Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Jarnhamar on January 05, 2003, 19:57:00

Title: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 05, 2003, 19:57:00
Does anyone disagree that the 2 billion dollars wasted on registering fire arms could have been better spent, such as giving it to the military for equipment upgrades or whatever?

I heard they want another 79 million dollars for it.

Maybe if we can trick the public into thinking funding the military will somehow effect pro gun control laws or whatever we would have a much better budget.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 2Lt_Martin on January 05, 2003, 20:56:00
Agreed it is a waste of money. All I have seen in our local papers (North Bay) are calls for the whole project to be scrapped, and that opinion seems to be National. The claims are that this registry will reduce crime etc.. I don‘t understand how. The UK has had gun control for years, and they still have armed robberies and murders. What the gun registry needs is an injection of common sense not an injection of money.

My two cents...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 05, 2003, 21:15:00
Police officers need a warrant to enter a known drug dealers house.
If you register your guns with the police they can legally enter your house with out a warrant to see if it‘s propperly stored and secured.

i find that a little a$$ backwards
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: mev on June 27, 2003, 15:46:00
Here in CB we have per capita the highest ownership of guns in Canada according to some stats. We also have the lowest crime rates in Canada -0.4% against the national average. Almost everybody I know has a rifle or shotgun and hunts.A tradition here on New Years eve is for people to stand outside and fire their shotguns into the air. Again I repeat we have one of the lowest crime rates in Canada if not the lowest. Go figure.
If crime stats are up from the 60‘s, why? We used to be able to buy a gun at Canadian Tire as soon as we turned 16, hunt with an adult at 14. I fired guns at wood piles in my backyard in Pet when I was 12.
In my opinion it is just power projection now with the registry, the Libs have the power and they are using it.  :cdn:  
MEV
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rolandstrong on June 29, 2003, 12:26:00
I find the gun registry a sad statement about our current government administration. A billion bucks to get something like this working, riddled with problems, is tragic. What a waste.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on June 29, 2003, 12:36:00
And lowering crime?? (nULL) - Just imagine what the Country‘s police forces and Crown Prosecutors could have done with a BILLION dollars...

Canada‘s policies are getting goofier all the time - in a bunch of areas. I hope the "silent majority" doesn‘t hold its tongue, much longer...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: sm0ke on July 12, 2003, 17:50:00
...lol
who wants to run into a drunken Cape Bretoner with a rifle  ;)  

Just kidding. Capers are among the most amiable people in Canada.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 12, 2003, 20:24:00
Gun laws really stopped the terrorists in 9/11.

Evil will always find a tool to destroy with.
An evil man can kill with a hammer whilist a good man can build a shelter for the homeless. Target the evil man and not the tool.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nULL on July 12, 2003, 21:13:00
Yeah, why DOESN‘T the silent majority just "rise up" and resist following all those "mean and unfair" laws? The gun registry might not have been the most wisely executed plan, but the intentions behind it are still good. If you really have a problem with the laws and the regulations that the democratically elected government has put in place, why don‘t you just move?

And no, while gun control had nothing to do with 9/11, you might want to research US foreign policy over the last 30 years; you may want to pay special attention to a car bombing in Beirut in 1985 and an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998 (to name a few).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on July 13, 2003, 00:06:00
Move?? Actually, I did :-)  Check my location

I have also stayed active in things such as ANAVETS, and the gun laws, as much as I can, from afar

The US imposed gun laws in Beirut??
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rolandstrong on July 13, 2003, 03:59:00
Null, I am sure you can pull some conspiracy theory stuff up and throw it at the gun registry discussion (see thread from Ruthlessrandy on Bush)...but I don‘t see the relevance.

