# A Columbine Father Speaks Out



## TCBF (3 May 2007)

The following is a portion of the transcript: 

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. 

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. 

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent. 

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. 


Your laws ignore our deepest needs, 

Your words are empty air. 

You've stripped away our heritage, 

You've outlawed simple prayer. 

Now gunshots fill our classrooms, 

And precious children die. 

You seek for answers everywhere, 

And ask the question "Why?" 

You regulate restrictive laws, 

Through legislative creed. 

And yet you fail to understand, 

That God is what we need! 



"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational 

systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. 



"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!" 

- Edit: The Snopes ref below stated that the above statement was, in fact, made, but the framing comments were not.  I have removed thre framing comments.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 May 2007)

From Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/scott.asp



> Darrell Scott Testimony
> Claim:   E-mail describes Darrell Scott's statement before a House subcommittee.
> *Status:   Partly true.*
> Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, 1999]





> Finally, contrary to the coda of the e-mail, the "media" did not prevent anyone from hearing Darrell Scott's words. The subcommittee hearing at which he spoke was covered by the Associated Press and reported in several big-city newspapers — actually an atypically large amount of general media coverage for a House subcommittee hearing.


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2007)

My above edited IAW Snopes.


----------



## sigpig (4 May 2007)

Ok, so more religion in schools would have prevented Columbine, and other events like VA Tech?  Is not the US far and away the most religious of first world countries now? Is it not also the most violent of the first world countries?

The daughter is described elsewhere as a devout christian. Well, where was her god? As usual, awol. 

Prayer is not outlawed in schools. Official, administration led prayer is, as it should be. Individuals are free to talk to themselves all they want.

To say there is a lack of religion is any aspect of US society is ludicrous. It's everywhere, and it never stops the school or workplace shooting of the month.

(It's the guns people, always has been, always will be. But they'll never admit that because guns are as sacred as their god. Which is why these types of events will occur again, and again, and again.......)

PS. As a father, I feel as bad as anyone for a man who has lost a child, but that doesn't make saying stupid things right.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 May 2007)

sigpig said:
			
		

> The daughter is described elsewhere as a devout christian. Well, where was her god? As usual, awol.



Well, that finally does it for me, You just had to add that last part didn't you? You have been giving those of us who don't believe a black eye on this site for far too long and I am tired of telling you this. Goodbye.



			
				sigpig said:
			
		

> , but that doesn't make saying stupid things right.



I guess this means you agree with my decision then.


----------



## PeptoBismarck (12 May 2007)

First off, thanks for banning that (insert descriptive here).
Secondly, I agree with the above insofar as it's about the guns. However (I believe he meant getting rid of them) I believe that the more guns in our society, the better off we are. This is, by the way, NOT a matter of opinion as some of you will inform me. You see, "an armed society, is a polite society." Try doing a school massacre where every teacher and senior student has a gun at his hip. Has no one ever stopped to think that all the massacres in recent history were done in 'gun-free-zones'?

I encourage you to look up Kennesaw, GA aka 'Guntown USA'. They're 25years murder-free and have one of the lowest crime rates in the free world. Why? you ask, because there, it's the LAW that all heads of household be armed. Everyone is armed, all the time. 

The anti-gun lefties will tell you, "Well, why not just call the cops, they'll protect you." Let me ask you this: If the cops are to protect us from the criminals, who will protect us from the cops?

One more food for thought: "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults." ~Ancient Roman Proverb


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 May 2007)

Well I certainly agree with the Mod action here. Sigpig has a right to his opinions about religion and God but his disrespect for those who do practice what they believe is too much to stomach.

I must say I disagree with arming everyone that argument has been tossed around a lot after the VA incident and I think it's a nonstarter. the sheer number of handguns circulating in the US and the culture of guns there make this a more frequent problem there than anywhere else. It's happened in the UK....once in a blue moon and here too but not on an almost daily basis as in the US.

The media that our kids watch (mostly generated in the US) is totally violent and depersonalizing....have you ever seen some of the video games they are playing....killing people at random etc.

i believe it is a spiritual problem but that won't be solved by saying the Lord's prayer every morning. We have to start teaching people that life is sacred....all lives...and that even playing at taking life is a serious moral failing. Those of us who train to keep the peace and fight our countries wars are involved in a moral good...none of us should ever thirst to spill blood but only in the just cause of establishing the rule of law and opposition of tyranny and law breakers.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (14 May 2007)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Ok, so more religion in schools would have prevented Columbine, and other events like VA Tech?  Is not the US far and away the most religious of first world countries now? Is it not also the most violent of the first world countries?
> 
> The daughter is described elsewhere as a devout christian. Well, where was her god? As usual, awol.
> 
> ...



Monk house and Pepto
Have a little tolerance. Nothing he said is offensive in any way shape or form except to those who have a vendeta or lack the ability to hear anothers view because of a personal bias. 

Sigpig was right, it does not make saying stupid things right.

"wheres your savior now..." Homer Simpson


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 May 2007)

Tolerance??  Just the fact that you are still on this website speaks volumes about all my fellow Moderators, and especially, the owners, tolerance.

Don't stick your *cough* spec op nose in stuff that is none of your concern......


----------



## Canadian Psyco (14 May 2007)

as other here i believe what he said right up till the religion part. you can't force people to believe. I think to help stop crime we should loosen gun restriction laws as PeptoBismarck said.
I think gun violence really picked up after the 'nam era when the hippies wanted to have their children grow up gun free, telling them to stay away from guns and to never touch them, that lead to kids not respecting guns and in turn, their kids doing the same, fast forward to today and we got kids shooting other kids, I think it can be stopped through a better education of kids, such as mandatory education of firearm safety through schools, that would help the kids to respect guns for what they can do to other people.  just my 0.02


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 May 2007)

Just so all know the scoop, and hopefully put it to bed, SigPig has been God bashing forever on this site to the point of being a troll. I don't give a rats ass what he, or anyone else, wishes to believe, however I draw the line at insulting those beliefs.




			
				sigpig said:
			
		

> The daughter is described elsewhere as a devout christian. Well, where was her god? As usual, awol.



Thats it, thats all.....anymore needless lip and the ramp will open again.......


----------



## KevinB (14 May 2007)

My thoughts...







and for a little levity






I am a firm beleiver that legal firearms used properly by trained individuals do save lives -- at least the lives of people that should be saved.


----------



## Samsquanch (14 May 2007)

Excellent post Infidel-6 it's always a pleasure to read your posts. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Cheers


----------



## mudgunner49 (14 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> *...the sheer number of handguns circulating in the US and the culture of guns there make this a more frequent problem there than anywhere else. It's happened in the UK....once in a blue moon and here too but not on an almost daily basis as in the US...*



Wrong, on a number of levels...

First:

Please remeber that there are about 300 million people living in the U.S. and about 32 million in Canada.  Unless math has changed significantly since I attended school - and although I drank a lot of beer in university, I don't think that it has - that means that they are about 10x our size population-wise.  All else being equal, of course they are going to have more of everything on a scale of about 10-1 (see where I'm going here???) and this will include school shootings.

One of teh important things to note is that in every shooting where there was armed intervention by someone other than police, the event was stopped without further loss of life, *including the shooter's...*

Let's maybe look at the effect of psychotropic drugs and anti-depressants before we go villifying the gun.

Secondly:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrame...d%20Resistance

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
When mass killers meet armed resistance. 


It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.


blake


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 May 2007)

Yup read all that before and it doesn't convince me. The fact that it was easy for that deranged guy to get a gun led to him getting one and using it...we need to make them harder to obtain not easier. The fact that there are stores on every street corner in the US where ou can purchase one of these things with virtually no questions asked adds to the problem. I'm sorry I'm of the opinion that the only people that should get handguns are those who are issued them for keeping or making the peace. If you are a hunter and you can pass a test to say you can safely handle a weapon and are of sound mind then you can have a long gun....otherwise there is not a need for ordinary citizens to be packing heat that can be concealed in your waistband.
As I said before the whole problem is a spiritual one....not to have superficial prayers said in school in the mornings or when the football team wants to ask Jesus to win one for the Gipper... but one in which we as a society have to come to treasure human life as more precious than using "the taking of life" as subject for video games and horror films. we are a sick society and getting sicker.


----------



## KevinB (15 May 2007)

Well obviously your not well versed on US Gun laws 
  To obtain a firearm in the US these days there is a NCICS done (National Criminal Instant Check System) -- the concept being that a free society one is inocent until proven guilty and non felons can buy firearms.  P.S. Most states (and now Va.) do not allow people that are reported to mental health to buy firearms either.
To be able to buy a handgun w/o a waiting period one will need that states CCW permit (and having the background and trainign for it already done).  Also you may not buy a handgun if from out of state.

WAY more people die from drunk driving that firearms -- and I dont see the outcry about that.

I'm sorry but its been proven that criminals who want guns will still get them regardless of the checks in place.  Secondly LONG guns are WAY more lethal than handguns -- your buying into the fearmongering of those who want to disarm the populace.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well obviously your not well versed on US Gun laws
> To obtain a firearm in the US these days there is a NCICS done (National Criminal Instant Check System) -- the concept being that a free society one is inocent until proven guilty and non felons can buy firearms.  P.S. Most states (and now Va.) do not allow people that are reported to mental health to buy firearms either.
> To be able to buy a handgun w/o a waiting period one will need that states CCW permit (and having the background and trainign for it already done).  Also you may not buy a handgun if from out of state.
> 
> ...



Don't have to be well versed in the handgun laws of the US because
a. I don't live there (thank God) and 
b. I know that there are far too many handguns floating around down there.
c. because of the realitive ease of getting them they are comng into our cities across the borders.

My point about long guns is that they serve a purpose other than killing human beings.....hunting. If there is a need or a desire for a reasonable person to have a gun and hunt, well and good. there is no need for fully automatic assault rifles to be in circulation among the public...these are for armed forces and LEOS only.
I am not buying into anyone's position...this is my position just as you have yours...the day we all feel that we have to pack heat in our society in order to protect ourselves will be a sad one in my opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Don't have to be well versed in the handgun laws of the US because
> a. I don't live there (thank God)



This really disappoints me, I would've expected better from you.


----------



## tank recce (15 May 2007)

IHS - Your bit about "fully automatic assault rifles" is gratuitous, and quite frankly off-topic (I won't get into the redundancy of the phrase). None of the killers listed above used FA, none of the defenders used FA. Holly-wierd propaganda notwithstanding, FA isn't a great deal easier to obtain in the US than it is here.

To make the leap from debating CCW of a handgun by a trained and qualified non-felon, to decrying the free-love availability of personal machine guns (completely ignoring the fact that the notion is incorrect), is the height of faulty debating. It's blatant emotionalism, and _suggests_ both a lack of understanding of the topic, and a prejudice that approaches "knee-jerk."

This is not the skilled auteur I have enjoyed reading in other threads. What happened?

Edit - "demonstrates" changed to "suggests". The original was too pompous and judgemental, even for me.


----------



## KevinB (15 May 2007)

In Hoc Signo
You know -- I know Bruce well enough to know he is not the biggest firearm fan -- But I also know he is not close minded to the facts. He may still well not appreciate firearms in public hands -- but he's not ranting against them.(Who know's maybe one day Blake, I and others here will convert him  ) 

Obviously I cannot educate you since your closeminded on this issue -- however I want you to pondert the fact that we have laws agaisnt harming people -- so if one intending  on violating that law -- what is one more on guns?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

I hate guns......but I agree 100% with that old cliche we all know by now about outlawing guns and only the outlaws will have them.

I hate turnups also...................should I think its right to take away the pleasure of those that do like them?


----------



## HItorMiss (15 May 2007)

Really in the end Gun's do not kill people. People kill people. Old cliche yes but an accurate one. When a person makes a conscious decision to harm another they will do it. If they have a gun then they shoot them. If they have a Knife they stabbed them, sometimes it's fist too.

Guns are a facilitator but they are by no means the cause of violence. And people who register their firearms are not generally the ones who use them committing crimes.


----------



## Yrys (15 May 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Guns are a facilitator



I may be deliruous, but it seems to me that those facilitators may help people with rash emotions 
do violemce when otherwise, without them, they may have more time to think, and choose to desist...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This really disappoints me, I would've expected better from you.



Why because i thank God that I live in the best country in the world bar none? I thank God that I don't live in the UK or France also. I've travelled to a lot of countries in the world and always thank God that I don't live in any of them but rather i live in this one...where I believe we have a unique and outstanding quality of life.


