[Luis Dias]

Our nation was founded the premises that in order to enjoy freedom, you had to fight for it. The Founding Fathers required that every citizen own a firearm and undergo regular training. I am proposing something much more moderate than that. Those who do not wish to serve society will not be forced to do so and they will not be discriminated against in any way; the only thing they won't be able to do is vote, run for office or teach civics.

As if we establish things according to the precepts of some folks living in the 18th century FOREVER. Come on that's ridiculous.

And this idea that you can only vote, run for office or have a specific job only if you go to the military? You would only enforce that **** in my country only over my dead body.

As for your question, I am enlisting in the military in the near future.

Never asked this nor do I care. Like, zero atoms inside me are driven by this curiousity.

[Nakura]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly can paint such a picture. I wasn't referring to urban vs rural areas, though that is a valid argument. Virtually everyone in small towns and rural is a gun owner, yet there is no virtually violent crime; whereas virtually nobody owns a gun in urban areas, yet there violent crime is commonplace. If you don't like rural communities, then take a look at urban areas, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, where gun bans correlate with higher violent crime rates.

Also take a look at the United Kingdom, which has seen higher violent crime rates since it implemented strict restrictions on gun ownership in the 1960s. Violent crime rates rose even sharper in the United Kingdom after the gun bans in 1987 and 1997. In addition, countries that have higher gun ownership rates (Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) have lower violent crime rates than those with very few gun owners (Belarus, Lithuania, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, etc.).

* MP-Ryan throws penalty flag and blows whistle

Hold it.  I already talked earlier about the statistical problems of these claims about high gun ownership = less crime on page one.

First off, you can't compare apples to oranges.  US firearms regulation is by state.  Every other place you just named does it by country.  You cannot compare the statistics of a state to an entire country.  The United States figures have no meaning when compared against any other nation when it comes to gun ownership and its relationship with crime.  Even comparing internally, crime rates have more to do with demographics that gun ownership.  I think I mentioned Idaho before - Idaho has high gun ownership, and a low violent crime rate.  Chicago has low [legal] gun ownership and a high violent crime rate.  Does that mean the high gun ownership makes for lower crime?  Absolutely not - this is a false correlation.  There are other variables at play that have more impact on crime rate which are ignored by these simplistic two-factor statistics (which is exactly why the gun lobby uses them).

Second, every country defines "violent crime" differently.  The violent crime rate in the UK is defined differently in the States, and addition measured offences have been added since the 1960s.  The blip on the graph is not representing the UK as a more violent place than the United States, or even more violent than it was pre-gun ban.  It represents a change in the statistical measurement of violent crime (also, crime rates overall have trended downward since the 1970s, but violent crime rates account for more of the total crimes in several countries because some crime is now measured as violent versus property offences when it used to be the opposite.  Canada has experienced this same shift, though not as pronounced as the UK).  Furthermore, this also ignores the effect of changing demographics again - the UK has undergone a major demographic shift since the 1960s.

---

The gun lobby regularly trots out these same talking points as if it somehow advances their argument.  Those of us who argue for stricter firearms regulations - myself included, despite being a licensed firearms owner/user - can see them for what they are in the first place, and know they're irrelevant anyway.  Gun regulation has very little impact on crime rate in some places, and very great impact in others.  Thee primary purpose of regulation is not to eliminate all crime; it's to make firearms ownership safer and more responsible.  Firearms regulation - in every place it has been implemented - results in the following:

1.  Reduces the number of accidental deaths in absolute terms, particularly of children, attributable to firearms.
2.  Reduces the number of suicides (in absolute terms; suicide rates drop).
3.  Is part of a larger societal shift that reduces the overall homicide rate (countries that have better firearms regulations tend to have lower homicide rates overall.  The US cannot generally be included because of piecemeal state regulation).

Also, the next 2nd Amendment crusader that trots out that Ben Franklin quotation will be summarily shot, then shot again just to emphasize the point.  It is virtually always used in the context of the gun debate, which is NOT the context in which old Ben used it in the first place.  Stop it!

Where did I compare crime rates in the United States to those of other countries?

Every country may define violent crime differently, but the graph I posted was of intentional homicide, which is rather consistently defined across the board. In fact, all of my sources were of homicide rates, not overall violent crime rates.