The point is that for a billion bucks I am sure we can find some things with good intent that work, like helicopters to save our forces a$$e$. I think that is a lot of cash to throw away at good intentions. Besides, whatever your views on gun laws, the intent of the registry was more to do with getting liberal voters on side than "good causes".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nULL on July 13, 2003, 12:27:00
Well, it‘s easy to critisize what has been shown to not work; so what would you do? If you knew that the majority of the tax payers wanted some form of effective gun control, how would you have proceeded?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 13, 2003, 13:18:00
Police officers, whom i consider subject matter experts on this, have said it will NOT work. It has nothing to do with "gun control". Secondly we spent 240 million on the program before even one gun was registered. Now were up to 2 billion? I can think of some better things to spend 2 billion dollars on instead of forcing people to register their guns so officers can legally enter into their home with out a warrant to see if their gun is locked up OR give some hacker an online shopping list of what guns i have so he doesnt have to waste time looking around.

Null what the ****  are you talking about? US forein policy? A car bomb in beirut? Are you refering to when the americans wernt allowed to have mags on their weapons and some 200 marines died?

If you want effective gun control then you need to put criminals away for longer then they are. People will always have access to weapons. Criminals aren‘t going to buy their guns at walmart. Taking guns away from hunters and collectors would do very little to stop violent crime. Look at buddy who couldnt get his hands on a rifle, he just picked up a crossbow.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Cycophant on July 13, 2003, 14:05:00
I‘m the first to admit, I used to be completely supportive of anything that would prohibit gun usage and therefore, in my eyes, reduce crime.

My thoughts took a fairly sudden turn after I deeply researched some of the gun laws and regulations of European nations.  More specifically, nations like Switzerland.

Switzerland has no such "gun laws" to speak of.  Soldiers of the Swiss Army must keep their guns after they leave the military.  Shooting competitions are held around the country almost weekly, and are geared towards youth, adults and the elderly.  Weapons, including automatics, can be bought from the Military.  Up until recently, they didn‘t even require a permit - just proof of Swiss citizenship.

What does all this result in?  Low crime - particularily involving weapons.  Healthy respect for firearms and their power.  Safety from wars (documents recovered from the Nazi government stated that invading Switzerland would pose a lot of difficulty, considering how well-armed and well-trained the average Swiss was).

So why does North America and other areas seem to struggle with gun-related problems?  I feel it comes down to maturity, intelligence and attitude.  Unless the average citizen has these three things, openness towards guns simply wouldn‘t work.

I personally feel Canada would probably do fine under a similiar system as the Swiss.  On the whole, we are a mature and intelligent nation.  However, years of fear-mongering and bias towards anything gun-related has tainted any hope of such a forward outlook in the near future.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: deathwing5 on July 13, 2003, 15:36:00
so true. I wanted to bring that up, but feeling lazy i wasnt in the mood for a written fight. In turkey there is no real gun law i can think of, and it‘s fine there, we‘ve had them around for so long. it is about maturity. I dont know why they‘re spending so much for these gun laws.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nULL on July 13, 2003, 16:13:00
Yeah, ok, so people are the problem; we knew that already. I suppose the problem is that you can‘t control the people; guns are glamorized in video games, television, movies, etc, and nobody has any respect for the power that they have. So what are you to do? Agreed, if responsible people have guns, there should be no problems. But what of the ones who get them and AREN‘T responsible? What can you logically DO except get rid of/make it harder to own guns? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. It may not be fair to punish everyone for a select few, but what else can be done?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Cycophant on July 13, 2003, 17:34:00
Well, I have my doubts that everyone in Switzerland is completely mature and intelligent.  True, these are probably the few people who do commit the crimes, but I‘m sure there are just as many that don‘t.

I agree that it‘s far too easy to state there‘s a problem, but not offer a solution.  Here is mine:

Teach responsibility and respect for firearms at an early age.  Encourage youth/adult partnerships that teach this.  Offer competitions, education programs, and give kids a reason to go to them.  

Other options would be to stop the media from glorifying gun-related (or just any) violence, or more harsh sentencing (including more than just incarceration, like community service, labour, etc.) for weapon-related crimes.  Obviously, some of these are less viable than others, but they‘re just thoughts.

I still believe the key is education, particularily from a young age.  I honestly feel that turning firearms into a taboo, and making them impossible to get and keep aren‘t helping the situation.

