You still haven't countered my point that Sir Robert Peel felt that Policemen are "Professional Citizens" (my attribution - not a literal quote) and therefore paid to do what all OTHER citizens are expected to do.
Because the police get trained to do that job, civilian's don't, and we'd rather have the police do their job instead of having vigilanties walking around trying to get back at the criminals.
I don't recall asking a question (and a quick re-read of my post confirms my recall) - just making a suggestion. You're doing it AGAIN, Sigs Guy.
As I said go to blueline, and tell the police on there that you want the same tools they have in order to combat crime and see what kind of a response you will get. I'm not doing it again, its just somewhat inane to hear some guy talking about how he wants to have a gun to fight back against the supposed criminal horde despite the fact we have trained professional's who are suppose to deal with crime and who don't support giving civilians more guns.
You're losing it (again), Sigs Guy. Just keep your crap tight - you are a remarkable debater at times, I enjoy reading your thoughts - when they aren't over the top, and deliberately inflammatory.
You know I've heard more inflammatory remarks come from the otherside, however I'm not going to go and hang up my uniform because I am fine with our current firearms policy because someone decided to take offense to a post which wasn't inflammatory in anyway.
I don't see anyone HERE, in THIS thread calling you anything particularly demeaning (I haven't read the thread you and CSA 105 reference, but I think I'm gonna') I HAVE read the thread you reference regarding Amnesty International. NOBODY on that thread made the statement that "Amnesty is in league with the communists" - THAT sentiment comes from the linked article. (Subject for a new thread - NGOs I've had to deal with - and why I despise them).
No they are in league with our enemies which is somewhat inane in its own way. Just because someone is opposed to torture, the death penalty, etc. does not mean they are in the same league with communists, or any enemy we are currently facing.
1.KEY WORD- common sense.......what, you think once the police arrive that they don't use common sence and just throw themselves into danger??? Sorry, they're not supposed to be Jack Bauer..........
Yeah, the police aren't like Jack Bauer, but your average civilian isn't Jack Bauer. Just because a person has a firearm in a dangerous situation doesn't always mean that the outcome will be positive, I alluded to that point before with regards to I6's post. But the police are trained in how to respond to those situations, and I have complete trust in the police myself and don't see the need for CCW. The only time CCW is really warranted is if a person is at a real risk of danger, and if the police believe that it's necessary for them to carry.
2..and there you go flying off again, no one said anything about your response to I-6. [except you]. I can rest assured it was in another post that I quoted a few posts back.
Here is my post and I'll give the response, if you want to tell me how I was being inflammatory by all means tell me.
While firearms are not responsible for all violent crime, it is a factor. The United States is not safer despite the large proportion of firearms per capita, and showing statistics to prove that mores guns mean less crimes is moot as anyone on the anti-gun side could show the same statistics for New York City, etc.
Now as a gun owner and one who has additionally been certified by 4 different gov't entities to carry a firearm professionally [and to teach the safe usage therof] -- I dont see the cause and effect to the argument for gun control. The why is simply because criminals who want guns will find a way to get them. Thus I find that the majority who seek greater gun control proceed this way for two reasons: Fear and Ignorance.
Very few societies in the western world support CCW, and I think the only time that it might be warranted is if a person's life has been directly threatened. More firearms floating around does not make a society safer, and as has been pointed out you would have to factor in domestic violence as well when dealing with firearms.
A firearm is an inanimate object - it has no will or desires. The issue is of people. Since I would hazard a guess that my training, and experiences with firearms are likley greater than 98% of the firearm using professional in Canada, I fail to see why I as a Canadian citizen cannot then carry a firearm with me?
Because their isn't really a point to it, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of police officers don't even feel the need to carry a firearm while off duty. I could maybe see it in a predominantly rural area, but in an urban area their really isn't any point to it. Sometimes good common sense is the best course of action if your find yourself in a predicament.
Secindly since we are a society of equals - and a society that exists on the presumption of innocence, then why should a civlian with the equivalent (or greater) skill and training to the average law enforcement member in Canada, not be able to carry a firearm?
Because a civilian is not given the same duties and responsibilities as Law Enforcement and the Military in Canada. Their is one nation that I know of which has an assault rifle in many homes and that is Switzerland, however they don't give out CCW freely and have restrictions on firearms ownership, not to mention the fact that in order to have an assault rifle one must be a member of the reserves. I'd actually favor a system similar to the Swiss, but it'll never fly in this country, and I doubt alot of people would be ready to do 300 days of military training.