I think you'll find that it's the gun control lobby that trots that nonsense. The gun control lobby cannot win an argument using facts, so they lie and misrepresent data to fit their anti-gun agenda. For instance, it's always the gun control lobby saying that "Europeans have no guns and they have no crime" and it's always the gun control lobby making up blatant lies to push their agenda, like the "40% of firearm sales don't undergo a background check." The gun control lobby is STILL using that slogan, even though all of the fact-checkers claimed it to be a complete lie over six months ago.


1. Not true. Gun ownership rates have been rising in the United States over the past 20 years, while firearms accidents have been on the decline.
2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.
3. You just got done saying that you can't compare statistics in the United States to those of other countries, yet you did just that. Also, that's not true, as I covered in an above post. Countries with higher gun ownership rates and/or looser gun laws often times have lower homicide rates than those with ultra-strict gun laws and/or low gun ownership rates.

[Phantom Hoover]

2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.

You keep asserting this despite the fact that it is demonstrably false.

[Nakura]

2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.

You keep asserting this despite the fact that it is demonstrably false.

If it's demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. Why don't you slit your throat and let us know what the results are?

User was warned for this post: Far outside the lines of civilized debate.

[Luis Dias]

I'm not entirely convinced it should be the government's duty to prevent people from commiting suicide. I can see a case for it, but not entirely.

[Nakura]

I'm not entirely convinced it should be the government's duty to prevent people from commiting suicide. I can see a case for it, but not entirely.

It's quite shocking seeing as most of these anti-gun people claim to be "pro-choice," yet they oppose the right to bear arms and the right to die. Doesn't seem very "pro-choice" to me.

[Luis Dias]

Let's not confuse matters here, okay? Don't bring up irrelevant discussion themes.

[Nakura]

Let's not confuse matters here, okay? Don't bring up irrelevant discussion themes.

Sorry. I was under the impression that the right to commit suicide an important part of the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I often see pro-choice people arguing in favor of suicide being legal, whereas pro-life people often argue for it to be banned.

[The E]

Let's not confuse matters here, okay? Don't bring up irrelevant discussion themes.

Sorry. I was under the impression that the right to commit suicide an important part of the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I often see pro-choice people arguing in favor of suicide being legal, whereas pro-life people often argue for it to be banned.

No, it really isn't.

[Luis Dias]

Outlawing suicide is probably the stupidest law that exists anyway.

[Nakura]

Let's not confuse matters here, okay? Don't bring up irrelevant discussion themes.

Sorry. I was under the impression that the right to commit suicide an important part of the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I often see pro-choice people arguing in favor of suicide being legal, whereas pro-life people often argue for it to be banned.

No, it really isn't.

Okay, well the pro-life group at my college is very active in campaigning against suicide. Of course, that's just to distract away from the fact that they're an anti-reproductive rights group. And I always see pro-abortion Facebook groups sharing pro-suicide stuff as well.

Anecdotal evidence, I know.

[MP-Ryan]

Where did I compare crime rates in the United States to those of other countries?

You haven't gone there yet, but you've started down the statistical slope when you began talking about correlations and invoking DC and Chicago.  That was me heading you off at the pass.  The only valid comparisons that can be made which include the US are comparing particular America States to other countries, but its a flawed comparison because States do not have enforceable borders the same way countries do.

Every country may define violent crime differently, but the graph I posted was of intentional homicide, which is rather consistently defined across the board. In fact, all of my sources were of homicide rates, not overall violent crime rates.

I was responding to your assertion that the UK has a higher violent crime rate since its firearms regulation changes.

I think you'll find that it's the gun control lobby that trots that nonsense. The gun control lobby cannot win an argument using facts, so they lie and misrepresent data to fit their anti-gun agenda. For instance, it's always the gun control lobby saying that "Europeans have no guns and they have no crime"

I have never, ever heard this from a rational advocate of firearms regulation.  Then again, I don't swim in the toxic circles of the hyper-partisan firearms debate in the US.

1. Not true. Gun ownership rates have been rising in the United States over the past 20 years, while firearms accidents have been on the decline.

Not sure where you get that idea, but the CDC data disagrees with you:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf  All firearms death rates in the US are stable, particularly accidental deaths among children.  Regardless, firearms regulations have been proven to reduce the number of deaths attributable to firearms accidents (without necessarily impacting the ownership rates significantly).  Canada's regulatory exercise didn't dramatically change ownership levels, but new safety, storage,. transport, and use requirements have dramatically impacted the death rate.

2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.

