Father mistakes son for burglar and kills him with gun

[Woeler]

[quote="DGFone"][quote="Woeler1"]
Neither does it increase the deaths in Canada. So tell me, why does the US have such a high gunmurder rate? And no, drugs is by far not the only thing.[/quote]

You mean like when the gun murder rate in Washington D.C. tripled? After the place implemented some of the toughest and most restrictive gun laws in the entire nation?[/quote]
No I meant how Canadians leave their front door open over night and they still own guns. I think it is pretty clear that the principle I have named so many times plays a great role here "fear thy neighbor"

[KentuckyWildcat]

I think you're streotyping Americans far too broadly. There is no culture of "fear they neighbor". I don't know where you got that catchphrase from, but that's not the thinking of average American at all. I already posted a link to statistics showing that previously law-abiding citizens almost never murder anyone. If you aren't planning on committing a crime, there's nothing to fear from those citizens owing guns.

Simply put, the crusade against guns, while well-intentioned, has never been proven to do any good whether in America or Europe. However, there is at least some data to suggest that areas allowing gun ownership may actually see a decrease in violent crime. It's really that simple.

[Woeler]

[quote="KentuckyWildcat"]I think you're streotyping Americans far too broadly. There is no culture of "fear they neighbor". I don't know where you got that catchphrase from, but that's not the thinking of average American at all. I already posted a link to statistics showing that previously law-abiding citizens almost never murder anyone. If you aren't planning on committing a crime, there's nothing to fear from those citizens owing guns.

Simply put, the crusade against guns, while well-intentioned, has never been proven to do any good whether in America or Europe. However, there is at least some data to suggest that areas allowing gun ownership may actually see a decrease in violent crime. It's really that simple.[/quote]
That only applies when there is a significant amount of violent crimes, which in western europe isnt the case. So then i would like to know (seriously like to know). If you do not fear your neighbor (which means countrymen) why do you need a gun? Again, i am not one of those BANGUNS people. I know that would be impossibe. Just do explain to me why e.g. Canada and Switserland CAN have a peaceful society with guns and a relatively lower gunmurder rate?

There must be a reason. This doesn't just happen. What is it about the American society that creates this situation? I honestly don't know, but it ought to be something.

[TheGunner18]

[quote="KentuckyWildcat"]If you aren't planning on committing a crime, there's nothing to fear from those citizens owing guns.[/quote]
How do you know who is and who isn't planning on committing a crime? There's almost no way to know who you should or shouldn't fear.

[quote="KentuckyWildcat"]However, there is at least some data to suggest that areas allowing gun ownership may actually see a decrease in violent crime. It's really that simple.[/quote]
So why hasn't Britain or any other place that prohibits the ownership of guns made them legal?

[Woeler]

[quote="TheGunner18"]
So why hasn't Britain or any other place that prohibits the ownership of guns made them legal?[/quote]
Because we, members of the EU tend to view guns as immoral and irresponsible. Since the second world war we have condemned guns and I can safely say that it has contributed to a safe and relatively harmonious society.

[KentuckyWildcat]

In the US, it's not an evenly spread problem. The crime rates, including murder are much higher in large cities than in rural areas. Drug and gang-related activities are among the leading causes of murder in those major urban areas. This cultural and socio-economic factors influencing this are numerous and complex, but these urban areas do not have a higher prevalence of gun ownership. In fact, many of them have attempted to enforce strict gun control in response to the high crime rates, but it hasn't worked as DGFone alluded to with Washington, D.C.

As for why European countries continue gun bans, I figure Woeler is correct that they aren't viewed as favorably by the culture there although the study I linked earlier did mention that there was growing support for repealing gun-control measures in Great Britian in response to a growing problem with violent crime.

[TheGunner18]

Even since 1903, Britain has had gun restrictions. Personally, I think it was the right choice; it wouldn't be the same if I could walk along the street and there was the possibility that someone could have walked into a gun shop, bought a gun and was carrying it around. It's too easy for crime to happen if it's made easy to get a gun.

Then again, there's no way you can stop gun crime completely. It's impossible.

[DGFone]

[quote="Woeler1"]If you do not fear your neighbor (which means countrymen) why do you need a gun?
[/quote]

I know the reasons why my parents bought a Mini-14 (5.56 version of the M14 rifle): They include:
1. So that I and my sister know how to handle a gun. The first time my sister picked up a pistol in a shooting range, my dad was quite nervous at how she handled it. This includes learning proper gun handling and procedures, something the criminals who use guns don't bother learning. A gun is a tool, one that is often abused, but a tool never the less. The reason many abuse it is because they don't know how to handle a gun.

2. Obama. I hate to use a stereotype, but it's a fact that Obama is the #1 gun salesman of the year. There is no better way to get the entire population to have something than to threaten to ban it. Before Obama, my parents were fine with taking me and my sister to the range and learning point 1 there. But as soon as they learned that there might be a chance that they will not be able to buy one because of the president, they went and bought one.

And as for point 2: It's not a "Obama wants to ban guns, so let's get one". It's "Obama wants to ignore the constitution and force the U.S. to follow his own rules. As Americans, we are not going to allow that, and we need to prepare for the worse (ignoring the government).

Notice how non of these reasons include actually shooting someone.

[KentuckyWildcat]

[quote="TheGunner18"]Even since 1903, Britain has had gun restrictions. Personally, I think it was the right choice; it wouldn't be the same if I could walk along the street and there was the possibility that someone could have walked into a gun shop, bought a gun and was carrying it around. It's too easy for crime to happen if it's made easy to get a gun.

Then again, there's no way you can stop gun crime completely. It's impossible.[/quote]

There should obviously be limits, and there are, even in the US. Not just any nut can buy a gun at Wal-Mart like it's a candy bar. There are background checks in place to make sure that criminals can't (legally) buy weapons since they are the ones far more likely to harm people. Then, even if you have a gun, carrying one in public requires a separate permit (carrying without the permit is a criminal offense). To me, it's not scary at all, although I understand that there are some significant cultural differences between us. As for crime being easier, that correlation has never been shown like has already been discussed repeatedly.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]And as for point 2: It's not a "Obama wants to ban guns, so let's get one". It's "Obama wants to ignore the constitution and force the U.S. to follow his own rules. As Americans, we are not going to allow that, and we need to prepare for the worse (ignoring the government).[/quote]

This is not possible without a constitutional amendment, and if the constitution is amended, then it is constitutional. Seriously, the constitution isn't going to be ignored. There's a procedure for this crap, and it isn't all run by one man.

[quote]It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.[/quote]