That‘s just my $.02, anyway.  I welcome comments/concerns :)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 13, 2003, 21:25:00
What to do is simple. You can‘t stop someone from commiting a crime the first time but you can make it hard for them to do it again. Up the punishments. Take the 2 billion that we wasted on the gun registry and make a super prison modeled after the military prison out west. They have something like a .3% return rate or whatever (figure may not be correct). That will stop people from getting a slap on the wrist then turning around and doing it again.

I read a great essay. I love guns just as much as the next army loser but i have to admit i found the idea had merrit. It was based on the idea of taking guns away from ALL non goverment people. People would not be allowed to own guns for personal use. All weapons were rounded up and melted down. Punishments for violent crimes were also made much more severe. Getting caught with a weapon would be big trouble. Of course theres some points on how this could be a very negitive thing, such as the goverment having too much power and could get out of check. Also people who hunt for food would be sol. (then again more money could be pumped into food related issues).

I liked the idea myself.  Good way to clean up the world so we can do some serious space research, fly out into the stars and start killing any aliens we come across.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 15, 2004, 12:23:00
Ha, you want an even bigger joke....

  (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.cornell.edu%2FChronicle%2F02%2F4.11.02%2FMoore-State.JPG&hash=0a343428c3cccac5279fda9c562d6a52)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: PikaChe on January 15, 2004, 13:19:00
Click on the ‘fully reply form‘ and there is an ‘image‘ button that you can use.

Or use (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F+inserturlhere+&hash=bbb7a153bfaa88e78ee948018747c894)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 15, 2004, 13:34:00
Isn‘t it up to 2 billion now?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: logau on January 15, 2004, 14:15:00
Ref the Gun registry

I have a 9mm pistol and registration was very simple.

I filled out a form when I got it via my dear old daddy‘s estate. Had to take the test to get the Fire Arms Certificate. No problem.

Then I renewed it on the Internet - again - no problem.

What I believe is the problem is the average Joe out there has a morbid fear of government forms - maybe from the annual joy of tax preparation?

Maybe H and R block should be recuited to fill out the form - for a fee of course.

All tongue in cheek - no flames please - but whoever designed this program - to dump $$$ into Computer Database companies - should be fired. No other words for it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: OLD SCHOOL on January 15, 2004, 14:27:00
Don‘t even get me started on this one. We have been registering guns since the 1930‘s. That wasn‘t good enough for a few squeaky special interest groups that the Gov. promptly greased with my money. They gave the right to police to come into my home and inspect storage and the registration of firearms that are found. Now, as a law abiding sports shooter I find that offensive. Especially when the criminals always have arms and run them across the border frequently. These are usually stolen and readily available. Also, the criminals tend to use them in the violent situations that the special interest groups are so concerned about. Duck hunters, not so much. Unless you have a thing for ducks of course. I think they are tasty. Now, look at the sentences of the gun runners who were caught with 45 weapons near the border...2 years and no firearms licence for 5 years? Something like that. WTF????? I could get that for improper storage or posession of a restricted weapon!! Criminals caught with handguns in the city center...suspended sentence and no firearms licence for 5 years...WTF????? We are truely a ****ed up nation. I believe in safe storage and who wouldn‘t lock ‘em up but the police state action of the CFC...absolutely criminal. I know many a police officer that has told me they have not registered their own yet as the whole thing will fold eventually...WTF??? I have given them enough personal info for my retricted license that they can reach up my *** and tell me what I had for breakfast in Petawawa 12 years ago. Truly a case of Government gone wrong and strapping on the old sandpaper condom and giving it to the public. For $ 1,000,000,000 dollars they take six months to answer your e-mail. Where did the money go? I am mildly curious.

We are a long way from the days of carrying an SMG in a bag on Air Canada eh boys? Where you fellers off to? Just goin‘ to Edmonchuck for a little shootin‘. No sweat, enjoy the trip. Try that today.  :eek:    :cdn:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 15, 2004, 14:28:00
Well, considering I live in Vancouver, it isn‘t some country dude with a shotgun I am worried about...its the punk gangster that shoots up a downtown bar (happened twice in the last few months...5 deaths)

My question is what is gun control, with the vast amount of resources being thrown into it, doing to stop these kinds of crimes...nothing, as it affects law-abiding gunowners only.