Sadly, no.  The link is not absolute nor particularly well understood, but there is a documented link between the accessibility of firearms and suicide rate.

3. You just got done saying that you can't compare statistics in the United States to those of other countries, yet you did just that. Also, that's not true, as I covered in an above post. Countries with higher gun ownership rates and/or looser gun laws often times have lower homicide rates than those with ultra-strict gun laws and/or low gun ownership rates.

Actually, I said you CAN'T include the US in that data.  And I just got finished saying that the correlation between high ownership and crime rate is completely confounded by other variables that cannot be dismissed, and you have acknowledged none of those variables.

[Nakura]

You haven't gone there yet, but you've started down the statistical slope when you began talking about correlations and invoking DC and Chicago.  That was me heading you off at the pass.  The only valid comparisons that can be made which include the US are comparing particular America States to other countries, but its a flawed comparison because States do not have enforceable borders the same way countries do.

Chicago gangbangers don't exactly have the money to fly to other states, hence why they're gangbangers in the first place.

I was responding to your assertion that the UK has a higher violent crime rate since its firearms regulation changes.

Okay, I thought you were referring to the graph in my original post. Either way, both violent crime and intentional homicide rates are on the rise and have never come close to their pre-1968 levels.

I have never, ever heard this from a rational advocate of firearms regulation.  Then again, I don't swim in the toxic circles of the hyper-partisan firearms debate in the US.

It's commonly regurgitated in the left-wing American media, unfortunately. It seems like many people in Europe think guns are completely banned in every European country as well though (on another forum I go to).

Not sure where you get that idea, but the CDC data disagrees with you:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf  All firearms death rates in the US are stable, particularly accidental deaths among children.  Regardless, firearms regulations have been proven to reduce the number of deaths attributable to firearms accidents (without necessarily impacting the ownership rates significantly).  Canada's regulatory exercise didn't dramatically change ownership levels, but new safety, storage,. transport, and use requirements have dramatically impacted the death rate.

That link only shows data for children between the ages of 1-14, not overall firearms accidents. And even your own source shows a decline of firearms accidents from 0.2 (per every 100,000) to 0.1. Almost all responsible gun owners keep their firearms safely stored anyway.

Sadly, no.  The link is not absolute nor particularly well understood, but there is a documented link between the accessibility of firearms and suicide rate.

The most obvious explanation being that it's easier [psychologically speaking] for most people to simply pull a trigger and end it all, than it is for someone to slit their own throat. This doesn't matter though, as it's the person's choice to end their own life and if they want to die, they could end their life through other means. If you actually care about suicide rates, then you should focus on the actual cause of the problem (alcoholism, depression, mental instability, etc.).

Actually, I said you CAN'T include the US in that data.  And I just got finished saying that the correlation between high ownership and crime rate is completely confounded by other variables that cannot be dismissed, and you have acknowledged none of those variables.

You obviously didn't read the last paragraph of my original post then:

In conclusion, it is clear that gun control is not going to lower violent crime rates in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter. Rather than harming law abiding citizens and discarding the fundamental rights we hold dear, I propose we work towards fixing the underlying problems that lead to violent crime. The underlying cause of violent crime is not firearms, it is social and economic factors; and the underlying cause of mass shootings is poor mental healthcare. Rather than focusing on the symptoms, we should work on improving our education system, healthcare system (including mental health) and eliminating the poor economic conditions that cause people to resort to violence.

[Grizzly]

2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.

You keep asserting this despite the fact that it is demonstrably false.

If it's demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. Why don't you slit your throat and let us know what the results are?

Suggesting that someone should slit his troath eh?

*sigh*.

The tendency to commit suicide is a fit. A blinding rage which overrides your sense of self preservation. It is a struggle - the part of you that wants to live versus the part of you that wants to die. Eventually, the part of you that wants to live will win due to the part of you that wants to die is exhausted (rage ends after a while). Those moments are quite horrifying experiences in which you try to stop hurting yourself, whilst another parts hates yourself and keeps hurting yourself (or the world around you) out of pure hatred.

Clearing a house of sharp objects and that sort of stuff is standard procedure for suicide preventers, simply because it actually does help - Giving that part of you that wants to damage yourself less to work with increases the chance of you surviving those fits.

Pulling a trigger on a gun can be a split second decision of your enraged self, and after that it is over. Actually walking to a bridge and jumping off? There's a lot more points there where you (or other people) are able to calm yourself. Knifing is rather hard too - There are always 'hesitation cuts' on corpses of suicide victims.

