>a) Anything can be a weapon, you can't get rid of
>them, so there's no point in saying "it's too soon to say."
>b) Canada is not the peaceful little place you think it is, and the peace
>you do see is definitely not the result of a lack of guns.
The facts disagree. After a little web-surfing, I found the following
article. It's from an anti-gun advocate organization, so you can argue
that they have an agenda --- of course they have an agenda, but this
little article is "just the facts", and the references they cite look
impeccable. It's from http://www.gunfree.inter.net/csgv/bsc_int.htm
--- BEGIN quoted web-page ---
Basic Facts...
International Comparisons
______________________________________________________________________
The murder rate in the United States surpasses that of every other
industrialized country in the world. The murder rate in Washington,
D.C. is fifteen times greater than that in Northern Ireland, a nation
plagued by terrorism.(9) This level of handgun violence does not occur
in other developed nations. In 1990, handguns were used to murder 22
people in Great Britain, 68 in Canada, 87 in Japan, and 11,719 in the
U.S.(10)
The number of young men killed in the U.S. versus the rest of the
world also is staggering.
In 1990, the homicide rate per 100,000 population for males ages 15 -
24 was as follows:(11)
Country Rate
United States 37.2
Italy 4.3
Germany 1.1
Canada 0.9
United Kingdom 0.6
Japan 0.5
--- END quoted web-page ---
My favourite sentence is, "In 1990, handguns were used to murder 22
people in Great Britain, 68 in Canada, 87 in Japan, and 11,719 in the
U.S." Think about that for a second (just one second should suffice)
and then tell me again how the lack of handguns doesn't affect the
peacefulness of a society.