----------



## HItorMiss (15 May 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> I may be delirious, but it seems to me that those facilitators may help people with rash emotions
> do violence when otherwise, without them, they may have more time to think, and choose to desist...



Not delirious no. However your talking crimes of passion and you're right they may not kill someone because they do not have a gun. However it would be likely that assault would be a likely outcome. If were talking thought out methodical crimes, they would be committed regardless. The criminal would just find some other way to effect his plan other then a gun. I mean staring down the barrel of a fire arm or looking at 3 feet of tempered sharp steel of a sword makes little difference to me I will be compliant because both of them will rendered me well and truly perished.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 May 2007)

tank recce said:
			
		

> IHS - Your bit about "fully automatic assault rifles" is gratuitous, and quite frankly off-topic (I won't get into the redundancy of the phrase). None of the killers listed above used FA, none of the defenders used FA. Holly-wierd propaganda notwithstanding, FA isn't a great deal easier to obtain in the US than it is here.
> 
> To make the leap from debating CCW of a handgun by a trained and qualified non-felon, to decrying the free-love availability of personal machine guns (completely ignoring the fact that the notion is incorrect), is the height of faulty debating. It's blatant emotionalism, and _suggests_ both a lack of understanding of the topic, and a prejudice that approaches "knee-jerk."
> 
> ...



Sorry to disappoint you. I think I'm entitled to my opinion on this matter as you are entitled to yours. Suggesting that I somehow don't understand the issue is insulting to my intelligence and of course designed to belittle my opinion by writing it off as that of someone who has no business commentng on it. I have every right to offer my opinion on the topic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Why because i thank God that I live in the best country in the world bar none? I thank God that I don't live in the UK or France also. I've travelled to a lot of countries in the world and always thank God that I don't live in any of them but rather i live in this one...where I believe we have a unique and outstanding quality of life.



Thats not what you said in your post.........nice save, Dominic Hasek would be proud.

Lets carry on.........


----------



## Hunteroffortune (16 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Why because i thank God that I live in the best country in the world bar none? I thank God that I don't live in the UK or France also. I've travelled to a lot of countries in the world and always thank God that I don't live in any of them but rather i live in this one...where I believe we have a unique and outstanding quality of life.



I thank God that I live in the best county in the world too  , but I wonder how we can keep it that way. The only ones with guns are the criminals, this makes us easy targets. Even though we have restricted handguns since the 30's, they are readily available to the criminals. The Dawson College killer had legally registered guns, how did that happen?

You are entitled to your opinion, but have you thought about what other people might be going through? As a female, I am told to hold my car keys in my hand to defend myself, sure, as a small female, I'm going to be able to fight off a 200 pound male with a key? Why can't I have a gun? That would equalize the playing field, and maybe I have a fair chance of not being raped and killed. Just my opinion.


----------



## KevinB (16 May 2007)

God made man -- Sam Colt made men equal...
  CCW for women is a huge issue, specifically from the disparity of mass that an attacker may have.  I for one, beleive as more women speak out on the horrors that have befallen them, that momentum will build in Canada to provide people the means to lawfully protect themselves from predatory parts of society.

The fact that based on American research that crime goes down when areas have CCW.  Unlike visions of the WildWest from TV, the fact bare out that people do not run out and go crazy when allowed to legally carry firearms for defensive purposes.


----------



## tank recce (16 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Sorry to disappoint you. I think I'm entitled to my opinion on this matter as you are entitled to yours. Suggesting that I somehow don't understand the issue is insulting to my intelligence and of course designed to belittle my opinion by writing it off as that of someone who has no business commentng on it. I have every right to offer my opinion on the topic.



IHS - You are of course entitled to your opinion, and to present it; in no way would I presume to attempt to shut you up, nor suggest that you tend to your knitting.

What prompted my comment was, along with reasonably presented concerns of what you feel to be the over-prevalence of handguns, your interjection into (what has become) a debate on the merits of CCW of a comment on the availability and necessity of "fully automatic assault rifles." Given that one has nothing to do with the other, I can only presume that either you truly do not know of which you speak (dubious), or you are trying to throw out an emotional red herring (disappointing, given the quality of posts and arguments I've seen from you).

If there is a third option, I would be delighted to read your presentation and debate the merits of your argument.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 May 2007)

tank recce said:
			
		

> IHS - You are of course entitled to your opinion, and to present it; in no way would I presume to attempt to shut you up, nor suggest that you tend to your knitting.
> 
> What prompted my comment was, along with reasonably presented concerns of what you feel to be the over-prevalence of handguns, your interjection into (what has become) a debate on the merits of CCW of a comment on the availability and necessity of "fully automatic assault rifles." Given that one has nothing to do with the other, I can only presume that either you truly do not know of which you speak (dubious), or you are trying to throw out an emotional red herring (disappointing, given the quality of posts and arguments I've seen from you).
> 
> If there is a third option, I would be delighted to read your presentation and debate the merits of your argument.



I don't agree that it was a red herring. the whole issue of the availability of firearms is one as far as I am concerned. If it's more complicated than that then I'll just have to be forgiven my ignorance. I think i stated what my opinion was fairly succinctly....I believe that there is a necessity to restrict handguns to those who enforce/keep the peace (and only when they are engaged in said duty...leave them at the garrison or office*)
Long guns for hunting need not be "automatic weapons" or the assault rifle type. 

Those who collect or who have a a hobby target shooting should be licenced by a FAC after the appropriate training as they are now. I'm not naive enough to think that no one will ever use a weapon to commit a crime if we keep the status quo (I'm not a fan of the Liberal's long  gun registry btw....huge waste of time and money)

As far as statistics for areas where there are a lot of armed folks....well "...there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics." Who did the study? Why? etc etc. I don't put much stock in such things I'm afraid to say.

*we had an incidence here in NS where a RCMP officer discharged her weapon at home in a domestic dispute x9 into a wall......shouldn't even have been allowed to have the weapon in the home....no one was injured but I think her kid was somewhat traumatized.


----------



## proudnurse (17 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well obviously your not well versed on US Gun laws
> To obtain a firearm in the US these days there is a NCICS done (National Criminal Instant Check System) -- the concept being that a free society one is inocent until proven guilty and non felons can buy firearms.  P.S. Most states (and now Va.) do not allow people that are reported to mental health to buy firearms either.
> To be able to buy a handgun w/o a waiting period one will need that states CCW permit (and having the background and trainign for it already done).  Also you may not buy a handgun if from out of state.
> 
> ...



I gravitated to this thread yesterday, read a little bit of it and it got me thinking. And this question came to mind for me "What about drunk driving?" then I came back, read what you had stated here Infidel-6 and I said to myself Bingo (in reference to Drunk Driving!)  I have always felt, that the 'outcry' so to speak about the gun laws, has always been blown way out of proportion. How so many, are so quick to blame the 'gun' and not the person who is carrying it. A vehicle in itself can become a weapon of it's own depending on who is behind that wheel. You can walk into any car dealership, or flip through the classifieds and purchase a vehicle. Does not matter about your history, as long as you have the money you are good to go. 

~Rebecca


----------



## Fyuri (17 May 2007)

My opinions...

It would be really nice to think we could disarm the populace, and everyone would be safe and happy. Hooray. The problem with making firearms more difficult to obtain, is that it's only becoming more difficult for those who wish to legally own and use them. Criminals with intent to harm will still come by them just as easily, and, sad to say, that may never change.

In my uneducated opinion, if everyone was armed, and everyone KNEW that everyone else was armed, there would be less massacres. There may be more crimes of passion, spur of the moment type thing, but I am not well versed enough to say if it would be worth the tradeoff or not.

I figure it works with nuclear arms for the most part, everyone knows others have them, so they won't get used, at least for now.

They try to promote deterrence to reform criminals, but yet they can't fathom the idea that arming the populace may just be the deterrent needed.

-Paul


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (17 May 2007)

proudnurse said:
			
		

> I gravitated to this thread yesterday, read a little bit of it and it got me thinking. And this question came to mind for me "What about drunk driving?" then I came back, read what you had stated here Infidel-6 and I said to myself Bingo (in reference to Drunk Driving!)  I have always felt, that the 'outcry' so to speak about the gun laws, has always been blown way out of proportion. How so many, are so quick to blame the 'gun' and not the person who is carrying it. A vehicle in itself can become a weapon of it's own depending on who is behind that wheel. You can walk into any car dealership, or flip through the classifieds and purchase a vehicle. Does not matter about your history, as long as you have the money you are good to go.
> 
> ~Rebecca



I think this is a bit of a stretch. Guns were specifically designed to kill or wound....cars are designed as transportation.


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2007)

IHS - The problem is your obviously not conversant with shooting that much.  Your wanting to restrict my right and freedoms enjoying my sport based on the irrational fear of an inanimate onbect (a firearm).  The fact that your drawing a line between good and bad guns shows you've bought into someones idea that a gun is the cause.
  Quite frankly the fact is vehicles kill a lot more people in Canada than guns -- why does a car need to go more than 110kph?  Obviously is an EVIL racing car that has no purpose in society but to break the law and endanger others.  

  However the nice thing about living in a Liberal Democracy (well to the extent that Canada is still a liberal democracy with the enaction of all these nanny state laws) is that MY rights end at your face.  We can own guns, cars and practise freedom of religion.  As soon as one becomes a danger to society that is when the state steps in.  Not before -- its an important step in being FREE.
  A Police State is one where only the Gov't has firearms -- and I dont think anyone wants to live in a Police State (unless they are the ones controlling it -- then the rules dont apply to them anyway)


----------



## Teflon (17 May 2007)

Well said Infidel !


----------



## Samsquanch (17 May 2007)

I really enjoy shooting my rifles and shotguns. I hunt all sorts of small game I.E toasters, ovens, T.V's and dishes...... When it comes to handguns and some types of assualt rifles in this country. I just don't understand why the laws are so restrictive.
 A motivated person wanting to do harm on another person can buy anything he\she wants (no respect for the laws). The recrectional shooter such as myself who is responsible, is often detered from buying handguns and certain makes of assualt rifles due to the limitations of use and transportation. Basically I feel the laws have no bearing on those who would intentionally break them. And those of us who enjoy going "blamin" on the weekends are punished....


----------



## KevinB (17 May 2007)

and a little art, cuz a picture is worth...


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> You are entitled to your opinion, but have you thought about what other people might be going through? As a female, I am told to hold my car keys in my hand to defend myself, sure, as a small female, I'm going to be able to fight off a 200 pound male with a key? Why can't I have a gun? That would equalize the playing field, and maybe I have a fair chance of not being raped and killed. Just my opinion.



- Unfortunately, you have to realize that 'political' women in Canada believe that a raped and murdered female found with her pantyhose twisted around her neck makes for far better "sisterhood" optics than if she was found holding a smoking handgun over the dead body of her attacker.


----------



## Dissident (24 May 2007)

Magic. That's the answer. It must be.

A few occupation in Canada carry firearms for work. We expect these people to use their judgement and only use these firearms when necessary. People Warriors who everyday put their life at risk, because they have answered the call of protecting the herd. Somehow, these people are not to be trusted with that responsibility once they take the uniform off. 

I guess the uniform is magical and imbues the persons who wears it with knowledge and wisdom not attainable by mere human beings.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

> A few occupation in Canada carry firearms for work. We expect these people to use their judgement and only use these firearms when necessary. People Warriors who everyday put their life at risk, because they have answered the call of protecting the herd. Somehow, these people are not to be trusted with that responsibility once they take the uniform off.
> 
> I guess the uniform is magical and imbues the persons who wears it with knowledge and wisdom not attainable by mere human beings.



I obtained my firearms licence last year, however I fail to see how the regulations are all that strict. My brother was still able to buy five seperate firearms, as far as I'm concerned are current firearms policies work fine up here, and I'm happy as hell knowing that we don't live in a society which believes one must constantly be armed with a firearm in order to feel safe. 



> In my uneducated opinion, if everyone was armed, and everyone KNEW that everyone else was armed, there would be less massacres. There may be more crimes of passion, spur of the moment type thing, but I am not well versed enough to say if it would be worth the tradeoff or not.



America has a large amount of firearms per-capita as compared to the developed world yet has one of the highest rates of gun related deaths. Personally, I think if more people were to carry firearms in their cars for example I wouldn't feel all that safe. As well I don't think I should have to carry a firearm to feel protected. 



> I figure it works with nuclear arms for the most part, everyone knows others have them, so they won't get used, at least for now.



Yeah, I think thats a different comparison. As well I think for the most part we would be better off without nuclear arms. 



> They try to promote deterrence to reform criminals, but yet they can't fathom the idea that arming the populace may just be the deterrent needed.



It ain't, the one country that I can think of which has a large amount of firearms ownership is Switzerland, but even then the vast majority of the citizens have military training. I think if every joe sixpack were to be given a gun that would only cause more trouble, and I don't think we need a ton of weapons floating around society. 



> A Police State is one where only the Gov't has firearms -- and I dont think anyone wants to live in a Police State (unless they are the ones controlling it -- then the rules dont apply to them anyway)



Great Britian, Australia, and Japan, are all far from being "police states".



> - Unfortunately, you have to realize that 'political' women in Canada believe that a raped and murdered female found with her pantyhose twisted around her neck makes for far better "sisterhood" optics than if she was found holding a smoking handgun over the dead body of her attacker.



Unless they end up wounding or killing two innocent bystanders as well. 



> I thank God that I live in the best county in the world too  , but I wonder how we can keep it that way. The only ones with guns are the criminals, this makes us easy targets. Even though we have restricted handguns since the 30's, they are readily available to the criminals. The Dawson College killer had legally registered guns, how did that happen?
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but have you thought about what other people might be going through? As a female, I am told to hold my car keys in my hand to defend myself, sure, as a small female, I'm going to be able to fight off a 200 pound male with a key? Why can't I have a gun? That would equalize the playing field, and maybe I have a fair chance of not being raped and killed. Just my opinion.



I've never felt the need to be armed with any weapon to feel safe from people. The idea that somebody needs to be armed to be safe is ridiculous.

I myself am somewhat in favour of the Swiss model, however arming a large amount of civilian's with no previous experience with firearms will do nothing to deter crime. I'm sure if one where to once again compare gun related deaths to any other industrialized country in the world the US is still near or on top. For the job that I want to do once I get out of the military I would feel alot safer knowing that their are fewer guns on the street.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 May 2007)

I agree wholeheartedly with you Sig Guy. More guns means more trouble.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

It's not necessarily more guns, but in my own view its the idea that people need guns because they are afraid. This notion that you need a gun to protect you from the rapist/murderer/robber/thug/gang member/etc. is ridiculous. I understand the importance of firearms ownership, especially living in a rural area and on a farm before I joined the military, however I don't see the need for every joe sixpack to be carrying around a Glock and Assault Rifle because of their irrational fear that somebody is going to hurt them.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> It's not necessarily more guns, but in my own view its the idea that people need guns because they are afraid. This notion that you need a gun to protect you from the rapist/murderer/robber/thug/gang member/etc. is ridiculous. I understand the importance of firearms ownership, especially living in a rural area and on a farm before I joined the military, however I don't see the need for every joe sixpack to be carrying around a Glock and Assault Rifle because of their irrational fear that somebody is going to hurt them.



Yes I understood what you meant and I totally agree.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> It ain't, the one country that I can think of which has a large amount of firearms ownership is Switzerland, but even then the vast majority of the citizens have military training. I think if every joe sixpack were to be given a gun that would only cause more trouble, and I don't think we need a ton of weapons floating around society.
> ...
> 
> I myself am somewhat in favour of the Swiss model, however arming a large amount of civilian's with no previous experience with firearms will do nothing to deter crime. I'm sure if one where to once again compare gun related deaths to any other industrialized country in the world the US is still near or on top. For the job that I want to do once I get out of the military I would feel alot safer knowing that their are fewer guns on the street.




I'm cherry picking your quotes here - only because they illustrate my own belief that serving/retired military and LEOs should be allowed to pack.  Their current and/or previous training gives them the required mindset to do so safely, and yet allows them to intercede when it appears necessary.  Should society want these folks (which includes me) given some type of psychological/psychiatric/competence test every pre-determined interim (yearly, every five years, whatever), I'm up for it.

I understand (and agree with) your point: untrained, untested firearm owners don't make the streets safer, they make them more dangerous.  My counterpoint would be that trained, tested firearm owners DO make the streets safer.



Roy


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> I'm cherry picking your quotes here - only because they illustrate my own belief that serving/retired military and LEOs should be allowed to pack.  Their current and/or previous training gives them the required mindset to do so safely, and yet allows them to intercede when it appears necessary.  Should society want these folks (which includes me) given some type of psychological/psychiatric/competence test every pre-determined interim (yearly, every five years, whatever), I'm up for it.



Which I somewhat agree with, the Swiss currently ask people to do a mandatory service in the military and then allow member to bring their uniform and assault rifle home with them once they are done. In fact the Swiss claim that they can mobilize most of their nation within 12 hours if required. As for people being allowed to pack in public if they are LEO's or military, I'm a member of blueline and it seems that some members of LE are uncomfortable with that idea, simply because it could lead to liability issues, same with the military. 



> I understand (and agree with) your point: untrained, untested firearm owners don't make the streets safer, they make them more dangerous.  My counterpoint would be that trained, tested firearm owners DO make the streets safer.



Depends, are streets are already pretty safe. I don't think that we need people carrying guns around to be safer, if we ever need LE then all it would take is a call to the police. The only possible exception I can see is if people were living out in rural areas where it can take a long time for LE to show up.


----------



## Dissident (28 May 2007)

Even in the city, the police can not guarantee you that they will be there in a timely fashion. I think 4-5 minutes is an average acceptable response time. Thats a pretty long time to be waiting when someone is bringing violence to you or your familly.

I don't need to carry a gun to FEEL safer. Chances are, I could go through life and never have to take my firearm out, if I was allowed ATC. But, if something happens, I would like another option than just turning and running away. You never know when you will run out of running room.

If you are going to quote me higher per capita gun death, bring me a reference. While you are at it, look up total numbers of violent death, rape and other violent assault, between Canada and the USA. It doesn't matter how, or with what you are victimized, all it matter is that you are. 

You might be lucky enough to have been spared from the darker side of society and threats of violence. I, for one, grew up knowing how thin the veneer of society can be. 

You can deny it all you want. You can "feel" as safe as you want. But once you have all the data, you will see that intellectually there is a chance that you, or a loved one, will be faced with violence. Will you accept it, like a sheep, and let them slit your throath. Or will you be ready? 

Denial screams to me:"Baaaaaahhhhhh, Baaaaaaaaahhhh."


----------



## Roy Harding (28 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Depends, are streets are already pretty safe. I don't think that we need people carrying guns around to be safer, if we ever need LE then all it would take is a call to the police. The only possible exception I can see is if people were living out in rural areas where it can take a long time for LE to show up.



Fair enough - I _do_ live in a rural area, the police are a good three quarters of an hour away.  

Since living here, I've never felt the need for a firearm (for people, I mean - bears are another question) - the dog, followed up by me (sans weapon) has always been enough to get the occasional drunken ne'er do well on his way.  It's good for me to know, however, that while the dog and I are doing our thing, my wife is doing HER thing, getting the weapons out from the (approved, legal) lockup and loading them.  We've never needed them, but they've always been there - perhaps this proves my point that having been a soldier for most of my life, I understand escalation of force (IE - when you need to escalate, and when you don't).

I have also, however, lived in big cities - where the police may well be physically closer, and yet unable to respond in a timely manner; AND the ne'er do wells are not simply idiotically drunken kids - but evil little retards with mayhem on their minds.  I like the idea of a TRAINED element of society having possession of weapons.

I think you and I are in general agreement - but the devil's in the details.


Roy


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> Even in the city, the police can not guarantee you that they will be there in a timely fashion. I think 4-5 minutes is an average acceptable response time. Thats a pretty long time to be waiting when someone is bringing violence to you or your familly.



If your home is being invaded I would assume the police would consider that a high priority. Even then how would you be able to get to your weapon in a timely fashion and what if it fell into the hands of the perp. 



> If you are going to quote me higher per capita gun death, bring me a reference. While you are at it, look up total numbers of violent death, rape and other violent assault, between Canada and the USA. It doesn't matter how, or with what you are victimized, all it matter is that you are.



If your carrying a firearm out of fear, then chances are that you will use it irrationaly. I'm not afraid of being "victimized", and if I am then I will go to the police. I have a feeling we'd see more innocent bystanders get shot because someone over reacted and thought they were going to be killed, raped, or robbed. 

Statistics for the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Total crime per capita in the world- #8
Assaults per capita- #6
Firearms homicide per capita- #8
Overall homicide rate per capita- #14 
Murders per capita- #24 [to put this in perspective, Canada was at 44, Australia at 43, and the United Kingdom at 46]
Murders with firearms per capita- #8 [while Canada was at 20, Australia at 27, and the United Kingdom at 32] 

Personally I feel safer knowing that people aren't walking around with guns because they think that the person standing next to them is a rapist, thug, or serial killer. It will only lead to trouble. 



> You can deny it all you want. You can "feel" as safe as you want. But once you have all the data, you will see that intellectually there is a chance that you, or a loved one, will be faced with violence. Will you accept it, like a sheep, and let them slit your throath. Or will you be ready?



Canada has a much lower violent crime rate than the US, despite the fact they have more guns than Canada, same with Great Britian and Australia. As for "being ready", I don't feel like standing guard at my door with a shotgun because I'm afraid of the rapist, serial killer, or thug. But I'll wait a few weeks to see if anybody is about to slit my throat. I've been through most major cities in Canada, including some of the poorer parts of them and have yet to face the kind of danger that you have. Even when people have been confrontational I knew how to handle the situation instead of automatically thinking of a way to maim them, and hell I don't think I would want to kill or shoot someone, even if they were to steal my wallet. 



> Denial screams to me:"Baaaaaahhhhhh, Baaaaaaaaahhhh."



Unfortunately statistics scream at me as well, so far they don't paint a rosey picture of our neighbours down south who live in so much fear of criminals that they feel the need to buy guns instead of actually dealing with any of the issues which cause crime. Anytime people are motivated by fear they usually end up doing stupid things. 

As well while I lived on the family farm we would often have people stealing gas, stealing trucks, stealing equipment, and on the odd occasion burning bales of hay. However despite this we never felt the need to use the firearm to protect us, nor store it under our pillows incase the intruders ever got into the house. If you can the best course of action is to call the police and fine somewhere safe to hide or go to the neighbours, I'm sure that most police officers would agree with that. As well if a criminal does get into your house how will you be able to get to your firearm if it is properly stored away, unless you have it near you it won't do much. You also have to take into account what will happen if the perp gets his hands on the firearm. 



> It's good for me to know, however, that while the dog and I are doing our thing, my wife is doing HER thing, getting the weapons out from the (approved, legal) lockup and loading them.  We've never needed them, but they've always been there - perhaps this proves my point that having been a soldier for most of my life, I understand escalation of force (IE - when you need to escalate, and when you don't).



Most civilian's don't know about IE, that is my position. Its fine for LE and military personal but for your average civilian who has never used firearms professionally they aren't in the same league. My brother bought some firearms and we went to shoot some of them off, and I found myself constantly correcting him on how to properly use them simply because their isn't enough education out there. Thats the difference between the US and the Swiss with regards to firearms ownership, I have a problem with a system where any person can get their hands on a high powered weapon or handgun.


----------



## Dissident (28 May 2007)

Your main argument seems to revolve around fear. There is a difference between being afraid and being ready. Police officers carry sidearm, not because they fear something will happen, but because they have to be ready. They do not walk around, pulling their pistols to anyone who gives them lip, or anytime a confrontation happens. I think it is reasonable to assume people outside of the law enforcement and military are capable of the same "restraint".

No one (at least no one I know) is arguing that people should settle every dispute and resolve any assault by shooting your assailant. There are varying degrees of force that can be used and before you get to force, you should try to use every means to build time and distance. Answering violence with violence or force should be a last resort when faced with serious or deadly bodily harm. 

If you take a look at how many people decide to CCW in the USA, you will see that it is a small number of people. This small number of people has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate of state where CCW is allowed. (Deployed DWAN Internet is slow, so as I write this, the site you gave me hasn't uploaded yet. But let me venture that the numbers on there are not broken down by individual states. I bet it would show that states with CCW have a much lower crime rate than the ones that don't, who hence raise the national average. Edit: Also, I am weary of stats that have been compiled. There is no source attached on the website you gave us. AFAIK, these might just be a bunch of random numbers pulled out of someone’s ass.) 

The civilians in Canada, who aspire to be allowed to ATC, that I have met, are rational individual, who spend an inordinate amount of time making sure they are ready. These people will use all means at their disposition, including neighbours, police and everything else they can. But in the end, they want to be ready and self-reliant. 

It is not like I am arguing for everyone to carry concealed weapons. What I am looking for is something like a month long course, with yearly qualification shoot and 3 year course refresher on use of force, that would allow you the privilege to ATC. 

Indeed, education is the key. Fear of weapons, banning them and marginalizing its owners, is not the way to educate the population at large. Thinking I would shoot someone for stealing is right out of her, it goes to show more about your irrational fear of your law abiding citizen/neighbour, than my implied paranoia.


Edit: Spelling


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (28 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Personally I feel safer knowing that people aren't walking around with guns because they think that the person standing next to them is a rapist, thug, or serial killer. It will only lead to trouble.



Do you _know_ that people aren't walking around with guns?  It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?  What if he is?  What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?

You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.  But we don't hear that, do we?  Perhaps your average CCW holder is just a normal, law abiding citizen, something like yourself.  I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse people who carry and who wish to be able to carry (i.e. me) of being paranoid, and suspicious of everyone around them, yet your tone seems to indicate that you are paranoid and suspicious of any law abiding citizen who would want to carry a concealed weapon.  It's not the law abiding folks that you should be worried about, it's the ones that don't care about the law, the ones that you don't think are walking around with guns.

Planes


----------



## Bobby Rico (28 May 2007)

Here's my dollar-fifty on the original topic.

Religion in schools- No.  

Why not?  Simply because, we live in a diverse society, a society made up of literally hundreds of religions, and people of no religion.  To enforce or at the very least reinforce religious beliefs alienate those people who are non-believers or believers of a different faith.  All you're doing in that instance is creating a different problem.  Does it not occur to those of you who believe religion should be in schools will potentially create only more problems?  If your response to this is to create schools of individual relgion (christian schools, muslim schools etc)- that's segrigation, people.  You might as well be proponents of racial segrigation then, in which I ask that you please get yourself a time machine, and go back to the 1940's deep south where you belong.  Religion in schools is NOT the answer.  Tolerance is.  And frankly, you cannot reinforce tolerence by putting emphasis on the things that differentiate people, and religion is one of those big things in society that still differentiates people and keeps peoples divided into their 'cliques'.  Hell, we're only now beginning to understand racial tolerance, and how long did that take us?  And it's STILL a big problem in certain parts of the country and world.

Religion DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE NON-VIOLENT!  Believe it or not, it's the bare-simple truth.  I don't mean to bash any individual religion, but how many wars have been fought due to religious dogma?  It's still going on.  Religion, even Christian religion, even BUDDHIST religion has sparked violence throughout history.  People are violent man, you can't change that.  Believing in god isn't going to change that.  How many soldiers do you think believe in God and consider themselves devout christians when their very EXISTENCE as soldiers make them utter hypocrites.  Thou shall not kill people, it's in the bible.  Yet a soldier's life is in killing.  Contradiction much?  And you can defend it all you want, soldiers are killers- we don't do the work of god, we do the work of our country and government because it's asked of us to do it.  Killing in the name of god is the biggest load of crap.  Yet soldiers throughout history have done it.  They still do it.  Well, so what if those two boys from Columbine were Christians and were killing in the name of god- Would that somehow legitimize their actions, or even make it understandable?  If you said yes to the above question, you fail as a human being.  But at the same time, if you say no to that question, and you're a soldier, and you're religious, then you're a hypocrite.  

The bottom line is, Religion and killing have absolutely no bearing on one or the other.  Christians kill, Catholics kill, Muslims kill, Hindu kill, Buddhists kill.  Believing in God won't stop the killing.  People kill because we're a naturally aggressive species.  Columbine was tragic, but it was simply an expression of humanity.  An illustration of human behavior if you will.  Putting more guns into the hands of people won't stop people from killing, nor will taking them all away.  Humanity needs to wake up and realize we're going to keep killing ourselves until there's none of us left or until we evolve as a species---it's just that simple.  The real answer to the problem, is no answer.

(one further note- I'm a Nihilist if that makes my beliefs more clear to people.)


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> Your main argument seems to revolve around fear. There is a difference between being afraid and being ready. Police officers carry sidearm, not because they fear something will happen, but because they have to be ready. They do not walk around, pulling their pistols to anyone who gives them lip, or anytime a confrontation happens.



Because they are trained fully in how to use force when necessary and its their job to keep the peace. 



> I think it is reasonable to assume people outside of the law enforcement and military are capable of the same "restraint".



Not really, they don't have the same training, and when people are gripped by fear they'll do stupid stuff, especially if they have easy access to firearms. 

http://www.africanaonline.com/rosewood.htm



> If you take a look at how many people decide to CCW in the USA, you will see that it is a small number of people. This small number of people has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate of state where CCW is allowed. (Deployed DWAN Internet is slow, so as I write this, the site you gave me hasn't uploaded yet. But let me venture that the numbers on there are not broken down by individual states. I bet it would show that states with CCW have a much lower crime rate than the ones that don't, who hence raise the national average. Edit: Also, I am weary of stats that have been compiled. There is no source attached on the website you gave us. AFAIK, these might just be a bunch of random numbers pulled out of someone’s ***.)



If you want the website again, by all means check the statistics provided, just click on the link and go to the corresponding fact sheet. I highly doubt they are random numbers and if you want provide your own source. The states that have lenient gun laws are places like Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, etc. Unfortunately its easy for anyone to buy a gun in Minnesota and transport it to Detroit. It really isn't rocket science. Once again compare the countries with a lower amount of gun ownership as compared to the US and these countries fare better overall than our neighbours to the south. 

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime



> The civilians in Canada, who aspire to be allowed to ATC, that I have met, are rational individual, who spend an inordinate amount of time making sure they are ready. These people will use all means at their disposition, including neighbours, police and everything else they can. But in the end, they want to be ready and self-reliant.



The problem being what if a kid gets a hold of a gun and takes it to school, or for that matter some right wing militia types decide to stock up on assault rifles for the coming "race wars," or to fight off the government. In the end its better that some firearms are restricted from public use. 

People shouldn't carry guns around acting like the police. As for being ready, if a person is that scared they shouldn't be allowed a gun, period. I don't think giving someone who is that paranoid a weapon is ever a good idea. 



> It is not like I am arguing for everyone to carry concealed weapons. What I am looking for is something like a month long course, with yearly qualification shoot and 3 year course refresher on use of force, that would allow you the privilege to ATC.



I'd argue more education is the key as well, however I disagree with the belief that people need guns to cut down on crime as that simply is never the case. 



> Indeed, education is the key. Fear of weapons, banning them and marginalizing its owners, is not the way to educate the population at large. Thinking I would shoot someone for stealing is right out of her, it goes to show more about your irrational fear of your law abiding citizen/neighbour, than my implied paranoia.



My fear is that people carrying around more guns thinking they need it to fail safe will probably make the more likely to use it on innocent bystander or someone they fear MAY do something. Once again the statistics show that countries with lax gun laws are more prone to violent crime and more guns rarely ever brings down the crime rate. Around 11,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US, now compare that to the amount of guns per capita in the US and you can see a trend develop. Going state by state is fairly useless as you can't stop a gun from Minnesota coming into Detriot. 



> Do you know that people aren't walking around with guns?



Luckily we don't have people constantly walking around with guns, and apparently our crime rate has actually gone down.



> It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?



No, but how would it help if I had a Glock with me. What if somebody were to come up behind me and take my weapon. 



> What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?



If he decides to act their isn't much I can do since I probably won't be holding my gun in my hand. 



> You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.



Lets look at another statistic, how many people were killed by guns. 

5     people in New Zealand
37   people in Sweden
56   people in Australian  
73   people in England and Wales
184 people in Canada
11,344 people in the United States.

Seven out of ten states with the highest rate of violent crime issued CCW permits. Even when there was a decline their is no evidence to suggest that CCW makes people safer compared to nations where handguns are restricted.


----------



## TCBF (29 May 2007)

"Unless they end up wounding or killing two innocent bystanders as well."

- Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.

The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?


----------



## canadianblue (30 May 2007)

> - Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.



Yes because it probably won't end up saving her life. This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend. When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well. 

As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless. 



> The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?



Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes. 

While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun. 

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say. 

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html



> A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.



The following is a good article which attempts to try to and get into the issues of guns more indepth. It also shows the problems with trying to find a science so to speak of figuring out whether more guns cause crime. But in the end though I think it's somewhat clear that high firearms ownership in the US has done little to prevent firearms homicide.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759



> Sam Walker was not your average American gun owner. For one thing, he had no interest whatsoever in hunting. And whereas the average gun owner owns at least three guns, Walker owned only one, a .38-caliber revolver, which friends persuaded him to buy for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his family in their suburban Houston home. Walker didn’t even particularly like guns. He still hadn’t gotten around to acquainting himself with his new weapon when his burglar alarm went off one weekday morning last December. Notified by his security company of the intrusion, Walker rushed home from work, quietly entered the house, took the gun out from the spot where he had left it for safekeeping, and, hearing a noise, moved stealthily up the stairs and opened a closet door. He saw a movement, a figure, and in a split second fired. The smoothly oiled gun worked perfectly, and Walker’s aim was true. A body fell to the floor. It was his 16-year-old daughter. She had cut school that day and had hidden in the closet to avoid her father. It wound up costing her her life.





> After the new laws were passed, permits to carry concealed handguns rose enormously —in Florida the number of licenses soared from 17,000 before the law was passed in 1987 to 141,000 seven years later. After studying five cities, McDowall found that the rate of firearms homicides increased overall by 26 percent. Although this would seem to support the arms-race hypothesis, the results were inconsistent. Whereas McDowall had expected the effects of the liberalized laws to be greatest in Miami, the biggest city in the study and the one with the highest crime rate, the rise in homicides there was too small to be statistically significant. However, McDowall believes his evidence is strong enough to show that armed citizens do not decrease the number of firearms-related deaths.



Even a firearms trainer for the NYPD and lifetime NRA member finds that allowing every person to carry gun is problematic.



> Given that purging guns from the population is problematic, would the world be safer if each law-abiding citizen carried a gun? Alessandro Veralli hesitates before answering this question. For most of his adult life, he has carried a concealed handgun almost everywhere he goes, whether it’s out to the movies with his wife or to the local hardware store on a Saturday afternoon. Yet Veralli, a Master Firearms Instructor for the New York City Police Department and an NRA life member, admits that as a civilian he has had very little opportunity to use his gun. If he ever found himself a customer at a liquor store that was being held up, in most cases his training and common sense would tell him to lie low rather than start a shoot-out. If he was out with his wife and a thief demanded his wallet, he would probably hand it over. “In a robbery, there’s not much you can do except maybe shoot at the guy as he’s walking away,” he says. “But what if he shoots back? I’d be putting my wife in danger, and for what?” He carries a gun for the hypothetical extreme case when having it might mean the difference between life and death. “Personally I’d hate to get into a bad situation and think that I might have been able to do something if I had had a gun,” he says.
> 
> But should other citizens carry guns? “I’m tempted to say yes,” he says, but then he demurs. “Maybe it makes sense in other parts of the country where they have more space. New York, though, is too crowded. There’s something about all these people being confined in a small space. People can fly off the handle over little things. I don’t think I’d want to see each and every one of them carrying a gun.”


----------



## Roy Harding (30 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Yes because it* probably (emphasis added) *won't end up saving her life.



So you invalidate TCBF's "someone else MIGHT get hurt" with your own "probably won't end up saving her life"?  I'll take a chance on TCBF's "might" before your "probably" any time.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend.



I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well.



I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless.



As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes.



What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun.



I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.
> 
> http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html
> 
> ...



Sigs Guy - I'll be honest - I have not (yet) read the links you provide above, and therefore have no comment to make on them - with the exception of your final sentence - I don't recall anyone on this thread (but I stand ready to be corrected) advocating "allowing every person to carry a gun" - I know I certainly presented no such view.  

I WILL read the links within the next couple of days and get back to this thread.

Take care,


Roy


----------



## Dissident (30 May 2007)

> When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.
> 
> http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html
> 
> A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.



This reminds me of the red light camera study. The study "proved" that cameras were decreasing accidents at intersections, because the number of crashes “in” the intersection were down after installing them. What the study did not say was that the amount of rear end collision leading up to the intersection had increase and surpassed the pre-camera figures.

The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones? Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members? Does it matter if someone shoot themselves or hang themselves? And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted, or the situation was resolved because the intended victim manage to deal with the situation.

Food for thought.


----------



## canadianblue (30 May 2007)

> I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?



Unless you have your firearms in your hand at the moment you are being attacked their really isn't much you can do. My point was about the misconception about rapes being occured by the creeps in bushes. 



> I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.



Follow the links which show that their the addition of a firearm to a situation can make it more dangerous. I was at a lecture at EPS, and a detective was asked if more woman were armed with guns would they be safer, the answer was a strong no. 



> As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.



I highly doubt professionals in either social work or law enforcement suggest that a victim should use a firearm on the abuser, their are better solutions to any problem than turning to a gun. 



> What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.



A gun is the most effective and easiest way of killing any person. 



> I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.



Few societies allow their citizens to freely carry around handguns simply because they are afraid, as I stated before even in Switzerland they have handgun regulations and they don't hand out handguns permits to every person who feels afraid. The firearms floating around the streets in the hands of criminals and lunatics usually always started out being legally bought. 



> The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones?



As was stated in the links many criminal firearms started off being legal. As well those that bought a firearm to protect themselves from intruders actually increased their risk of getting killed by a firearm.



> Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members?



Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs. 



> And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted,



The United States is one the most armed countries in the developed world yet still has an extroadinarily high rate of crime.


----------



## Dissident (30 May 2007)

> Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs.



What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well?  

Your logic is flawed. 

Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.

No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker. He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist. Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional and will not make an overall safer society. Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause. 

Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?


----------



## canadianblue (30 May 2007)

> What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well?



Cars and prescription drugs serve a useful purpose, handguns serve no purpose beyond killing people and is the most efficient and effective way to kill someone. I'd agree that prescription drugs can be potentially harmful, and perhaps we should find new regulations when distributing and selling them. 



> Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.



Their is crime in other developed nations as well, however they don't see the need to give guns to people who are afraid because they watched too much TV, their is always a better solution to preventing crime. 



> No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker.



Agreed, which is why we should throw repeat violent offenders in jail for life after a third offense. On justice issues you'll find that I'm usually fairly conservative and not as liberal when it comes to violent or repeat offenders. 



> He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist.



Yes...



> Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional



Some kids also bring guns to school to protect themselves, I wouldn't argue that I'm taking away their constitutional rights if I believe we shouldn't have an abundance of guns in a school. Once again I've been the victim of crime but I use common sense and call law enforcement which is what a responsible adult does. 



> Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause.



I agree, however at the same time a society should find a middle ground between rehabilitation and punishment. I think we are too lenient myself, and have stated above that I support stronger sentences against violent criminals.  



> Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?



Probably, if taken to the "extreme". A liberal democracy doesn't need an armed populace to function, and the nations of Great Britian, Japan, and Australia, have all shown that fewer firearms will not result in a police state or a complete breakdown of society. However once again as I have stated their are more factors then firearms involved in making the world a better place, but we don't need to be armed to the teeth in order to feel safe. I feel perfectly safe when I'm in Canada, and I'm glad we don't have such a prevalent culture of fear. 

Just to clarify I'm not 100% against allowing people to carry CCW permits, I think they should only be allowed in rare cases when a person has been directly threatened or for certain professional's if needed. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible gun policy which is why so few developed nations support it. I prefer our current regulations, they aren't unreasonable, you can still get rifles, shotguns, etc.


----------



## Dissident (31 May 2007)

You are inferring a lot in your post that, no one here, has claimed. From the top of your soap box, you have failed to listen and made up your own meaning. This apocalyptic vision of everyone armed, even children in school, is yours and yours only.

I don’t think we think very differently, I just think that you misunderstand, maybe on purpose, what I am writing. Maybe you are more interested in “listening to yourself talk”, who knows? Who cares?

In the end:



> Just to clarify I'm not 100% against allowing people to carry CCW permits, I think they should only be allowed in rare cases when a person has been directly threatened or for certain professional's if needed. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible […]



This is 98% of what I am saying. Here is my version:

I'm not 100% against allowing people to ATC, I think they should only be allowed in cases when a person has been threatened or for certain professional's. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible.


----------



## KevinB (31 May 2007)

Well this thread certainly took to life since I last looked...

I disagree that only "professionals" should be allowed to carry -- I know a lot of civilians who have never been mil or LE with a much greater degree of skill and training that the average LE or MIL user.

  I do however agree that a user wishing to CCW should be mandated training in according to both Use of Force laws and the safe use of a firearm.  

Secondly I will point to one issue of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he noticed (and promptly ignored it cause it did not serve his misguided rant) that in Canada there is proportionally MORE firearms (as in per capita) than the US -- yet you dont see the rivers running red in Canada.

Secondly US gang violence (and for that matter Cdn gang violence) typically occures with illegal weapons to which none of the handwringing crowd like to admit that it is really not affected by gun laws.

Secondly Gun violence in Britian SKYROCKETED when their laws cramped down on Firearms and basically outlawed a large portion of types (semi-auto) firearms.


Lastly -- a car has much more destructive power than a firearm.  


After lastly - I fully believe that the Lords Prayer in Schools was a good thing -- I went all thru school with it and the National Anthem being played on the PA.  I will proudly note there never was a mass killing in our school at that time.
  Those who chose to ignore the fact Canada was created as a Christian national are welcome to abstain from prayer -- but not to infringe my rights to enjoy my right to religion.  IMHO Canada is slowly being posioned by "multi-cultural diversity" - which is fine in soem instances but not to the point if weakens the very fabric of the nation.

I spit on PET and his social engineering fiasco


----------



## canadianblue (1 Jun 2007)

> Secondly I will point to one issue of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he noticed (and promptly ignored it cause it did not serve his misguided rant) that in Canada there is proportionally MORE firearms (as in per capita) than the US -- yet you dont see the rivers running red in Canada.



The difference being Canada has better gun laws and more social programs than the US, theirs a reason why social democracies such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, all tend to rate higher in areas of health, welfare of the child, etc. than the US. 



> Secondly US gang violence (and for that matter Cdn gang violence) typically occures with illegal weapons to which none of the handwringing crowd like to admit that it is really not affected by gun laws.



The vast majority of those guns were obtained legally, and to compare state by state gun laws is futile [I don't remember being stopped by customs at the Michigan/Wisconsin border]. The vast majority of developed nations have law restricting handguns because their really is no acceptable reason to own a handgun unless you happen to be a collector or a target shooter. 



> Secondly Gun violence in Britian SKYROCKETED when their laws cramped down on Firearms and basically outlawed a large portion of types (semi-auto) firearms.



The United States still has 40 times the amount of people killed by firearms than compared to England and Wales. Even then a large proportion of those were air weapons, and the new recording system used in Great Britain was believed to have inflated those statistics. Recently the rate has been dropping. The majority of developed countries maintain that some firearms should be more thoroughly regulated, especially handguns since they really don't serve any practical purpose. Even then the rate has remained relatively static. But part of the reason the rate is so much higher in the US is because of the proliferation of firearms, and it doesn't matter if a state decides to limit the amount of guns a person can buy, that person only needs to drive to a nearby state and pick up a firearm. As well at most gun shows one can easily buy a firearm.



> Lastly -- a car has much more destructive power than a firearm.



Most people don't buy a car to use it as a murder weapon, a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people. 



> After lastly - I fully believe that the Lords Prayer in Schools was a good thing -- I went all thru school with it and the National Anthem being played on the PA.  I will proudly note there never was a mass killing in our school at that time.
> Those who chose to ignore the fact Canada was created as a Christian national are welcome to abstain from prayer -- but not to infringe my rights to enjoy my right to religion.  IMHO Canada is slowly being posioned by "multi-cultural diversity" - which is fine in soem instances but not to the point if weakens the very fabric of the nation.



I agree with the national anthem being played in school's, but I don't support allowing the Lord's Prayer to be recited by the staff to students.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Most people don't buy a car to use it as a murder weapon, a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people.


 :  So I guess Olympic Bullseye pistol is a breeding ground for gangland slayings
  Your other figures are so out to lunch that your above statement says it for me that its not worth my efforts to refute you - your closeminded on the issue and I shall further ingore all transmisions from your C/S.



> I agree with the national anthem being played in school's, but I don't support allowing the Lord's Prayer to be recited by the staff to students.


  Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?
FWIW -- it was played on the PA as a recording - staff was not required, nor where the students, to recite if they wished not too.  But I cant recall any godless heathens in my classes either  ;D


----------



## Teflon (1 Jun 2007)

> Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?
> FWIW -- it was played on the PA as a recording - staff was not required, nor where the students, to recite if they wished not too.  But I cant recall any godless heathens in my classes either



Here here! +1

If one doesn't agree don't recite it


----------



## canadianblue (1 Jun 2007)

> Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?



I don't think Jesus was really concerned about whether or not the Lords Prayer will be recited in schools. 



> So I guess Olympic Bullseye pistol is a breeding ground for gangland slayings
> Your other figures are so out to lunch that your above statement says it for me that its not worth my efforts to refute you - your closeminded on the issue and I shall further ingore all transmisions from your C/S.



What issues do you have, they show that the US which has a large abundance of weapons tends to have a higher murder rate and more gun violence then countries which do not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> What issues do you have, they show that the US which has a large abundance of weapons tends to have a higher murder rate and more gun violence then countries which do not.



He doesn't, his issue is that you blame the guns for the murder/violence, .......how many in Rwanda died from a good old knife?


----------



## canadianblue (1 Jun 2007)

> He doesn't, his issue is that you blame the guns for the murder/violence, .......how many in Rwanda died from a good old knife?



I've said before that to blame the guns entirely would be a fallacious argument as their are a number of factors, however a firearm is part of it. As for people dying in Rwanda from a machette, how many people died in Sierra Leone from a good old AK-47. My issue is with the notion that we have to be armed in order to be safe from the predators when it simply isn't true. I especially take exception an argument that without guns we'll become a police state.


----------



## Teflon (1 Jun 2007)

> I don't think Jesus was really concerned about whether or not the Lords Prayer will be recited in schools.



Why are you? Be alittle different if kids where punished or expelled if they didn't recite it, but having those that do wish to recite it in the morning, this is a bad thing?


----------



## Staff Weenie (1 Jun 2007)

Bruce is correct in that the firearms are only the means to an end. Denied a pistol or other firearm, a violent person intent on harming will simply find another way to achieve their goal. That said, firearms are the most efficient means currently available to kill. 

What the US has, in perhaps far greater levels than any other developed country, is a variety of social dysfunctions _coupled_ with ready access to firearms (legal and illegal).

While I really don't see the need for everybody and their dog to possess a vast basement arsenal, I also believe that the only folks who would be impacted by the laws, are the law abiding folks. The criminal element will always find a way to get more guns.

And yes, the notion that without privately held weapons, we would become a police state is pathetic. It merely represents a radical argument with no real means (from a historic perspective) to back itself up.

My ideal, would be to see a balance struck, whereby legal and responsible ownership is possible, and illegal possession or use is harshly punished. For years, as a military history buff, I've wanted to collect weapons from prior conflicts, yet it's just far too prohibitive these days. 

BTW - does anybody know what the ratio of firearms related murders to non-firearms murders is? I've read about more stabbings than shootings, but they don't seem to get the same press.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jun 2007)

- From Statcan website 2005 Crime stats
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2006004.pdf

Shared in blah blah blah - its the gov't data



> The overall crime rate dropped 5% in 2005. Decreases were seen in most crimes, with the exception of the serious
> crimes of homicide, attempted murder, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault and robbery.





> Homicide, the most serious of all criminal acts, includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
> Following a 13% increase in 2004, the homicide rate increased by a further 4% in 2005.





> The rate of offensive weapons violations increased 5% in 2005.




