"GUN CONTROL" makes the problem much worse

Oh, from that study of yours. Did you know that you're almost 70 times more likely to die from a gun related homicide in Canada then you are in Japan? I didn't realize Canada was so dangerous. I think you guys should really take a look at your gun laws. See how easy it is to find a stat to support your argument?  

That was precisely my point through all of this. The two jackals were just making mindless quotes from other papers.

I think everyone here is in agreement that what happens in these school shootings are tragic, but there are no solutions that make sense. There really isn't a deterrent that will make them disappear overnight.They are isolated incidents with emotionally disturbed individuals.  

Also, don't forget these numbers include every gun-related homicide. I would assume a great portion of them in the U.S. are drug related. There are approximately 10,000 deaths in the U.S. in any given year from gun-related homicides. That's out of a population of over 300 million. I could almost guarantee that half of those are drug related. Which quite frankly just like you can't stop the drug trade you're not going to be able to stop the gun trade. So once you put those great restrictions in place who's going to be left with the guns?

Take another look at what these stats tell you. The gun ownership rates in the U.S and Canada are 88.8 and 30.8 per 100 people. So that gives you approximately 270mil guns in the U.S. and 10 million in Canada. I will take the lowest amount of gun-related homicides between the year 2004-2009 for Canada and I will take the highest amount of deaths in the U.S. for the same time period.Which are 166 for Canada and 11,730 for the U.S.

So deaths per gun in Canada is 16.6*10^-6 and the U.S. is 43*10^-6. The numbers are pretty similiar don't you think?

The only reason I'm comparing Canada to the U.S. is because of the few canadians that came in this thread without a brain and wanted to play the card that Canada is so safe because our gun laws are perfect. If you actually took time out to read or research something instead of what you hear in the media you will find out that's not necessarily the case. Granted, it is safer then the U.S., but that's comparing apples to oranges here. It would be the equivalent of me comparing Anchorage, Ak to New York City within the U.S. It just make no sense to.

Not at any time did I play the Canada is safer than anywhere card.  I copied some stats from an American newspaper - that is all.  I shared stats from an American newspaper that reported the murder rate by gun was 20 times greater in the US than the countries they reported on.  Is that too hard for your small brain to follow?

Straighshooter - pull your head out of the sand.  I suggested gun control as one solution to help reduce these incidents.  That would be one solution of many to consider - from mental health treatment/identification, education etc etc.  I see you are full of solutions yourself - yea right.

This is an interesting thread, lots of good arguments from both sides.

Personally, I do believe that America has a gun issue. I do not believe that banning guns will make the issue go away. However, our gun laws are way too loose. And that's the bottom line. It's way too f'n easy to get a gun. Anybody with half a brain can legally get their hands on one. In a California, all you have to do is the following:

1. Be a legal resident of CA
2. Have a state issued photo id
3. Fill out the background check form swearing you are not a felon, junkie, psycho or terrorist. Assuming you aren't, you'll do fine.
4. Pay a $25 background check fee. It's called a DROS fee.
5. Wait 10 days.
6. Pass a safety test.

This is a joke of a process. I don't believe there is a clear cut solution to the problem. But, a good starting point is to make the process much more difficult and rigorous to own a gun. I believe this is one of those things Canadiens do much better than us

Like I said: your type never offers up any real solutions.  Just a bunch of generic emotional “Helen Lovejoy” style comments, nonspecific talking points, and personal insults.

Still waiting to hear that brilliant solution of yours. You know. The solution that you said is “right there but you gents are to stubborn, proud, blind, or god knows what to accept it.”

Yes......you are too worried about your right to bear arms and wrong - we are not in the same boat.  If this wasn't true you would be offering up solutions instead of worrying about protecting your guns.  Even the NRA is recognizing that now.  Anyway - no sense chatting as you are not capable of understanding.

I will end with this...........I feel very sorry for you.  You are a sheep and will depend on other intelligent people to make things better. 

Best wishes and well said.............and some in here don't even have half a brain and own guns. Wow.

Honestly, I don't even feel the need for a solution at this moment because of a few isolated incidents. Put the numbers into a percentage if you wish. 3.6 people die a year per 100,000. That comes out to .0036 percent of Americans die a year because of gun-related homicides and that's across the whole spectrum.

There is quite simply bigger issues to address.

You claimed you have a solution that is “right there but you gents are to stubborn, proud, blind, or god knows what to accept it.”

I keep asking for you to explain your solution to prevent crimes like this and you keep refusing to give it.

It’s not difficult to see that you have no real solution to this problem.  All you have are generic emotional “Helen Lovejoy” style comments, nonspecific talking points, and personal insults.

Next time you make a claim, you might want to make sure you can back it up first.

Shooter always owns every gun thread that appears. Being right does carry a toll.

Well done SS.

This from a guy needing trying to sell his guns to get by.  Being on the right side is something you know little about.

Ohhhhh, good one. Canadians are funny. Creepy hairy lil dudes but man they can chirp. All but broke, that your handle? I like that.