It is a myth that people who want to commit suicide will be very determined to do so - they are not. People who are suicidal are not determined - they are desperate to get out of their current situation. Suicide is simply a last ditch effort.

It's why signs along railways advertising suicide hotlines actually DO help, as people at that point do realize that there may be a slim chance of another way out - and they are happy to jump at the chance.

[MP-Ryan]

Chicago gangbangers don't exactly have the money to fly to other states, hence why they're gangbangers in the first place.

And yet state borders are completely porous to firearms trafficking.

Okay, I thought you were referring to the graph in my original post. Either way, both violent crime and intentional homicide rates are on the rise and have never come close to their pre-1968 levels.

Demographics and measurement changes.  The measurement of what constitutes violent crime has changed since 1968, and so have the demographics.  Look at the WHO and WHERE of violent crime in the UK versus the WHO and WHERE of American States.  You'll notice a remarkable trend (which I shall not spoil for you as the data is educational.  In the US, look to the CDC; in the UK, the NHS, I believe).

That link only shows data for children between the ages of 1-14, not overall firearms accidents. And even your own source shows a decline of firearms accidents from 0.2 (per every 100,000) to 0.1. Almost all responsible gun owners keep their firearms safely stored anyway.

Err, no it doesn't, a shift from 0.2 to 0.1 is not statistically significant, and you need a citation for your last sentence because there are still plenty of accidental deaths attributed to improper storage and handling of firearms across the US every year.

The most obvious explanation being that it's easier [psychologically speaking] for most people to simply pull a trigger and end it all, than it is for someone to slit their own throat. This doesn't matter though, as it's the person's choice to end their own life and if they want to die, they could end their life through other means. If you actually care about suicide rates, then you should focus on the actual cause of the problem (alcoholism, depression, mental instability, etc.).

Or you can focus on the causes of suicide AND making it more difficult for the primary means of expedient opportunity to be used in a suicide.  The other problem with your statement is that it implies the political will exists for more public funding of mental health services.  In my experience, the "conservatives" most opposed to firearms regulations are also the most opposed to public funding of health care.

Actually, I said you CAN'T include the US in that data.  And I just got finished saying that the correlation between high ownership and crime rate is completely confounded by other variables that cannot be dismissed, and you have acknowledged none of those variables.

You obviously didn't read the last paragraph of my original post then:

In conclusion, it is clear that gun control is not going to lower violent crime rates in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter. Rather than harming law abiding citizens and discarding the fundamental rights we hold dear, I propose we work towards fixing the underlying problems that lead to violent crime. The underlying cause of violent crime is not firearms, it is social and economic factors; and the underlying cause of mass shootings is poor mental healthcare. Rather than focusing on the symptoms, we should work on improving our education system, healthcare system (including mental health) and eliminating the poor economic conditions that cause people to resort to violence.

Oh, I did.  See, the trouble with your analogy is that you want to focus on the cause of the illness while the symptoms are busy killing your patient.  BOTH approaches are necessary, and work - as several countries can attest.  The American hang up about the 2nd Amendment is only hurting you.  The rest of us just shake our heads and wonder how many people have to die for no reason until Americans finally realize that a little more legal responsibility when it comes to firearms ownership is not the end of the world.  Sure, total bans aren't the answer - I can totally agree with that.  But you can't tell me, in light of all the evidence to the contrary, that responsible regulation of firearms is not useful or necessary.

[Nakura]

And yet state borders are completely porous to firearms trafficking.

And what should we do about that, if anything? Why is it a problem?

Demographics and measurement changes.  The measurement of what constitutes violent crime has changed since 1968, and so have the demographics.  Look at the WHO and WHERE of violent crime in the UK versus the WHO and WHERE of American States.  You'll notice a remarkable trend (which I shall not spoil for you as the data is educational.  In the US, look to the CDC; in the UK, the NHS, I believe).

Measurements for 'violent crime' may change, but measurements for 'intentional homicide' do not.


That link only shows data for children between the ages of 1-14, not overall firearms accidents. And even your own source shows a decline of firearms accidents from 0.2 (per every 100,000) to 0.1. Almost all responsible gun owners keep their firearms safely stored anyway.[/quote]

Err, no it doesn't, a shift from 0.2 to 0.1 is not statistically significant, and you need a citation for your last sentence because there are still plenty of accidental deaths attributed to improper storage and handling of firearms across the US every year.

Which is a strong case for my earlier proposal to institute gun safety and training classes in high schools.

Or you can focus on the causes of suicide AND making it more difficult for the primary means of expedient opportunity to be used in a suicide.  The other problem with your statement is that it implies the political will exists for more public funding of mental health services.  In my experience, the "conservatives" most opposed to firearms regulations are also the most opposed to public funding of health care.

So we should ban guns, just because a few people out of over a hundred million might have suicidal tendencies at some point in their life? Even if you have extremely strict registration and licensing laws, there's no way to prevent suicide with a firearm. And you still haven't given me a strong reason as to why we shouldn't respect people's decision to die.

Gun rights aren't a left/right issue, they're a civil rights issue. Much like slavery and gay marriage, left and right have nothing to do with it. I have avoided using terms like "liberal" and "conservative" in this thread on purpose.

Oh, I did.  See, the trouble with your analogy is that you want to focus on the cause of the illness while the symptoms are busy killing your patient.  BOTH approaches are necessary, and work - as several countries can attest.  The American hang up about the 2nd Amendment is only hurting you.  The rest of us just shake our heads and wonder how many people have to die for no reason until Americans finally realize that a little more legal responsibility when it comes to firearms ownership is not the end of the world.  Sure, total bans aren't the answer - I can totally agree with that.  But you can't tell me, in light of all the evidence to the contrary, that responsible regulation of firearms is not useful or necessary.

Except the symptoms aren't killing anyone. Violent crime rates have been on the decline for decades and during this same time, we've had higher gun ownership rates and more lenient gun laws. You seem to have this negative impression in your head that America is a war-zone akin to Somalia and it simply isn't true. What exactly is your idea of "responsible regulation?" We're doing just fine without massive regulations and/or total bans and things are getting better.

[MP-Ryan]

And what should we do about that, if anything? Why is it a problem?

I talked about this earlier.  It renders jurisdictional regulation pointless.  Chicago has lots of regulation, yes.  States near Illinois do not.  Pretty easy to get firearms from one lax state into a more stringent state and bypass the regulatory safeguards.  The same is not true on a national level.

Demographics and measurement changes.  The measurement of what constitutes violent crime has changed since 1968, and so have the demographics.  Look at the WHO and WHERE of violent crime in the UK versus the WHO and WHERE of American States.  You'll notice a remarkable trend (which I shall not spoil for you as the data is educational.  In the US, look to the CDC; in the UK, the NHS, I believe).

Measurements for 'violent crime' may change, but measurements for 'intentional homicide' do not.

I love how you ignored all the rest of that.  And in fact, "intentional homicide" is an American term that comes from this very kind of debate, and the definitions in fact do change.  (For example, Canada has two separate Criminal Code offences that capture "intentional homicides.")

Which is a strong case for my earlier proposal to institute gun safety and training classes in high schools.

Or how about mandatory safety and training classes for all gun owners and users, coupled with legal requirements on storage, handling, and transport?  Might that not achieve the same objective among the target audience and ensure their is legal backing to that training?  (The suggestion I just gave you is Canada's exact firearms laws).

So we should ban guns, just because a few people out of over a hundred million might have suicidal tendencies at some point in their life? Even if you have extremely strict registration and licensing laws, there's no way to prevent suicide with a firearm. And you still haven't given me a strong reason as to why we shouldn't respect people's decision to die.

Who said ban guns?  And Canada's suicide rate has dropped since more stringent regulation and background checks on ownership were introduced.  As for people's decision to die; that decision if made in sound mind is euthanasia, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  Suicide is more often the result of mental illness and is the result of a mind in need of help, not a bullet.

Gun rights aren't a left/right issue, they're a civil rights issue. Much like slavery and gay marriage, left and right have nothing to do with it. I have avoided using terms like "liberal" and "conservative" in this thread on purpose.

And good on you - my point is merely that the "conservative" end of the spectrum is the side where your argument usually falls, and that side vehemently disagrees with mental health public funding.  If you are not on that hypocrite's bandwagon, kudos.

Except the symptoms aren't killing anyone. Violent crime rates have been on the decline for decades and during this same time, we've had higher gun ownership rates and more lenient gun laws. You seem to have this negative impression in your head that America is a war-zone akin to Somalia and it simply isn't true. What exactly is your idea of "responsible regulation?" We're doing just fine without massive regulations and/or total bans and things are getting better.

The hell they aren't.  Read the abstract of that PubMed link in my last post.  The United States is light years behind other democracies on this issue - your violent crime rates are far higher, your homicide rates are higher, and your accidental death by firearm rates are all higher, particularly among children.

Canada has managed pretty sensible and responsible regulation in the area of firearms.  Most Americans of your ideological bent have a problem with it, but it works, which is a great deal more than can be said for the piecemeal regulatory disaster currently ongoing in the United States.

[Nakura]

I talked about this earlier.  It renders jurisdictional regulation pointless.  Chicago has lots of regulation, yes.  States near Illinois do not.  Pretty easy to get firearms from one lax state into a more stringent state and bypass the regulatory safeguards.  The same is not true on a national level.

You have yet to argue why we "need" to have strict gun laws at any level of government. Especially seeing as violent crime rates have been on the decline for decades and all of the data shows that firearms are used for self-defense up to ten times more than they are used to commit crimes.

I love how you ignored all the rest of that.  And in fact, "intentional homicide" is an American term that comes from this very kind of debate, and the definitions in fact do change.  (For example, Canada has two separate Criminal Code offences that capture "intentional homicides.")

But I wasn't comparing intentional homicide or any other violent crime statistic between different countries, I was comparing the United Kingdom's intentional homicide rate before and after the 1968, 1988 and 1977 gun control laws.

Or how about mandatory safety and training classes for all gun owners and users, coupled with legal requirements on storage, handling, and transport?  Might that not achieve the same objective among the target audience and ensure their is legal backing to that training?  (The suggestion I just gave you is Canada's exact firearms laws).

That would create a de facto gun registry of every law abiding gun owner.

Who said ban guns?  And Canada's suicide rate has dropped since more stringent regulation and background checks on ownership were introduced.  As for people's decision to die; that decision if made in sound mind is euthanasia, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  Suicide is more often the result of mental illness and is the result of a mind in need of help, not a bullet.

We have background checks on gun ownership as well. No amount of registration, background checks or licensing can stop someone from becoming depressed, gun owner or otherwise. Okay, so you're on board with my earlier proposal to improve mental health services then?

And good on you - my point is merely that the "conservative" end of the spectrum is the side where your argument usually falls, and that side vehemently disagrees with mental health public funding.  If you are not on that hypocrite's bandwagon, kudos.

The hell they aren't.  Read the abstract of that PubMed link in my last post.  The United States is light years behind other democracies on this issue - your violent crime rates are far higher, your homicide rates are higher, and your accidental death by firearm rates are all higher, particularly among children.

Canada has managed pretty sensible and responsible regulation in the area of firearms.  Most Americans of your ideological bent have a problem with it, but it works, which is a great deal more than can be said for the piecemeal regulatory disaster currently ongoing in the United States.

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do. Imposing restrictions on law abiding gun owners isn't going to stop a gang war in Chicago. You seem to think that strict gun regulations is the only way to get lower crime rates, when in fact, it's not even a way to get them at all. Gun control correlates with higher crime rates, whereas gun freedom correlates with lower crime rates. You keep saying that we have a higher homicide rate than Europe, and while that is true in some cases, there are industrialized European countries that have higher homicide rates thane we do, such as Estonia, Lithuania and Moldova. Estonia and Lithuania are very telling, as their neighbor, Latvia, has an extremely low homicide rate (3.1, which is lower than that of Taiwan) and yet one in five people in Latvia is a gun owner; compared to less than one in ten in Estonia and less than one in one-hundred in Lithuania. It should be noted that Lithuania has the highest homicide rate of the Baltic States, by far, while simultaneously having the lowest gun ownership rates.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/estonia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/lithuania

You brought up demographics earlier, so I'm going to say this. The white homicide rate in the United States is 2.6, which is the same as South Korea and Luxembourg. Obviously I'm not saying that race has anything to do with crime, but the black homicide rate is nearly 20%, which skews crime statistics in the United States. This is because many in the black community live below the poverty and are engaged in gang wars.

[Grizzly]

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do

They sure as hell make it easier.

[Nakura]

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do

They sure as hell make it easier.

They also make it harder. Guns are called the 'great equalizer' for a reason. A 60 year old woman can defend herself with a gun every bit as well as a 20 year old MMA fighter.