Population 31,021,251 31,372,587 31,669,150 31,974,363 32,270,507
Homicide2 553 1.8 582 1.9 549 1.7 624 2.0 658 2.0 4 2
Attempted murder 725 2.3 678 2.2 707 2.2 671 2.1 772 2.4 14 -20
Assault - Total 236,957 764 235,710 751 236,802 748 234,259 733 234,729 727 -1 -2
Level 1 191,147 616 189,185 603 188,667 596 184,883 578 182,049 564 -2 -8
Level 2 - Weapon 43,094 139 43,793 140 45,222 143 46,643 146 49,653 154 5 25
Level 3 - Aggravated 2,716 9 2,732 9 2,913 9 2,733 9 3,027 9 10 4
Other assaults 12,260 40 12,454 40 12,534 40 12,811 40 12,818 40 -1 -14
Sexual assault - Total 24,044 78 24,499 78 23,514 74 23,036 72 23,303 72 0 -25
Level 1 23,563 76 23,973 76 22,983 73 22,449 70 22,736 70 0 -24
Level 2 - Weapon 320 1 373 1 359 1 397 1 396 1 -1 -39
Level 3 - Aggravated 161 1 153 0 172 1 190 1 171 1 -11 -47
Other sexual offences 2,689 9 2,756 9 2,565 8 2,614 8 2,741 8 4 -29
Abduction 674 2 605 2 559 2 637 2 584 2 -9 -55
[tr][td]


Okay I dont know how to do tables, however if you follow the link you will notice the major metropolitan areas have had crime increase -- and they are statically areas with lower per capita legal firearm ownership.

I'm not going to post all the data -- as well the URegina has a website that has copied of all homicided by type of offence -- but you need to be student or staff (I tried to access it)

I would like to point out that in Iraq automatic weapons and explosives are illegal -- but that does not seem to stop the insurgents from shoot at me with them...
(I'm not suggesting we should be allowed to have explosives in Canada BTW -- well it would be cool  ;D)


----------



## Loachman (1 Jun 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> That said, firearms are the most efficient means currently available to kill.



No, they're not.

What was the worst mass murder to ever take place fully on Canadian soil, and what means was used?

Most would pick the ecole polytecnique killing by Ghamil Gharbi, son of an Algerian woman-hating wife beater, and who preferred to be known as  Marc Lepine.

They would be incorrect.

It took place at the Blue Bird Bar in Montreal on 1 September 1972. Thirty-seven people died. The weapon was a quantity of gasoline and a match. It is extremely hard to find any info about it - I only knew about it because a friend's sister was one of the victims. Had a firearm been used, though, we'd still be subjected to sickly annual memoria.

That was far less labour-intensive than shooting that many people. Apparently more politically acceptable, too.



> What the US has, in perhaps far greater levels than any other developed country, is a variety of social dysfunctions _coupled_ with ready access to firearms (legal and illegal).



The social dysfunction statement is correct, however the "ready access to firearms" is only incidental. Problems stem more from a background of slavery and racism which still keeps large numbers of citizens out of main-stream society. Those thus marginalized, especially the youth, tend to seek outlets for their frustration and compensation for their poverty elsewhere - drugs and the attendant violence as gangs protect and invade each others' turf. During Prohibition, alcohol fuelled gang warfare.

We are starting to see similar problems here, with race-based drug gangs. And as long as moronic politicians looking for nothing more than votes continue to focus on one particular implement sometimes used in some crimes rather than the crimes and criminals themselves, the problems will continue to grow. If somebody does not believe that, and/or if somebody thinks that Canada is homogenously safe, I invite that/those person(s) to take a leisurely stroll through the Jane-Finch area or some of the other choice locales in Toronto

It is not the availibility of firearms that is a factor. It is the motivation of those carrying them. The firearms themselves are neutral, inanimate objects. While a firearm can indeed be used to kill an innocent person, a firearm can also be used to defend an innocent person (and usually without a shot being fired; criminals are not so stupid that they cannot appreciate the concept of personal risk).

And reducing lawful access to firearms of any sort has no effect on criminal access to firearms whatsoever.

Jamaica has very restrictive firearms laws and its murder and violent crime rate puts that of the US to shame. It's also an island, which in theory makes it easier to control firearms access but in actual fact only disproves the notion that criminal access can be controlled by restricting access to anybody. It's simple supply and demand. If there is a demand for firearms in the underworld, there WILL be a supply - the only questions revolve around specific source(s), means of smuggling, and price.



> While I really don't see the need for everybody and their dog to possess a vast basement arsenal, I also believe that the only folks who would be impacted by the laws, are the law abiding folks. The criminal element will always find a way to get more guns.



Correct, save that nobody is advocating that everybody possess even one firearm. Nobody who collects, shoots targets, or hunts wants a crook or nincompoop next to them on the range or wandering about in the woods either.

"Need" is a common anti-gun red herring, as in "nobody needs a gun". It is partially true, but it's also completely irrelevant. Nobody needs a home theatre, a Harley-Davidson, a backyard pool, a Ferrari, Scotch, or anything else beyond oxygen, warmth, food, and basic shelter either. Not all of our desires are born of need, yet nobody questions them. Questioning my interest in owning firearms is no more justified than questioning any of my other purchasing habits.



> And yes, the notion that without privately held weapons, we would become a police state is pathetic. It merely represents a radical argument with no real means (from a historic perspective) to back itself up.



Quite the contrary. No nation that has oppressed its citizenry has been able to do so without first disarming them. That was the driving force behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the powers of the federal government in favour of the States and the people at large in order to protect them from domestic tyranny.

Just because something is highly unlikely does not mean that it will not or could not occur, otherwise I for one would have no insurance whatsoever, or smoke detectors, or life jackets, or wear seatbelts etcetera.



> My ideal, would be to see a balance struck, whereby legal and responsible ownership is possible, and illegal possession or use is harshly punished.



Yes, precisely. We had that once.



> For years, as a military history buff, I've wanted to collect weapons from prior conflicts, yet it's just far too prohibitive these days.



Do it regardless. It's worth it. Pyss Off a Lieberal - Buy a Gun.



> BTW - does anybody know what the ratio of firearms related murders to non-firearms murders is? I've read about more stabbings than shootings, but they don't seem to get the same press.



Firearms are historically used in about one-third of Canadian homicides. Nobody needs a gun to kill somebody else. There is no shortage of other methods. And where downward changes are noticed, they are compensated by increases in other methods although much of this can be accounted for by normal statistical variation - we're dealing with small numbers so blips can be significant.

Suicide is also means-independent. A decrease in shooting has been accompanied by an increase in hanging.

This is why weaselly organizations (sorry, weasels) like the Coalition for Gun Control only talk about reductions in gun deaths as a result of stupid Lieberal legislation as there is no corresponding reduction in overall deaths. Essentially, we have blown around two billion bucks simply to increase rope and knife sales.

Nobody has yet been able to prove a link between firearms laws and reduction in violent crime or suicide. Studies that purport to do so usually fail to account for other variables. A continuing overall decline in murder can be linked to an aging population, improvements in trauma medicine, the replacement of ambulance attendants with paramedics, and the increased ability to contact emergency services through cellphones and the 911 system.


----------



## Loachman (1 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people.



Then I have wasted a pile of money over several decades, as none of my firearms have ever killed anybody.

As far as I know - I do not know the specifics of the histories of my WWII stuff in sufficient detail to know that they never went beyond a unidirectional range.

Certainly, none have during my ownership of them.

Either my firearms or I are clearly defective by your reasoning.

I've thoroughly enjoyed punching holes in paper etcetera, though.

Very few police weapons are ever used to kill anybody either. They're carried to protect innocent life largely through deterrence - or are our police failing to use their handguns properly?

I am guessing that a dramatic rise in police shootings would not make you happier despite your theory of the purpose of handguns.


----------



## Bobby Rico (4 Jun 2007)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Here here! +1
> 
> If one doesn't agree don't recite it




Yes, lets create an atmosphere of alienation for the kids that don't recite it.  That's what we want, MORE social division in the classroom  :.  You give kids more credit then they deserve if you think it won't happen.  And hell, isn't that why those two kids at Columbine went on their little killing spree, because they were being outcasted and ostracized by their peers for being ' a little different'?  Well what do you think the kids who pray will do to the kids that don't?  Same reason the rich kids didn't hang out with the poor kids, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I think some of you older folk who haven't been in a public school for years may forget just how divided the various social cliques are in school.  You already have the jocks, nerds, popular kids, greasers...do you really need the religious kids in there too?  Jeeze, lets try for a little more unity and a little less division.

One other thing to add to those who use the defense that they had prayer in schools and never had to deal with gun toting lunatics in the halls.  Well, here's one for you----How many schools do you think exist in the United States and Canada this very moment that don't have prayer in school, and have never had a shooting  in the school?  I'd like to think more than you can count on one hand.  I went to schools with no prayer and NEVER had a gun related incident.  Did it occur to any of you that these incidents might be (gasp!) isolated incidents?  Something to think about.


----------



## Teflon (5 Jun 2007)

> I went to schools with no prayer and NEVER had a gun related incident.  Did it occur to any of you that these incidents might be (gasp!) isolated incidents?  Something to think about.



So Lord's Prayer in school = guns in schools?  :

I went to a school that had the Lord's prayer in the morning and we never had a gun related incident either, as a matter of fact the Catholic school still has the Lord's Prayer and they havn't had a gun related incident either


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2007)

I dont consider myself overtly religious (god knows I'm not a great Christian at times) however "back in the day" I'm only 37 - it was a clear Canadian value.  Perhaps if we still accepted these values we'd have less cliques (I doubt it -- since we had cliques when I went to school) however the effects where not as whined about.


Well if the guns in schools are isolated incidents (and I think your right) -- its nothing to be concerned about.  Let those of us who enjoy our freedom to own firearms continue to do so.


----------



## Bobby Rico (9 Jun 2007)

Teflon said:
			
		

> So Lord's Prayer in school = guns in schools?  :
> 
> I went to a school that had the Lord's prayer in the morning and we never had a gun related incident either, as a matter of fact the Catholic school still has the Lord's Prayer and they havn't had a gun related incident either




Wow, I wish I'd seen this response sooner to comment on it.  Clearly my point went way-way-way over your head if you made such a silly inference that I even remotely suggested that having the lord's prayer meant guns in schools.

By your logic, me owning a cellphone keeps bears out of my house.  I don't see any bears in my house, so it MUST be true, right?


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jun 2007)

> Either my firearms or I are clearly defective by your reasoning.



Not really, as I've said I have no gripe with collectors, only the people that feel the need to carry firearms around with them on their hip everywhere when their is no need for it. When did Canada become Sierra Leone? 



> Very few police weapons are ever used to kill anybody either. They're carried to protect innocent life largely through deterrence - or are our police failing to use their handguns properly?



Yes police, exactly my point. We had a similar discussion on blueline.ca and a firearms instructor said that he was 110% opposed to CCW for the simple reason that the people that want it are usually the last people who should have CCW. You can play with stats all day, its not gonna do much since they are inconsistent. The issue of deterrence is fairly mute since we have seen the crime rate drop despite our lack of guns. As for police carrying them for "deterrence", their only used as a last resort, police in New Zealand don't carry weapon's [do have tactical teams] and I haven't seen that country turn into a hell whole. 



> I am guessing that a dramatic rise in police shootings would not make you happier despite your theory of the purpose of handguns.



Not really, police use their handguns responsibly and have a good reason for needing them. Lets get this straight we will never see CCW in Canada, very few Canadian's want it so its mute either way. To further support this point, the following post from earlier is why I oppose giving CCW out freely. 



> The anti-gun lefties will tell you, "Well, why not just call the cops, they'll protect you." Let me ask you this: *If the cops are to protect us from the criminals, who will protect us from the cops?*



As for religion in school, their really isn't a need for religion in school. If you'd like prayer in school I'm sure that their are more than enough private schools out there. But if we include Christian prayer, shouldn't we also include Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and other religious customs as well. Sweden is one of the least religious societies in the west and they don't have the same amount of school shootings as compared to the US which has a large evangelical influence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> The issue of deterrence is fairly mute since we have seen the crime rate drop  despite our lack of guns.



This is in the top three of stupidest things I have read on army.ca milnet.ca. Lets see if even ONE of the many LEO's [ in any trade] come here to back this statement up,.......tick, tick,...

The CONVICTION rate maybe, due to bargains,  charges getting thrown out for reasons normal folk can't understand, judges not wanting to rock the boat, etc......


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jun 2007)

> This is in the top three of stupidest things I have read on army.ca milnet.ca. Lets see if even ONE of the many LEO's [ in any trade] come here to back this statement up,.......tick, tick,...