On a side note to what Old School said, I find it ironic that when to get a search warrant on a criminal, police have to go through a judicial process proving reasonable grounds, but as a registered gun owner, some guy has the right to walk into my house whenever he wants.

Just who are the bad guys these days?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 15, 2004, 14:49:00
Old School hit the nail on the head: the registry is a thinly veiled usurption of our basic rights.

I find it difficult to discuss the treachery that has been foisted on us by our own Government. I sincerely hope that the next one will return the concept of personal responsibility and self determination to the people of Canada- and quickly, before the last vestiges of morality and work ethics depart the fix.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 15, 2004, 14:49:00
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: jrhume on January 15, 2004, 14:51:00
Well, the bad guys are gun owners, of course.

Did you miss the Get-Your-Mind-Right seminars that explained all this?  I think there was some electro-shock therapy involved . . . it‘s so hard to remember . . .

 :)

Jim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bobthebui|der on January 15, 2004, 17:43:00
If someone has the balls to use a gun for anything other than sport or hunting (Illegal purposes), wtf makes people think a half-baked Gun Registry law is going to bother them?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 15, 2004, 19:19:00
In my opinion these bills get passed because of the fact that 10% of Canada‘s population lives in T.O. They as a general rule have a horrible time with guns. A duck hunter‘s shotgun is all the same as some badguy‘s pistol to them. Toronto(GTA), Otawa, Montreal and Vancouver to a lesser extent have such a huge impact on the Feds that what they want we have to deal with.  Their special interest groups can show us all sorts of stats to validate this foolishness.
Is it a bad idea?
No, every little bit that helps to keep my little boy(5) and young daughter(7) safe is fine by me. If a few duck hunters get upset cause they get treated like a pariah, oh well.

What‘s the honest big deal of it? The way it was conducted is what gets me. How some guy can railroad this through, when other bills get held up forever is what gets me. Has it changed the fact that young men are blowing each other away in record numbers? Nope. It‘s still a good idea to try and make our country safe. But murder with guns have never been as rampant here as down south of the 49th. This has more to do with Canada‘s intolerance of violence as a whole than anything else. The myth of the wild west and all it‘s machismo is prevelant in American society. Media, entertainment, movie legends all force this down our throats,much of it on airwaves traveling north. Let‘s concentrate on that instead of this feelgood bill that only make duckhunters feel suspicious but the granola crunchers all smug in their hemp ponchoes.

End of rant.

Slainte,
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bobthebui|der on January 15, 2004, 19:23:00
I just feel like theres better things that my government can be spending taxpayers money on...some will disagree....but i‘ve never exactly found guns a problem (and i live at Yonge and Steeles in toronto)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 15, 2004, 20:01:00
Cdn$1 000 000 000.00 (that‘s about US$315.45 in case you‘re wondering S.Baker) can buy an awful lot of hospital beds, or teachers, bring much needed help to far off communities in Northern Ontario, train new soldiers and still have enough for anti-crime programs.

I can‘t agree with you more ShOrtbUs.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: OLD SCHOOL on January 15, 2004, 23:58:00
Padraig. You are on crack. Your kids are not safer with the gun registry. The duck hunter was never going to jack your car. Did the criminals register theirs?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on January 16, 2004, 01:33:00
I concur with Padraig. I‘ve no problem with the concept of firearms registration. It‘s the implementation that needs a serious accounting. The cost is insane. The idea of centralizing and streamling seems fine on paper, but there is no excuse for this exhorbitant cost.

But we have to be clear, firearms registry is simply that, a registry. It has it‘s place, but at nowhere near this price.

The bigger problem is the lack of responsibility or accountability to the people over this mess.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: OLD SCHOOL on January 16, 2004, 01:53:00
Law abiding citizens have registered since the 1930‘s.
Criminals...never
There wasn‘t a problem before CFC came into being...that is the point.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 16, 2004, 03:59:00
I am sure you guys would be pissed off if some government lackey was aloud to walk into your garage anytime he wanted to in order to see if you put your e-brake on.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nULL on January 16, 2004, 04:46:00
The bashing of michael moore is kinda funny. I mean, he doesn‘t insult people without providing backed up data.

