Ozz2001 said:
I heard in Canada 90% of the ppl own hand guns and there isnt very many kills there like the usa...Maybe its because everyones got a gun and they know they could get shot...Makes anyone think twice in my eyes...
Its your right to bare arms dont give it up!
Um, that would be a rumor courtesty of the Vicious Rumor Mill.
I know 1 guy out of the 120 firefighters I work with who owns a handgun. Sure, lots own rifles, for hunting, of course, but not handguns. The only other person I knew who owned a handgun growing up was a friend's father.
The fact that we don't regularly blow each other head's off (or our own) with handguns is simple---there's not that many around. As a paramedic for the past 10 years working in cities ranging from 1.5 million to 75,000, the only GSWs I've been to have been from rifles. And why was that? Easy access, an action of opportunity. Now, imagine if you will:
Take away that opportunity, the access, and the outcome of those calls may have been different. (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying take away rifles, I'm just asking you to think.)
This thread has many strong opinions, obviously. What the true answer is remains to be seen.
Will greater restriction and less access yield less handguns deaths? I think so, but that's my opinion.
Will less restriction yield less handgun deaths? Would this be a mentality of "he has one, I have one" type of cold-war stand off? Where would the public education come in, with easy access? Would homocides via handguns go down? Would accidental child deaths go up, or down? I can't see how less restrictions is a good thing.
It may be a "right" to bear arms, but why bother???
I'm not slamming our neighbors to the south, but I think if we look at the issues and problems they have on a national level with handgun deaths, we can prevent that here.