Shooter is making a clown out of ya.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I posted this below in the politics section, but I think it would serve well in this thread to, so I'm gonna cut and paste here too in response to your bolder comments above. This doesn't address everything that is being discussed in this thread, but it should put to bed the terrible argument of high gun ownership rates leading to higher gun related homicide rates.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

According to this site (which I have not validated, but the US statistics and Israel statistics were close enough...when you realize the 9,484 you tried to quote was per 300,000,000 or so....that I'm willing to base an argument on them) the US has by far the highest gun ownership per 100 person, yet rank 28th in homicide per 100,000 persons. That statistic right there draws into question any true correlation between gun ownership being the cause of more gun related homicides.

Drilling down further, when you sort based on gun ownership per 100 people, the next highest ranked countries are:

Switzerland (45), Finland(62), Serbia (60), Cyprus(61), Uruguay (31), Sweden(64), Norway(103), France(101), Canada (56), Austria(78), Germany(84), and Iceland (no gun related homicides).

The number next to each country represents the overall rank in gun related homicides per 100,000 people. So, Switzerland had the 2nd highest amount of guns per 100 people, but only the 45th most gun related homicides per 100,000 people, Finland had the 3rd highest gun ownership per 100 people, but only the 62nd highest gun related homicides per 100,000 people, and so on.

Now, let's look at the data from a different perspective. Sorting based on the highest gun related homicides per 100,000 people by country:

Honduras(87), El Savador(92), Jamaica(73), Venezuela(59), Guatemala(49), Saint Kitts and Nevis(no data), Trinidad and Tobago(128), Colombia(91), Belize(63), Puerto Rico(no data)

The number next to each country above represents where it ranks out of all countries in gun ownership per 100 people. So, Honduras had the highest gun related homicides per 100,000 people, but only the 87th highest gun ownership rates per 100 people, and so on.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see the lack of correlation between gun ownership, and gun related homicides. None of the top 10 gun owning countries even ranked in the top 25 in terms of gun related homicides. None of the top gun related homicide countries even ranked in the top 40 of gun ownership countries.

Now, there is a much stronger correlation that exists. Heavy gun ownership, but lower gun related deaths in European countries. Heavy gun related deaths, but lower gun ownership in Hispanic and Carribean countries. I stopped above with the top 10-12 in both scenarios, if you extend out to 20-30 countries, it becomes more obvious and equally as pronounced, and you see African countries begin to pop up on the high gun related homicide, low gun ownership list.

Now, to conclude this statistical analysis, we need to bring this back to the United States. If you carved out the 9.484 gun related homicides that were sited in the earlier post (incorrectly in reference to the pecentage, but assuming the numer was correct), what percentage of those do you think were committed in urban areas where the demographic is more closely correlated to Hispanic or Carribean countries (high gun related homicides compared to low gun ownership) vs. the European countries (high gun ownership compared to low gun related homicides)? The Newtown massacre is beyond tragic, but the reason it is in the news is because it is so horrific, but at the same time, so unusual. The majority of gun related homicides in this country don't even make the news, and I think we all know why.

Clearly, I mean who has the right to tell me I can't use a Nuclear Weapon??? That's 2nd amendment as well, right??? My nuke keeps you from destroying me or my beliefs

This argument on "ASSAULT WEAPONS" seems as absurd but claimed as legit... So I own a typical rifle or handgun w/ maybe at most 2-16 shots available. Clearly I can kill u and u hopefully recognize my power to kill you which should keep you from going crazy on any group of people.. This argument is typical of the NRA...

This gun debate is so OVER... WE do NOT need guns/ammo that can kill more than 3. It's so beyond absurd that defending this BS is basically crackhead in my day or Meth-head today. If you want to hunt/protect then a rifle/shotgun w/ a couple rounds will satisfy your problem. Beyond that it's a bunch of bullshit...

Seriously No 1 can defend a clip that holds 100 shots, that's beyond absurd!

The argument isn't taking away a basic/simple handgun or shotgun, just the ASSAULT RIFLES (hmmm doesn't that assault wording mean attack, not defend) maybe it doesn't stop every1 intending on killing a mass population to be prevented, but it may stop a couple crazies. The problem w/ this argument is that it's so basic that garbage is beyond absurd yet people object against it.. Guess cuz those guns are cool to shoot, a nuke would also be cool to set off as well

Maybe more gun owners should buy more weapons since the stats seem to lead that more of you would be killed, which may result in those of us who don't own weapons become safer...

It baffles me on common sense in this World... We claim to be knowledgable, advanced, civilized...Yet very little in this country fall in any of those categories. Suicide bomber in a mosque baffles us, yet gun holder in a school just is nuts... I could go on, but this Assault Weapon and 100 round clip is today's problem. Healthcare tom, since I also believe in a civilized country we should protect those who need it. I must digress, cuz too many people are wayyy too ignorant, and likely those folks aren't gonna read this cuz they likely can't read or comprehend