(Do you think the NRA wouldn‘t have jumped on "bowling for columbine" if they had found an inaccuracy somewhere in there?)

yeah, he hates bush. and he‘s given us plenty of legit reasons to understand why. the extent thbat some people can do is call him a joke and a fat ****. he‘s better known than any of you, has more credibility (yeah, that IS true!) and gets all of his "ammunition" against the right from legitimate news services...reuters, the BBC, etc.

"left wing" news services to be sure, but they‘ve got infinetely more credibility than most of us...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 16, 2004, 04:53:00
Quote
the extent thbat some people can do is call him a joke and a fat ****. he‘s better known than any of you, has more credibility (yeah, that IS true!) and gets all of his "ammunition" against the right from legitimate news services...reuters, the BBC, etc.
Aww...nULL.  Your making me feel bad about myself.  I really regret losing your popularity contest.
If being a social nuiscence and harrassing 80 year-old men to make some bucks for my movie is what you respect, than cheers to you and your role models.
Maybe when lala-land finally becomes reality, and the means of production belong to a bunch of intellectuals and union bosses, you and Mr. Moore can enjoy a government subsidized bucket of chicken together.

The fact is, the crux of his argument in his movie is plain wrong.

How can guns be the root cause of violence in American society?  America has always had a "gun culture".  Why is it only recently that 15 year olds have been mowing each other down.

That is from a respected psychologist with a bestselling book on the subject...not some news service.  See Dave Grossman.

Michael Moore should pack it up and head to North Korea since he finds his country so morally reprehensible.  nULL, you are going to have a fun time in the military when you defend the actions of people who believe you are the biggest contributer to the world‘s problems and go out of their way to **** on you.

     
Quote
"left wing" news services to be sure, but they‘ve got infinetely more credibility than most of us...
Credibility with whom?  The Spartacus Youth League?  Its credibility with those who matter that counts.


Infanteer‘s Quote of the Week

"Nearly all of the opposition to our conduct in this war was expressed by professors and those in law, the media, government, and entertainment, who as a general rule lead lives rather different from those of most Americans [who were behind the war]...Those who were tenured, highly paid, or leisured, both Republican and Democrat, I think have forgotten how hard it is to survive and raise a family-how often daily life is muscular and dangerous, and how frequently evil people can and must be stopped only through physical strength from hurting those who are helpless....

Many enlightened and well-educated Americans-simply cannot believe that awful men abound in the world who cannot be cajoled, bought off, counsled, reasoned with, or reported to the authorities, but rather must be hit and knocked hard...Domestically, such hypocricy and naivete are problematic, but in a war with deadly adversaries like those we face today, utopianism is near suicidal."
Victor Davis Hanson
"An Autumn of War"



So as for the credibility we lack here, its a question of mind over matter for us.
I don‘t mind because they don‘t f***ing matter.

Infanteer Out
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on January 16, 2004, 05:49:00
The availabilty of the guns and the gun culture in the US is a sore point for many including Michael Moore. But in his movie he uses Canada as a basis of comparison effectively. Per capita, we have almost as many firearms in our population and the homicide rates are much, much lower. He asks why that is. As for Mr. Heston, he may have been an 80 year old man, but at the time he was the president of the NRA and that meeting showed that he was woefully out of touch, literally. The best thing the NRA could do is find a more energetic president who may lead the organization into a moderate age. I just perused the NRA‘s website, I notice many celebs posing and showing their solidarity beside target rifles and shotguns. None of them are shown with an assault rifle. Compromising a little in certain areas may increase the credibility of the NRA as it works with the government instead of fighting it. Only my opinion though. Their country to do so as they wish. I‘ll never be able to support the idea of a Tec-9 as a hunting weapon. I‘m a happy firearms owner in Canada and I left my C-7 at the base.

