Originally Posted by Zeus

Now you're creeping me out..lol.

I was thinking about this and I think it really depends on where you live and crime levels/environment.

If I lived in a gangland area of LA, I'd probably have a change of heart in my viewpoints, and I'd be packing a Glock.

In contrast, where I grew up in Canada, we rarely locked our front door. I still only lock it at night. We didn't even use a deadbolt on our family home for years. The threat was never there. Guns were just not a part of life - we rarely saw them and I only ever fired a real gun in my late teens. Same with our friends/relatives, etc. - guns were not a presence. We had rifles at cottages and farms, but more for pest control than protection.

Perhaps there is a luxury of innocence implicit in this, and if so, I'm glad it still exists - whether in part, whole, or imagined.

Originally Posted by kip Foss

The question that no one wants to talk about is how can all the European countries have very strict gun control laws and still have a smaller crime rate that the US?

Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN

How about gangland Vancouver? That place is getting out of control yet it has strict gun laws.

Originally Posted by connerm

America's gun laws aren't the problem. Ineffective sentencing is the problem. We simply don't have enough jails and electric chairs.

Originally Posted by connerm

America's gun laws aren't the problem. Ineffective sentencing is the problem. We simply don't have enough jails and electric chairs.

Originally Posted by Zeus

One thing I've never understood when it comes to gun control arguments is - how many people have actually shot someone in 'self-defense'?

I'll wager not many.

Actually shooting and killing another human being is something that I would never want on my conscience. I have a lot of respect for soldiers who have had to do so in the line of duty.

I think guns, or more precisely the ownership of a gun, imparts a potentially false sense of security. It could potentially make one think they are safer.

However, in a situation of real violence, how many average gun owners would be able to respond quickly enough, and effectively enough, to properly defend themselves? Would the presence of another gun escalate an already dangerous situation? Would a mugging become a murder as well? Would a break and enter result in deaths?

Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN

Werent the gun laws in place long before the drop in crime?

Originally Posted by kip Foss

The question that no one wants to talk about is how can all the European countries have very strict gun control laws and still have a smaller crime rate that the US?

Originally Posted by Zeus

There are always exceptions to the generalizations, and this is certainly one. They've had their share of gang-related violence recently, however I think perspective plays a fair share in terms of media coverage. It is still a very safe city, the shootings and murders have largely been gang-member related.

The response from citizens that I've seen and read about, however, has not been to arm themselves, but rather a rallying to call for tougher legislation and more power to the police to fight the gang issue.

Vancouver is a hub for the drug trade, no doubt about it. Big business, gangs fight for control. All that premium BC weed needs to get exported after all...

But that's another story...

Originally Posted by JonL

Yes. My point is that gun ownership amongst the general population is IRRELEVANT to crime rate. In NYC, there were tough gun control laws in place when there was a high crime rate, as well as now when there is a low crime rate. This proves that arming the general population is not the only solution to crime. And the crime rate in NYC is very low now, I haven't looked up the statistics but I bet it is a lot lower than in many places with a more heavily armed population.