I can legally carry a firearm (and do so) in some US states -- I've never shot anyone in the US. But I know that if I enter a situation that requires me to act in a way to defend myself or others - that I have not just the skill and judgement - but the tool to do so as well.
The fact that the US would so freely allow a foreigner [I'm assuming you're a Canadian citizen] to carry a firearm into their nation shows how inept their gun policy is. That one can so easily get access to a firearm is a symptom of their problems, they seem to have no control over the flow of firearms. Some people have argued that people in schools should carry guns, but when I think about some of the stupidity that went on while I went to high school I shudder at the notion of people carrying guns around. Most people in Canada just don't see the need for everyone to carry around firearms, and I'm sure a large proportion of the LE community feels the same way.
That said I do dial 911 - and despite being armed in a situation in Canada, I withdrew further into my home and dialled 911 and waited for the Police to come. Had I not been armed (and announced it) I am not sure what would have happened. (the firearm in question was a legally owned semi auto only MP-5 BTW - since sold to a Regina Policeman). In Ottawa in the early 90's I ran away (to phone the Police) when I attempted to interupt a sexual assault - and the second man attacked me with a knife. If I had been armed at the time, it would have been a much shorter attack on the woman.
That largely depends, I can see how that situation could have gone downhill fast even with a firearm in the equation, as well I'd imagine that if firearms were easily accessable more criminals would have guns as well. It's hard to find out the outcome of each individual situation. However when I was sitting in on a presentation done by EPS on sex crimes they never once supported anyone arming themselves with a firearm to prevent rape. Whether a firearm can prevent rape or not, that issue is complex since one has to take in all of the variables. My biggest issue with the need for a firearm to protect a home from an intruder is that it doesn't take into account the possibility of a home where domestic violence is prevalent, or a member of the home becoming suicidal, mentally ill, a criminal, etc.
I view firearms ownership as a right and responsibility of a free society -- and none of my experiences todate have altered that -- in fact they have reinforced that viewpoint in cement.
That's an interesting argument, I read an article in Harpers [I'll try to find the article] making that point about firearms being a necessity for democracy. The point in the Harpers article was that a firearm should only be seen as a last resort in fighting any tyranny. However even in that case Australia, Great Britian, Japan, and New Zealand, are all fully functioning democracies despite gun control.
My position is this, if you want to buy a hunting rifle, shotgun, or are a collector of guns, then you should be allowed to own firearms. However while saying that if you want to buy a firearm you should have to do a course, register them with the local police service, have no criminal record [if you have one a pardon must be granted], and have no history of mental illness, the same background check should be done on members of your immediate family. If charged with a firearms offence you should immediatly have each and every weapon taken away. My position is one of regulation, keep the firearms in the country regulated so we don't have a proliferation of firearms with no control over who can get one, firearms ownership should be a priviledge not a right. At the same time the country should step up efforts at the border to prevent illegal firearms from entering Canada.
With reference to my last point kudos to the CBSA for the seizures of firearms at the border.
I don't blame only firearms for all the crimes in Canada, that would be inept of me. I think that McGuinty and Miller are just trying to score political points, and banning all handguns won't do a thing as long as firearms are coming across the border illegally.
You are aware that Canada has a higher per capita ratio of firearms than the US are you not?
You've failed Canadian civics if you be believe that difference between the civilian and the Law Enforcement community.
In reading the rest of what you've written - I'm just going to add you to my "radio interference: Ignore" pile as you seem to have neither the moral compass to make a correct choice nor the experience base to guide a choice if you had decided to make one -- you truly are one of the sheep, and I feel sorry your in uniform.
3. See #2. You need a thicker skin, go check the admin threads and see what I've been called here.
I have a fairly thick skin, I just think its odd that someone can say they need a gun to protect themselves from cops and not get any attention, yet making a reference to statistics is considered distasteful and something which entails ridicule.
OK kid, I'm done with you.
You are right. Everyone is against you. No one knows anything but you. Everyone else is wrong. Everyone wants to call you names.
Off you go, then...
That's abit hypocritical don't you think.
Either way, this is a pretty futile debate, and luckily for the rest of us, Canadian's will never support handing out CCW. After going on LUFA's website I'm even more certain that my position is the right one on CCW.