Different.  Expecting different results.
Sorry about that, thought one thing but typed another.  I can't edit my post, apparently...

Though you can't prove that Chicago's gun bans made it the crime-festered city it is today by looking at a statistic, it is more than obvious that it did not help at all.

if you ban guns in just 1 city or only 1 state then ofcourse it wont work as people just drive outside the city/state and buy a gun there and bring it back to the city/state.
and beside that, is it stupid to think that it will change in a matter of months or years. it will take decades befor the usa culture becomes less violent. (if it will become less violent at all. (you never know whit them)

(you never know whit them)

So close. You almost forgot to include your prejudice.

Anyways, it's as partydevil says. Violence comes from things other than simply having weapons around.

So close. You almost forgot to include your prejudice.

Actually, Partydevil does have a point to a certain extent. America does possess a rather violent culture. The country's legacy is that of violence, when the people wanted something, they often used force to get it. One of the looming problems of American history is that people tend to forget that America is an extremely young country. And that youth is an important factor when trying to sort out its history from the rest of the world.

Canada is also a young country, but we're also far more moderate. We're a defensive nation. Our culture is not as violent. But, this also stems from the fact that socially and culturally, we adapted a great many things from the English.

I mentioned this somewhere else, but if you were to place the two American parties, and the three Canadian parties on the political scale, our Conservatives would be slightly less right than the Republicans, out Liberals (who are center left) are further left than the Democrats (which are center right) and then the New Democratic Party (which is left wing).

Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.

You have to understand, with your logic people cut themselves (and severely at times) with kitchen knives. You would want to ban knives because of a small percentage of accidents?

To the both of you:
You don't buy dirt bikes and kitchen knives with the primary intention of self defense and making your home safer.  Your comparisons are invalid, therefore neither of your arguments hold any water (cuz they've got holes in them).  There is no irony in buying a dirt bike to go dirt biking and then having a dirtbike accident... same thing for cooking knives and cutting yourself.   But (!)  when you buy an item for self-defense, or to protect your home, and said item does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning if you can't figure that out. 

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't have much life experience and live in some theoretical world. - How do you stop a criminal with a gun? Words? Smiles? Harsh language to piss him/her off more? Rainbows? None of the above. You disarm the threat with a weapon of equal or greater value.

Lol, 1st of all, you know what happens when you assume right?
2nd -since you are soooo well traveled and grizzled by your worldly experience, regail us with your tales of all the times you stopped criminals and disarmed threats!   
3rd - nobody here said that police, secret service, and other well-trained personnel should not be able to do their jobs effectively.  In fact, to see how the police think about gun control click here.  But if you are not talking about professional crime fighters and security personnel, and you are referring to civilians trying to stop crime, i'd refer you to all of the statistics that I previously cited, and more, showing the frequency of civilians stopping an armed assailant vs something less desirable happening.  link

Its silly to think that someone is more safe without a device to defend themselves with against people who wish to do harm. Your logic on that issue is really illogical. What keeps actors, performers, the president, and other VIP's safe? Armed guards.

Its not silly, its a statistical fact.  And just to clarify, You might feel safer holding a gun, thats what happens when you hold a gun, but that feeling doesn't actually make you safer, you just feel safer. 
2nd- again you are conflating untrained vigilantees with trained professionals and the secret service.  Nobody here is suggesting that the president and his family should not be protected by well-trained, highly armed professionals.  Straw-man much?

Have you even bought a gun? Do you know what background checks are required?

I'm sorry if you were personally inconvenienced, but that doesn't change the huge numbers of guns in this country that were sold illegally and/or without a background check.  Guns bought on the internet or at a gun show can be bought in many states without a background check.  Arguing that background checks are not the cure-all magic elixir is not really an effective argument that they shouldn't be strengthened. 

Honestly, the rest of your argument suggests that you want to protect the criminal. Stop protecting the criminals!

please, your going to have to spell that one out for me

I got to go, will be back later

Actually, Partydevil does have a point to a certain extent. America does possess a rather violent culture. The country's legacy is that of violence, when the people wanted something, they often used force to get it. One of the looming problems of American history is that people tend to forget that America is an extremely young country. And that youth is an important factor when trying to sort out its history from the rest of the world.

I never disagreed with that. Just the quoted statement, where he added something unnecessary to his post for the sole purpose of insulting Americans.