The crime rate has been dropping over the past two decades, if you want to provide statistics to the contrary by all means go ahead. However the same trend has been seen in the US with crime rates dropping from two decades ago. The drop in the US can largely be attributed to the legalization of abortion as well.[One theory that has been floated in the book Freakonomics if anyone has read it] 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/21/crimestats050721.html
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/crimerates2003.htm
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr04/2006/10/smr04_27506_04_e.htm
http://crime.about.com/od/stats/a/blbjs040912.htm
http://champpenal.revues.org/document448.html

Either way its odd that Police Officers right across the country aren't calling for every civilian to be armed with a gun to protect themselves from the criminal horde. As well don't insult a persons intelligence simply because you disagree with a point made, show a source to the contrary.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2007)

First one I clicked said it all in the first two paragraphs......
_Canada's crime rate has dropped 12 per cent from a decade ago, according to a new report, with Ontario recording the lowest rate in the country. 
But despite the drop in the total violent crime rate, the national homicide rate increased 12 per cent, Statistics Canada says_.


.....because, at least so far, its hard to get a 'free pass' for murder.  

I "insult you" because this is several threads now where you put up a bunch of 'googled' links and play like you know stuff from that field.
Hey, I could play that game in any of the equipment threads if I so choosed, but guess what, I like to stick to things that I have experienced/ do experience first hand.......like any silly suggestion crime rates are going down.


----------



## Dissident (9 Jun 2007)

"You can play with stats all day, its not gonna do much since they are inconsistent."

Then, why did you use them to sustain your argument? Sounds like you are talking from both side of your mouth.

And I do believe you mean "moot", not "mute".


----------



## canadianblue (10 Jun 2007)

> I "insult you" because this is several threads now where you put up a bunch of 'googled' links and play like you know stuff from that field.



Well provide evidence to the contrary. I simply research what I can, I don't play it like I know stuff from the field which is why I provide links to my sources of information. On blueline.ca their was a similar debate however I can't recall a single police officer calling for CCW. Strangely enough the same tone hasn't been taken with a poster who said people needed guns for protection against the police, which I consider more irrational than supporting the science behind climate change or not supporting CCW. 



> Hey, I could play that game in any of the equipment threads if I so choosed, but guess what, I like to stick to things that I have experienced/ do experience first hand.......like any silly suggestion crime rates are going down.



Take it up with Statistics Canada, they are the ones who came up with the silly suggestion that crime rates are going down based on the information they compiled from Law Enforcement in Canada. As for you insulting me, thats a poor attitude to take simply because you disagree with another persons views. If you would like to PM me and tell me how Statistics Canada is lying to Canadian's and providing false information on the crime rate. If your gonna call somebody stupid for saying what the statistics are showing [yet somehow owning a gun to protect yourself from the police isn't stupid] then by all means tell me how stats are flawed, even though that information comes from the police. Do I have to be a scientist to have an opinion on the envrionment, a criminologist to have an opinion on gun control, or an economist to have an opinion on taxes? 



> "You can play with stats all day, its not gonna do much since they are inconsistent."
> 
> Then, why did you use them to sustain your argument? Sounds like you are talking from both side of your mouth.



I simply stated that according to Statistics Canada the crime rate has been dropping, if you'd like to dispute that then by all means show me a source to the contrary. The stats were debunked on a thread in a different forum which was having the same discussion, I supported that argument since it came from a firearms instructor for law enforcement, and he was able to show his position without insulting anyone else. 



> Then, why did you use them to sustain your argument? Sounds like you are talking from both side of your mouth.



Because he disagreed with the statement about the stats showing the crime rate has been dropping. 



> And I do believe you mean "moot", not "mute".



Either will work, we'll never see CCW in Canada thankfully because nobody wants to live in the kind of society. We aren't going to see a debate on CCW, nor will we ever see one as very few politician's would ever support such a disasterous position. However thank you on correcting my use of vocabulary if it was innappropriate.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Well provide evidence to the contrary.



Ho hum,

http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm
_
The violent crime rate in Canada has gone down slightly in recent years from a peak in the early 1990s.  For instance, in the year 2004, the violent crime rate fell 2%, making it 10% lower than a decade earlier.  However, it was still 35% higher than 20 years ago (Statistics Canada, The Daily, July 21, 2005).   
For 2005, Statistics Canada reported that the overall violent crime rate was unchanged, while noting increases in crimes such as homicide, attempted murder, serious assaults and robbery.  The homicide rate increased 4% to the highest level in almost a decade. (Statistics Canada, The Daily, July 20, 2006)

  Despite decreases in both the proportion of teens aged 15 to 19 and crime rates in the 1990s, overall rates of violent crime are still three times higher than they were in the 1960s, and rates of property crime are twice as high." (Canadian Council on Social Development, Crime Prevention Through Social Development)_

However, I wouldn't just throw this up and say "see"[ unlike some ].................its just statistics, and statistics mean SFA in the real world.


----------



## canadianblue (10 Jun 2007)

So then you agree that they have been going down? 

You should have specified you meant the crime rates from the 1960's, I wasn't even alive back then. 



> However, I wouldn't just throw this up and say "see"[ unlike some ].................its just statistics, and statistics mean SFA in the real world.



So saying that having a gun for protection against the police is alright, saying that recent data shows the crime rate has gone down is a definite no. This is pretty absurd, so you agree that the statistics have shown the crime rate has gone down in recent years, yet somehow that is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. How are we to measure the rate of crime countrywide without statistics? 

I'm not bashing your job, and I do have great respect for corrections personnel based on how hard their job is and what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. I'd actually be interested in hearing your experiences, but it doesn't mean much when looking at the entire country with regards to the rate of crime. I'm taking a guess that you, and I wouldn't be surprised if many others consider me a left wing eco-fascist who wants to destroy this country, but my gripe on here is with the notion that one needs a gun to protect themselves from criminals and apparently protect themselves from the police in order to be safe. If you want my views on what we should do on matters of criminal justice then I would be more then happy to give them to you. However you don't have to go out of your way to insult someone simply because of a statement which was misinterpreted, it's also somewhat asinine to bash someone because they decide to cite where they get their information from. One might not need to cite information when everyone else is in full agreement which is the current state of a seperate thread, but when actually engaging in a debate it's expected that one would at the very least be able to cite their sources of information. I have corrected myself before when I have been mistaken, and I'll do it again.

*A correction on my previous post stating the crime rate has been going down for the past two decades.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> How are we to measure the rate of crime countrywide without statistics?



You don't,......you ask those that have a direct vested interest in the subject. If I want to know how good the isssued tac vest is do I go to the DND trials website, I think not,.....I go ask those who have BTDT [or are doing it]with it and other products. 

....and I sure don't hand out a bunch of 'googled' links and say " you' re wrong" HitorMiss, according to this link you wouldn't have been hurt had you just.... :

..and I hate guns also.

Quote,
_"overall rates of violent crime are still three times higher than they were in the 1960s, and rates of property crime are twice as high."_

Just a question, since I don't know/don't care about guns, I am curious when the Govt. really started nosing around into the gun control thing,........wouldn't have been around the Sixties would it?
Just askin'.......


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Jun 2007)

Has this thread lost it's usefullness?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2007)

Yea, it will soon be assimilated to the 'gun control' superthread along with thousands of other posts that solved nothing.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> You should have specified you meant the crime rates from the 1960's, I wasn't even alive back then.
> ...



This is (generally) an interesting debate - which, aside from some earlier comments, I have stayed out of.

However - Sigs Guy - the quote above is, to say the least, outlandish.  I wasn't alive in the forties, either - does that make statistics regarding casualty rates in WWII irrelevant?

You're doing alright, Sigs Guy - against some pretty tough opposition (you haven't changed my mind, and you're unlikely to - as has been posted by others, it's damned near impossible to change the mind of someone who is "entrenched"), and you make some good points - try not sully their effectiveness with absurd statements like the above.

Game on.


Roy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2007)

Funny thing is Roy, I am closer to his position than yours. I think weapons should be registered, with courses/ physiclogical testing required, with intense penalties for those who screw-up, but what I disagree with is his absurd 'straw men' arguments.

_Stakeholders
Statistics Canada has a wide range of stakeholders. These are groups that we depend on to supply data and share expertise as well as those that benefit from the information we produce. _ 

If Mr. Harper drops gun control/ registry completely, and remains in office for another 8 years, I will pretty much guarantee you "StatsCan" will be putting out *cough* stats that will say violent crime has gone down. Of course, this is whether it has or not since who would they want to "benefit" most from those stats.......the guy holding the purse strings maybe?


I've been saying for years, "I have to register my dog/cat/car, why shouldn't a gun be registered too?"
So, "Sigs Guy", maybe try a different approach than using stats from a field you haven't been in?


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Jun 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Funny thing is Roy, I am closer to his position than yours. I think weapons should be registered, with courses/ physiclogical testing required, with intense penalties for those who screw-up, but what I disagree with is his absurd 'straw men' arguments.



I know (I disagree with BOTH of you), and I'm finding the irony of that kind of fun.

I just think the young fella' is struggling along kind of manfully - and deserved some encouragement.  YOU (not BEING a "young fella"  ) don't need my public encouragement - you're doing fine, and you know it.


Roy


----------



## KevinB (10 Jun 2007)

My issue on the firearms side is why given the increase in Firearms laws in Canada - is then the Murder and violent crime rate up.  The fact that little Timmy had his icecream not stolen this year really does not concern me.
  Some are trying to draw a parallel with greater gun control measures and less (violent) crime - it simply is not so.
Handguns and Select Fire firearms where restricted in 1934.
In 1979 the FAC system came into place and people who wished to buy firearms had to acquire one, at the same time they prohibited new owners from buying select fire firearms.  (Too this day the only legal select fire weapon used in a crime was by a deranged police officer).
 In 1992 magazine control laws where implemented and several fireams where banned by name and the AR15 rifle was restricted by name (conviently ALL these actions mirrored actions taken in California the preceding year).
 In 1994 short barrel (105mm pistols) and .25 and .32 pistols where prohibited (grandfathered) by name -- a ruling which then later was admented to certain firearms with saving provisions due to them being involved in Olympic Pistol events.
 In 2005 the gov't then arbitrarily decided that they would no longer allow owners of grandfathered prohibited firearms (except grandfathered pistols) to take them to registered ranges.
As well recent politicians have made a point that if elected they would seek a handgun ban.

All this despite the statistics by the RCMP that the registered firearms where used in few criminal events.

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.

 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?
  Either people trust in my judgement or they do not.  If they do not I should likley not them be allowed access to firearms and explosives, armoured vehicles and other items I could conspire to use criminally while at work (well okay the Iraqi gov't and US Gov't give them that authority these days - but the point is there).

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?

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.

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.


 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.


----------



## canadianblue (10 Jun 2007)

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.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jun 2007)

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.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2007)

> You are aware that Canada has a higher per capita ratio of firearms than the US are you not?



Yes, yet we have fewer gun deaths than the US, and yet at the same time have "strict" gun control laws. 



> You've failed Canadian civics if you be believe that difference between the civilian and the Law Enforcement community.



Not really, as a civilian you have to act as any other civilian would. I remember receiving a presentation from communication's at EPS and they were talking about an accident where a tanker truck had flipped on the highway, now despite the civies best intention's they got up on the tanker trying to save the trucker. But as I'm sure most emergency response personnel will tell you, they don't want to go there and find 10 extra bodies they have to deal with since they can usually show up within enough time.  

I was not aware that a civilian had the exact same duties as a police officer or a member of the military, if that's the case one would think they would be given a gun to carry around with them all the time. Either way if your going to tell a person they 'failed' Canadian civics please be more specific.



> 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.



Yeah, I base all of my opinion's on people in uniform based on whether or not they takes the same political stance as me as well. :

As for not having the "moral compass", get a grip, Bruce Monkhouse himself agreed for the most part with my position does that mean you feel sorry that he has worn the uniform? 

Being one of the sheep, once again get over yourself, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are one of the sheep. I've met people who vote Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, etc. and don't really bash them for having different views. In fact the people in the military who vote for a party other than the Conservatives can't really be called sheep. I found another debate on blueline on the same topic, and the vast majority of police officers were against CCW, do they also not have the "experience" that you do?

However I'd suggest you refrain from an innane post simply because you can't come up with anything better to respond with, what is your problem with my position of what proper gun policy should be?


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I was not aware that a civilian had the exact same duties as a police officer or a member of the military, if that's the case one would think they would be given a gun to carry around with them all the time. Either way if your going to tell a person they 'failed' Canadian civics please be more specific.
> ...



Sigs Guy - Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles




> SIR ROBERT PEEL'S NINE PRINCIPLES
> 
> 1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
> 
> ...