The movie uses the gun culture in many of its facets to support his arguments, but much of the film is also critical of the policies of the nation that allow such a disparity amongst its population. Why is it that a single mother can work 70hrs a week and not be able to meet her basic costs? Social questions such as that are rampant within. As for his credibility, I have to agree with that. Back to back books at number 1 for months on many a best seller list and an Academy Award winning movie allow him to claim credibility. If it‘s only people who lean to the left who support him, then that is still support nonetheless. In this age, I‘d hardly say that the right is lacking for representatives to carry their flag. It‘s about balance.

As for going to developing countries, that‘s a good thing for certain. But when your country is the major consumer of energy and goods in the world, that affects everyone. Then the idea of cleaning up from within is not so ignoble.

I‘ve no problem with Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern or Triumph the comic dog. Every view should have a voice and allow the populace to decide for themselves, peacefully. That‘s the ideal, isn‘t it?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 16, 2004, 07:42:00
Old School,

How I want to throw a couple of zingers your way. But I won‘t. I never stated that the guns registery was the only answer. What I did say was any idea to make my neighbourhood safer was fine by me. If this bill is only one small part of it then so be it.

I‘ve hunted and fished when I lived up north. I dropped the hunting but not the fishing. So I‘m not some granola crunching long haired grease ball who thinks all gun owners are potential criminals. I know for a fact that not all gun owners are criminals. Many are my friends and some are family.The wrong people are being inconveniencedby this. But not all gun owners are responsible. If they have to think about safe storage and take actions to rectify this then what was the harm.

Anyone of those guys in Ottawa could have actually made the idea of a safer commnunity work with this bill had they planned it out better and left in out of the hands of those who don‘t understand what it is all about.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on January 16, 2004, 10:20:00
I just watched Bowling for Columbine and loved it.  I worked in a gun shop part time, incidentally, for a couple of years as well as owning firearms myself.

I thought Moore‘s interview with Charlton Heston was quite interesting.  Heston came right out and said that gun violence is so prevalent in the States because of race issues - no idea how anyone could actually think that was true.  Yes, he may have been an 80 year old man, but he was also the spokesman for a VERY influential interest group who clearly made some controversial decisions (like holding those rallies in Denver and Flint right after the fatal school shootings).

As for Moore‘s weight - that‘s his business.  Einstein had long hair, so did Beethoven.  Most people know not to judge them by their personal appearance alone.

I think everyone is on the same page as far as the cost of the registry.

What needs to happen is for existing laws to be enforced - you get caught using a gun in the commission of a crime, that should not get plea-bargained out, that should ensure you get locked up for a long, long time, and not in the current system of day care we call prisons.

Morons who don‘t keep firearms and ammunition locked up seperately and securely should also have their weapons confiscated.  

If the justice system prosecuted existing criminal offences to the full extent of the law, there would be a lesser perceived need for a registry.

I‘m in favour of a registry, but given the Canadian Constitution, which does not guarantee any right to private property, the inevitable fear is that it might lead to confiscation.

I also resent that replica firearms (including airsoft BB guns) are considered as dangerous as machine guns (ie THEY ARE PROHIBITED) but dewats are perfectly acceptable.  Someone explain that to me in words that make sense.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: OLD SCHOOL on January 16, 2004, 14:20:00
No zingers? How do you survive life in the Army without zingers? Don‘t worry you won‘t hurt my feelings...I don‘t have any.
O.K so you are part redneck so you seem to understand. I just did not agree with your statement that it was not a bad idea. The implementation of the registry borders on criminal.Where did the money go? How does the registry prevent the East Indian gangster from shooting buddy with a Sten over a debt or even you when you give him the finger in traffic? We are all for safe storage and licenses etc...but the gov. says this makes us safe. Criminals do not jump through hoops to own firearms and they never will. I smell dirty kickbacks in this program. Where is our money? People should be screaming. Forensic audit right ******* now please. $ 1,000,000,000 and 6 months to answer an e-mail? Any ma and pa two-bit business in Canada selling a widget will get back to you today or tomorrow! I would love to keep everyones children safe but this is no way to go about it. Beleive me I am no redneck freak...It would take me 45 minutes to get my shotgun out of Fort Knox if someone was breaking into my house...would probably shoot myself in the process...Just tired of the gov. trying to keep us safe and letting the real firearms criminals off with a handshake.
I worked for years at low pay in a tough enviornment and to watch some REMF geeks getting rich while we are fed **** in the dark would hurt my feelings...if I had any.