His mother, who should have been aware of her child's mental problems. His mother, who should never have kept a gun anywhere where he could get to it. His mother, who was one of these irresponsible people I keep talking about over and over again. Would an in-depth background check have prevented him from stealing the gun somehow? Who knows. That's why I still advocate what I said earlier in regards to the shooting.

I don't think anyone should be surprised at the level to which people will delude themselves about family members especially their own son.

I'll admit I'm not well informed on exactly what laws are currently in relation to those details. I'm not against assault rifles because they're assault rifles, but because, from my knowledge, they are much more powerful, have a larger clip, and have a longer range than a pistol, in addition to automatic fire (unless modified otherwise)

By that logic, you might wanna rethink your stance on hunting rifles. Most hunting rifles fire a more powerful and destructive round and have a longer range than a pistol or assault rifle. These "assault rifles" are not capable of fully automatic select fire only semi-auto (which technically makes them not assault rifles by definition). Also, glock makes a 33 round pistol magazine.

Lol, 1st of all, you know what happens when you assume right?
2nd -since you are soooo well traveled and grizzled by your worldly experience, regail us with your tales of all the times you stopped criminals and disarmed threats!   
3rd - nobody here said that police, secret service, and other well-trained personnel should not be able to do their jobs effectively.  In fact, to see how the police think about gun control click here.  But if you are not talking about professional crime fighters and security personnel, and you are referring to civilians trying to stop crime, i'd refer you to all of the statistics that I previously cited, and more, showing the frequency of civilians stopping an armed assailant vs something less desirable happening.  link

I never disarmed any foes or stopped world domination plots with my CC but I stopped someone from robbing me. It was an old fashioned Hollywood mugging scenario. He wanted my money I pushed him back, pulled my gun and he ran away. I really isn't a very heroic or interesting story.

I personally think police chiefs have an agenda on the whole gun ban idea. It's easy to blame guns instead of your own ineptness to lower crime rates. It's the same way switchblades and balisongs became scapegoats. They also have a very skewed view on it since their job has them deal with criminals (that have guns) all day. They won't lose their right to own guns its everyone else that will. It becomes very easy to say yeah they should be deprived of this or that while, knowing that they are above that and exempt from it.

I don't think anyone should be surprised at the level to which people will delude themselves about family members especially their own son.

Which is exactly why I am saying she was irresponsible and should likely never have owned a potentially lethal weapon.

By that logic, you might wanna rethink your stance on hunting rifles. Most hunting rifles fire a more powerful and destructive round and have a longer range than a pistol or assault rifle. These "assault rifles" are not capable of fully automatic select fire only semi-auto (which technically makes them not assault rifles by definition). Also, glock makes a 33 round pistol magazine.

Perhaps, but hunting rifles are made for hunting. That's what people use them for. You don't hunt with an assault rifle. I would agree that large clip handguns might be reasonable to restrict, or have modified.

It's easy to blame guns instead of your own ineptness to lower crime rates.

It's just as easy to claim the police are inept and that people don't use guns for crimes. The statistics show otherwise.

They also have a very skewed view on it since their job has them deal with criminals (that have guns) all day.

Because for no reason we should listen to the people most experienced with illegal firearms in an issue regarding firearm usage.

They won't lose their right to own guns its everyone else that will.

How many times does this need to be said?

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.

Was that enough? Please tell me it was. Good. Now let's stop bringing in the false dichotomy fallacy.

Apologies, I'm a bit of an idiot. I misred the article you linked to about police chiefs. For some reason I thought they wanted to ban guns. My bad. Although, I do believe they are more biased than the average citizen. I'm not saying they shouldn't have a say (they might have some good ideas) just that they have a horse in the race.

I

t's just as easy to claim the police are inept and that people don't use guns for crimes. The statistics show otherwise.

No, most criminals do use guns to commit crimes. I wasn't saying all or even most police are inept and it's their fault but that its easy to blame something or someone else. I only meant that their experience with guns is almost always negative.

Perhaps, but hunting rifles are made for hunting. That's what people use them for. You don't hunt with an assault rifle. I would agree that large clip handguns might be reasonable to restrict, or have modified.

Some people hunt with ARs and AKs. You'd probably have to rechamber an AR to a higher caliber for any real hunting though. .223 is not very powerful. Guns are guns they mostly do the same thing.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

I never disagreed with that. Just the quoted statement, where he added something unnecessary to his post for the sole purpose of insulting Americans.

might be insulting. but it's just my mind at work. no insult mend, leave alone have a purpose.