I draw your attention to #7.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2007)

Then it's once again very odd that the police are not demanding that every citizen be given a glock. I don't believe Peel was making reference to every civilian carrying around a gun and shooting at anything that looks, feels, or smells remotely threatning. If you think otherwise you should write a letter to your local police service telling them how they are failing the public. As well I'm amazed that police would require one to go to police college/depot/academy, if any civilian walking down the street can do a police officers job. 

I am more than aware of Peel's nine principles, which strangely enough do not include an armed citizen, they don't even demand an armed police. 

If you want to carry a gun at all times in the public eye then go ahead and see how the general public and the police respond, and be sure to mention Peel if confronted by the police.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I don't believe Peel was making reference to every civilian carrying around a gun and shooting at anything that looks, feels, or smells remotely threatning. job.



..and then, just like Roy pointed out earlier, you ruin any type of convincing you might have had with something just a little beyond stupid.

I agree with you to the point of registering, I already  know that the people who wish to do evil with firearms have them and they are not registered/controlled, so what is wrong with tightly regulated personal being issued a licence to have one to?


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy:

As I said earlier in this thread - you're doin' alright.  You've made me sit back and do some research (and reexamine some long held beliefs).  But you've GOT to stop being hyperbolic - it (being hyperbolic) is a tendency I share with you, and it's a real pain to get under control.

CSA 105 has given you some excellent advice, I suggest you consider it.

Now, to get back to the debate.

I think you've got it backwards.  As I read Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles (specifically #7), the PUBLIC are not expected to be "amateur police", the POLICE are expected to "Professional Members of the Public", paid to do what ALL citizens are expected to do, on an unpaid, when required basis.

In other words, and in MY opinion, Sir Robert expected that the citizenry would police themselves as required; understanding that not all citizens could devote the time and effort required, he created a couple of Police Services to do it on their behalf, on a full time basis.  From this great thought evolved all the Police Services now employed within the Commonwealth.  To go just a bit DEEPER, Law Enforcement Officers only do what is required of ALL citizens - albeit full time, and being financially recompensed for their time.  Following this logic a bit deeper, it is NOT my duty as a citizen to call 911 (although that remains a perfectly logical and valid response) - it IS my duty to intervene with whatever crime I may witness happening.

I'd like the legally approved tools to do that, please.



Roy


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2007)

> In other words, and in MY opinion, Sir Robert expected that the citizenry would police themselves as required; understanding that not all citizens could devote the time and effort required, he created a couple of Police Services to do it on their behalf, on a full time basis.  From this great thought evolved all the Police Services now employed within the Commonwealth.  To go just a bit DEEPER, Law Enforcement Officers only do what is required of ALL citizens - albeit full time, and being financially recompensed for their time.  Following this logic a bit deeper, it is NOT my duty as a citizen to call 911 (although that remains a perfectly logical and valid response) - it IS my duty to intervene with whatever crime I may witness happening.
> 
> I'd like the legally approved tools to do that, please.



I have another suggestion, go onto blueline.ca, quickly get registered, and ask that question in the rant/lounge section and see what response you get. You can make a citizens arrest, even though it's discouraged, but I think most police would say common sense would dictate not throwing yourself in harms way and choosing a more appropriate course of action. 



> Your contributions in other threads have shown the trend of being good, well reasoned, logical and good contributions "up to a point" where they seem to cross a line and then go off the rails, normally at a point where logically you should, in the spirit of debate, concede that your opponent has made a good point that you cannot refute, then either riposte on a different vein or offer other reasoned input.  Unfortunatlely I do not see that happening here.  I think you are going off the rails because you have no reasoned response to Roy and I-6's latest contributions.



How was my response to Infidel 6 not well reasoned, and how did I offend him personally. Yet somehow saying that its unfortunate somebody is wearing a CF uniform because they hold different political beliefs is a well reasoned response. If you all want to have topics in the politics section were everyone is in full agreement, then you might as well ban me now. 



> Others in this and other posts have already spoken about logic, reason and debating style.  I suggest you take their advice and not keep trying, as you did in the Global Warming thread, to see how low you can go.



Why? I tried that horse, and I don't really feel like being called an eco-jihadist, environmental nazi, etc. yet at the same time be lectured on using logic and reasoning. I'm not gonna go onto that thread when even if I give sources and cite my information I'll still be attacked for lacking the necessary logic to debate. If people want to all come together and be in total agreement while talking about how David Suzuki want's to kill us all, then I won't interfere, I've already held off typing a response in a seperate thread about how Amnesty International is in league with the communists.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I have another suggestion, go onto blueline.ca, quickly get registered, and ask that question in the rant/lounge section and see what response you get. You can make a citizens arrest, even though it's discouraged, but I think most police would say common sense would dictate not throwing yourself in harms way and choosing a more appropriate course of action.



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.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Why? I tried that horse, and I don't really feel like being called an eco-jihadist, environmental nazi, etc. yet at the same time be lectured on using logic and reasoning. If people want to all come together and be in total agreement while talking about how David Suzuki want's to kill us all, then I won't interfere, I've already held off typing a response in a seperate thread about how Amnesty is in league with the communists.



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).

You're losing it (again), Sigs Guy.  Just keep your shit tight - you are a remarkable debater at times, I enjoy reading your thoughts - when they aren't over the top, and deliberately inflammatory.

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.


Roy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2007)

EDIT; Roy is faster than I, oh well. :-[




			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I have another suggestion, go onto blueline.ca, quickly get registered, and ask that question in the rant/lounge section and see what response you get. You can make a citizens arrest, even though it's discouraged, but I think most police would say common sense would dictate not throwing yourself in harms way and choosing a more appropriate course of action.



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..........


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.

3. See #2.    You need a thicker skin, go check the admin threads and see what I've been called here.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jun 2007)

> 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.
> 
> 
> Quote
> ...



The response. 



> 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.



> Sigs Guy,
> 
> OK kid, I'm done with you.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy:

My first thought was that CSA 105 was being overly hasty in dismissing you.

Now - I agree with him - I'm done with you, kid.

You've REALLY got to stop with the emotional, "the world is out to get me" rhetoric - until you do, no one is going to take you seriously.

Don't bother replying.  I regret having attempted to engage you in a mature manner - I won't make a similar mistake in future.



Roy


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2007)

I know I really shouldn't but I will give him one last try before I fold my tent.

_Quote from 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._

What a stooge comment, no one is asking for any tools to "combat crime" or do the job of a fully trained police and you know it.

 Gee, I wonder what happens to someone who anonymously comes on to army.ca and states they want all the "tools" of a sniper so they "can kill Mr. Raghead."  :


----------



## KevinB (12 Jun 2007)

Okay last responce.

I'm not a cop and I dont wish to do their job as a civilian.  I do feel that as citizens we all share a responsibility to report and if possible stop crimes that are taking place -- especially violent crimes, as the victims are scared both emotionally and physically - and if those attacks are detered or stopped by the potential of an armed "victim" or a bystander -- then I think its morally weak not to do so, and one effectively acts as an ostrich by burying ones head in the sand - for criminals will still access weapons if they are inclined to.
 My reasons for owning and using firearms are primarily enjoyment.  That said I still do not understand the fear that creeps into the mind of some when you mention firearms.  I dont think anyone (least some delusionals) that think they turn into Superman if given a firearm (or weapon) - no one wants to try to out-police the police.   I do believe that some reasonable checks and balances for firearm ownership should exist -- however I beleive that the longgun registry and 99% of firearms laws since 1934 in Canada have only served to take police from the streets where they do the most good - and turn them into administration clerks of a broken system.

I provided statistics and links several pages ago -- I did not think that I needed to cite them every page, as I have (mistakenly I guess) a beleive that people could have a two to three page memory.


I don't think my comment on SigsGuy was overly personal.  However I do feel that anyone in the military or law enforcement that is scared of a tool, in the toolbox needs more experience with that tool.  Be it the Charter, the Criminal Code, or a firearm.

My personal firearms have still killed less people than Teddy Kennedy's car    If this was truly an informed public safety decision all cars would be equipt with breathalysers to determine the occupants sobriety for drunk driving kills way more people than firearms do in Canada.

I am trying to be as dispassionate and professional about this as I can be.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Jun 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I don't think my comment on SigsGuy was overly personal.  However I do feel that anyone in the military or law enforcement that is scared of a tool, in the toolbox needs more experience with that tool.  Be it the Charter, the Criminal Code, or a firearm.



Well said, unfortunately this is more common in todays army then it used to be.


----------



## TCBF (18 Aug 2007)

Hi everyone!  Just thought I would check-in and see how my thread is doing!

 ;D

Statistics:  Remember - comparing today's MURDER rate with those from decades back is meaningless due to the advances in trauma medicine and the urbanization of Canada.  Fact is, we should be comparing the SHOOTING rate.  Add up the dead and wounded - then compare.

Then say "Yikes!"

Call 1911A1 for emergency - Call 9-1-1 for clean-up.


----------



## Roy Harding (18 Aug 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Hi everyone!  Just thought I would check-in and see how my thread is doing!
> 
> ;D
> 
> ...



You've got a very good point.  Do you have a link for those statistics on the "SHOOTING rate"?

For the record - I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm genuinely interested in what those statistics may reveal.

Roy


----------



## canadianblue (21 Aug 2007)

> I don't think my comment on SigsGuy was overly personal.  However I do feel that anyone in the military or law enforcement that is scared of a tool, in the toolbox needs more experience with that tool.  Be it the Charter, the Criminal Code, or a firearm.



I'm not scared of any firearm, however I think that it should be controlled and regulated. Just because someone doesn't think any person should be able to stockpile a large stockpile of firearms with few controls over who is able to obtain weapons does not mean that they are afraid of a weapon. As well I'm sure if you do a poll of police officers I'm sure a large proportion will favour some form of gun control, so if you want to say they are also afraid of their guns, then by all means go ahead. But the result of debate here usually is belittling ones uniform which is unfortunate and happens often. If someone wants to bash me as a person and a member of the CF because my views don't mimic those of Rush Limbaugh then that's their own perogative. I'd be all for a debate, but it usually results in someone saying that I have a phobia of guns despite the fact living on a farm I have been around firearms all my life, and being a member of the CF I have used weapons before. It's somewhat ridiculous to say that just because a person favors some regulation over who can get a firearm that they are automatically afraid of firearms.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Aug 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not scared of any firearm, however I think that it should be controlled and regulated. Just because someone doesn't think any person should be able to stockpile a large stockpile of firearms with few controls over who is able to obtain weapons does not mean that they are afraid of a weapon. As well I'm sure if you do a poll of police officers I'm sure a large proportion will favour some form of gun control, so if you want to say they are also afraid of their guns, then by all means go ahead. But the result of debate here usually is belittling ones uniform which is unfortunate and happens often. If someone wants to bash me as a person and a member of the CF because my views don't mimic those of Rush Limbaugh then that's their own perogative. I'd be all for a debate, but it usually results in someone saying that I have a phobia of guns despite the fact living on a farm I have been around firearms all my life, and being a member of the CF I have used weapons before. It's somewhat ridiculous to say that just because a person favors some regulation over who can get a firearm that they are automatically afraid of firearms.



+1 Sigs Guy...that's exactly why this thread went dormant, because it wasn't going anywhere but round and round that very mulberry bush. That and the fact that most of the arguments had been made pro and con and there wasn't a lot else to say IMHO


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not scared of any firearm, however I think that it should be controlled and regulated. Just because someone doesn't think any person should be able to stockpile a large stockpile of firearms with few controls over who is able to obtain weapons does not mean that they are afraid of a weapon.



Sit back on lock at what you wrote.

Do you have any idea the control on firearms and ammunition currently in place?
  Do you have any idea of the "bioling frog" system that has been insitituated - and the FACT that it really does nothing to violent crime or criminals - but simple adds levels of annoyance to legal firearms owners.

I'm all for some sort of control - but the current laws we have are written by retards and dont effectively give the police an effective method of tracking firearms.
  For all the money they waste on the CFC - the Canadian taxpayer and potential victim of violent crime would have been FAR better off spending that money on more officers and more border controls.


----------



## mariomike (12 Dec 2016)

Lessons learned by police and EMS,

No more Columbines: Police adapt new tactics to combat active shooters
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2016/12/12/police-active-shooters-tactics/95326146/

"The contact teams stop the killing. Rescue Task Force stop the dying." - Jim Etzin, EMS Coordinator.


----------