Surely nobody can argue against the fact that something dirty went on somewhere in the CFC? Someone has made plenty of money and it is not the Police Departments or the Crown Councils that could have used that money to keep your children safe.

The gov. is more dangerous than a epileptic on a grenade range and that will never change.  :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: fusilier955 on January 16, 2004, 14:35:00
it is funny, in my political science class we studied this.  there is actually an increase in gun related crimes since its instatement, the number has surprisingly doubled.  as for the "tougher" zero tolerance to those who are caught with an unregistared firearm, there has been only one person jacked up by it so far, the rest have been passed over.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nULL on January 16, 2004, 17:48:00
what exactly is involved with the registration process? is it merely informing the authorities of the number and type of guns you have and ensuring they are stored properly?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 16, 2004, 19:19:00
The more I‘ve looked at this issue since I‘ve dragged it out of my mental closet, the less tidy it seems. It makes sense that this does nothing more than inconvience those who‘ve done nothing wrong. It seems that MR. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon doesn‘t register his Tac-four when he bought from Nigel Maroon-Town it in the back alley. The new law should have been handled by experts in the field rather than REMFs in the three ring circus that Ottawa can at times seem to be.

I‘ll stand by my statement however that the idea behind it is valid. It seems the politicians (goaded by the left wing knee jerking sissies) just mixed up who they should have been treating like dirty greasy little criminals and who was to be treated like the honest tax paying peasants.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 16, 2004, 19:21:00
Oh yeah, by the way S_Baker it‘s spelled toques not touques! Tabarnac!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on January 16, 2004, 20:31:00
Old School - I should have been more clear.  I would be in favour of a cost effective registry.  Of course it won‘t prevent criminals from having guns, nor will it make them register, etc.  The current registry is an undefensible joke.  On that, we agree.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 16, 2004, 21:43:00
I think any rational individual is willing to give up some personal freedom for the greater good of society, but how much is enough?

I think the whole basis of the firearms act is flawed, in that it assigns responsibility of the individual to the Government, vice the individual.

I contend that the individual is responsible to himself/herself, for themselves. I also contend that each must conduct themselves in a socially correct manner to remain a member of society.

No matter how many laws there are governing the tools of man, people still wallop each other with them. Drunk driving is a perfect example. We must (and do) codify the rules of personal behaviour.

As stated in previous posts, we have all the rules neccessary to guide personal behaviour. No more rules are required to punish those people who go against the wishes of Canadian Society.

In short- personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, personal responsibility is becoming less and less fashionable. As is common sense, and moral standards.

We as a society tend to trail our southern neighbours by about 10 years- watch out: the "nameless faceless society" than encourages personal outrages is coming sooner than you think.

Compounding the problem is a society that thinks criminals can and must be rehabilitated. Add in the concept that you cannot defend yourself (we‘re getting there) and you‘ve got Britain- check out the statistics for yourselves, it‘s getting scary.

We‘re basically a good bunch here in Canada- but our society is changing- deny it all you want, but it ain‘t gona stop.

Personal Responsibility- scary thought, eh?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Gunnar on January 16, 2004, 21:44:00
Just keep in mind that Bowling is not a documentary, but in fact a propaganda tool on the part of Moore.  Take a look at this:

 http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html#10624779059990811

You get to see interesting things like the "free gun" at the bank demo was staged (cuz the waiting period still applies) and that Heston‘s comments were frequently taken out of context, and in fact from different speeches.

I don‘t disagree that the US has a problem with guns and gun crime, but to use Bowling as a pillar on which to lean arguments against guns is not a good plan....

