Cars are not made with the express and primary purpose of killing people.

But I agree that they should be banned.

Guns aren't made for the express and primary purpose of killing people, either.

Guns are made with the express and primary purpose of accelerating bullets to high speeds. Who knows what happens after that?

"Guns aren't made for the express and primary purpose of killing people, either."

Right, they're not people specific. They're just used to destroy, injure, or kill objects or living things. Cars are used for transportation.

And if only as many people regularly used guns as they often as they use guns.

Can we stop with the car analogy yet? This has been discussed at least 4 times now.

*often as they use cars.

"Guns aren't made for the express and primary purpose of killing people, either"
So if not killing what are they used for?

very clever and very funny. gj.

In anycase cars have a purpose other then killing, other then killing what can a gun do? not much...

@Feces - Hunting rifles are guns. Their prupose is hunting animals not killing people. So there, moron.

"Hunting rifles are guns. Their prupose is hunting animals not killing people. So there, moron."
when did I say killing PEOPLE? I just said killling...

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department," says Werner von Braun.

Of course guns have other uses.

You responded to a statement that said "killing people" with "what are they made for then..." which proves you have a lack of reading comprehension.

In any case, the # of crimes involving guns in America is 400 times that of Canada. its still stupid to have guns...

meanwhile the same thing could be said about drinking and driving. Since Ontario enacted stricter laws behind both drinking and driving and speeding the number of car accidents is down something like 15%.

Same thing with guns in Canada, guns, such as hunting rifles are legal, but its much harder to get them and the use is more restrictive. As a result crime is lower in Canada. I am not infavor of outlawing them entirely, but I am in favor of banning certain guns and restricting the use of others.

I like a mix of Australia's and Canada's law. Little is outright banned in Australia, but you must show a compelling reason for most any gun. But hunting rifles/shotguns should be more available as they serve a real purpose outside of "self defense" or "target shooting". And there are other "collector's" gun like antique flintlocks and such that should be allowed provided they are disabled or they are deemed to be less threat than even a hunting rifle. And let's face it, a working flintlock has such a low accuracy and low muzzel velocity plus it is a single shot weapon so that it wouldn't even be a temptation to use it in the commission of a crime.

I understand antiques... however modern guns are just stupid, hunting is fine but should be regulated.

That's why I said a compelling reason must be shown. For instance, my brother is a former cop who is now a supervisor for a major security service. He has a clear need to carry a weapon on the job and that means plain clothes on occasion. I have no such need, so the law should grant him the right to own a hand gun of a semi-automatic nature while denying me anything except a huting rifle/shotgun.

It'a all about common sense. Unfortunately the law rarely takes common sense into account.

"In any case, the # of crimes involving guns in America is 400 times that of Canada. its still stupid to have guns..."

People use this sort of statistic about Detroit/Windsor too...number of violent crimes sure makes the US look worse, but...34 million people versus 309 million. But wait, we're still looking at 40 times the number!

Population density of USA: 33.7 per sq km
Of Canada: 8.3 per sq km.

Being four times as densely populated definitely has something to do with it.

But about 90% of our population is within 100 miles of the american border. So if we discard the North, our population density probably is closer to the american average.

We have pretty large unpopulated areas too, like Wyoming. If we discount the north of Canada, we should discount most of Alaska and the Rocky Mountains, bringing the American number up too.

Population density of Toronto is 3,972 per sq km. Of New York City is 27,532 per sq km. As a for instance comparing our largest cities.

The most densely populated province, PEI at 24.98 per sq km, would be 32nd in density if all provinces were US states. It would only narrowly beat out current 32nd, Mississippi, which is at 24.4 per sq km. And still below the national average.

@ SacredDigits

As you yourself say, the US is not without its fair share of vast unpopulated areas. It follows that the high population density of your cities is down to choice rather than necessity. As you claim that such high densities lead to high crime rates, I was wondering if you had any suggestions why such self destructive town planning is so popular in the States?

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/10/70010-004-BBFE93FB.gif
if you only count the 80 miles away from the US border, we are more dense then America...

"We have pretty large unpopulated areas too, like Wyoming. If we discount the north of Canada, we should discount most of Alaska and the Rocky Mountains, bringing the American number up too."
True, except it wont go up as much as ours, and will still be different.

*as in it will be more like 2 then 4 times as dense...

also it can be spun the other way, your least dense state is less dense then our least dense province...

I think all of you are quite dense.

If gun owners were as careless and reckless with their guns as car owners are with their cars, well, it sure wouldn't be a pretty picture.

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. It amazes me how reckless people are with cars and how much money and life is flushed down the drain due to such recklessness.

Nobody picked it up, but 1000 to Stukus for the Tom Lehrer quote.

UK is about 8 times more densely populated than the US (255/k2 vs. 32/k2)... yet the UK has much lower death by firearm rates (per 100,00 people/year)... US: 10.2, England/Wales: 0.46, Scotland: 0.58, N.Ireland: 6.82)... yes, we are a more dangerous place to live in than N. Ireland in regards to getting shot. So - as you can see, there appears to be no correlation between population density and firearm mortality rate.

Of course, there are areas of America that are more densely populated than anywhere in Britain. The figure is also distorted by the fact that America has vast tracts of land that are essentially unpopulated.

Oh, I should have read more of the thread, it seemed that point has already been argued over.

car=freedom

all the accidents are because of old people drunk people and foreigners kill the old kick out the foreigners and prohibition will solve all your whiny problems

alternatively you could just accept that people are stupid and some deserve to die in their metallic death traps

@ dexter morgan

It's not just about population density. You also have to account for total population. Using towns as an example, a town of 50 people is going to have no crime, irrespective of gun ownership. A city of 2 million is going to have a lot of crime, guns or no guns.

...and here is a map of firearm death rates by state... the south looks pretty bad... red states look pretty bad...
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Here is a map and associated article showing that states with looser gun control "lead" the nation in firearm death rates:
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_b8f1d999-1 81-549f-97ff-964cc5f5b6db.html

Here is an article and graphs showing in inverse relationship between gun ownership and gun safety:
http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/important-data-trends-nra-doesnt-want.html

High town/city densities, and no matter how you spin it, New York is denser than anything in Canada, occur in America for a number of reasons, none of which I know for certain. I figure the fact that they're far newer than European cities but not as new as most Canadian cities hurts them quite a bit.

@Gunfighter06, if it was about total population then the cities with lower populations would also have lower murder rates... it is not necessarily the case. New York City: 0.06, Bufalo: 0.22, Newark: 0.29... (just to pick two small cities in the same general area as New York City)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate