the wife who shoots a cheating husband or the husband who shoots wife's lover or the kid who rampages his highschool or the worker who goes postal. These crimes might be less in areas where guns are not so easily available?

That being said I don't know what the trade off is. I personally don't like cops. I'd go as far to say that I kind of hate most cops (In the US). I don't want them for my protection. Most of them are total jerks who spend most of their career ruining lives not "serving and protecting". Maybe if the US had sane laws and a sane police force and a sane government and a sane populace I'd feel better about tighter gun laws. But the way things are now I don't entirely feel that way.

I agree with what polytrip is saying that if you have good education and little to no poverty you have less crime. When you have a police force that doesn't over stretch itself and its purpose you have less need for guns.

I also fully support hunting and gun ownership in rural areas and agree with Icehouse that people in cities can't act like their way applies everywhere. Hunting is a way of life for a lot of people in rural communities and the police are so far away that if someone breaks into your house you have no other option then protecting yourself.

Let me say one more thing about what i like about living in a counrty where hardly anybody has a gun: last year, i saw some dude rob an old lady, so i run towards the guy shouting "hey you", the guy drops the old lady's bag and runs away.
If it would have been a country full of guns, then it probably would have ended in me being pierced with bullets or me and the guy shooting at eachother, but i didn't had to worry about the possibility that the guy maybe would have a gun..i just knew he wouldn't have one.

Well, you cannot change how the situation in america is. But maybe the americans can see why i would want my place to stay gun-free.
It has it's advantages.

what advantage is that?

you anti-gun proponents seem to think gun owners carry guns on them wherever they go. most owners keep them in their homes. you guys are also forgetting that criminals tend to use illegally obtained or modified weapons so they may not be traced back to them.

I had this discussion with the ol' lady last night, and she favors more strict processing/screening for firearms purchasing; places like gun shows make it too easy to purchase firearms.
I agree with this. the other problem is, obviously, corruption on the inside: people exporting arms to the organized crime syndicates. this falls under the illegally obtained weapons dilemma, and obviously needs to stop


but a gun-free society?
again that's a utopian pipe-dream, will never happen.
criminals will always find a way to get guns.

Criminals in holland don't have guns, unless they're part of what we call 'organised crime'.
Criminals don't have guns over here (most of the time), because availability of guns is practically zero. No guns sip into the black market, because there is no legal market.
If someone breaks into my house, i'll just kick his ass and some other parts of him.

The Mexican cartels are using weapons not made in America. At least the BAD weapons (machine guns automatic weaponry). I have yet to see an M16 or any of the AR series rifles in a single hand of anyone (except the military) the weaponry looks like Soviet AK's or Chinese AK's. Handguns on the other hand are probably American (sorry to say). Also sorry to say the Mexican military is probably as bad a problem there as any cartel. In fact you might be hard pressed to distinguish between the two.

As far as where one buys them... I am stimied by that one. I don't want the goverment to know that I am a gun owner or at least what it is I own. I think my right to privacy supercedes the goverment's right to know. Our rights to privacy are diminishing and not too slowly I might add.