In other news, at the start of the new year, some people were killed with properly registered guns.  Man, did the registry ever help them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Maxpower on January 16, 2004, 21:45:00
Quote
Originally posted by nULL:
[qb] what exactly is involved with the registration process? is it merely informing the authorities of the number and type of guns you have and ensuring they are stored properly? [/qb]
Well this is a bit more complicated as that.  As a new firearms owner i know i bit on this topic. First you need your licence in order to legally aquire or posses any firearms or ammunition.  To get my license I had to take the Canadian Firearms Saftey Course on both non-restricted (most rifles and shotguns) and restricted (handguns) firearms.  This was no big deal and was approximately 60 bucks.  Then I mailed my test results, references, a photo and another 80 bucks away to New Brunswick to get my PAL (Possession and Aquisition License). Another option could be to get a POL (possession only license) in order to legally buy ammo and retain the registered firearms you own, but not aquire new ones. So After approximately 2 months I recieved my PAL. For my first legal firearm, I bought a U22 Neos.  This falls into the Restricted class of firearms as it is a handgun. In order to purchase a restricted firearm, like a handgun for target shooting purposes, you must be a member of a recognized shooting club.  Then just go to the store and put the money down on the gun you want.  The store then calls the CFC (canadian firearms center) and initiates the transfer of the handgun to you.  You have to give some information and pay the gov‘t a 25 dollar transfer fee by credit card. They then give you a reference # and send you on your merry way.  They said it would take about a week to transfer the firearm and when the transfer was complete they would phone and notify the buyer.  After waiting 10 days  I  had to initate the inquery on my transfer and was told that it had been completed.  Before you can go to the store and pick up your firearm,  you have to contact the  Cheif firearms officer in your provence to be issued a Temporary ATT (authorization to transport). This ATT will have the Gun‘s Model, Serial# and the timeframe in which you are allowed to pick up the firearm and transfer it to you place of residence.
Once that is done and you now have your firearm at home you have to apply for a perminant ATT which is usually good for 3 years or until your license expires.  Mine took about a week to recieve and had the condition on it that I could transfer my firearm to any recognized gun range or gunsmith within my province of residence as long as I possessed the registration certificate for that firearm as well.  Now when the firearm is transfered to you from the store (or other seller) you are given the registration # but a new certificate is then queued to be printed in some government center.  This takes about 3 weeks to recieve.  So from Start to finish, it takes approximately 3 months to be able to purchase a handgun and legally transfer it to the range in order to go shooting.  Now this was for Restricted firearms, maybe someone who legally owns a rifle can let us know the proceedure for purchasing/registering a non-restricted firearm.

My opinion on this:  I think that this is a bit outragous.  The licensing proceedure to be able to purchase a firearm and ammunition is a good idea, better yet, essential.  But the registration proceedure is bullshit.  The billions of dollars used to set up this big farce of a system was definately  NOT worth it.  The law abiding citizens who own, or want to own, a gun for legitimate uses are being hurt by this act.  Not just the legal owners, but the newcomers who, like myself, want to get into the intresting world of firearms.  I think that this system is discouraging new people into this sport and is bad for Canada in general.

Anything I missed, just let me know.


  :fifty:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on January 16, 2004, 23:05:00
But Bowling for Columbine was at least entertaining propaganda.  I‘m aware of the staged and edited parts, and it seems a bit heartless to have ostracized Mose...Charlton Heston now that his illness has come to light.  But should a man with Alzheimer‘s really be in charge of the largest pro-firearms interest group in the world, either?

I couldn‘t agree more with the concept of individual rights - and we are all seeing the changes Garry talks about daily.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on January 17, 2004, 00:09:00
Quote
But Bowling for Columbine was at least entertaining propaganda
Well, I will agree with that.  I watched it and was entertained at some parts; I liked it when he walked through Compton for his piece on manufacturing fear.
In the end I can say I learned something...that Moore is still an idiot.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: wright.rj on January 17, 2004, 07:39:00
I am totally opposed to the gun control law, as stated in this forum the only people that this law is inconveniencing is the law abiding hunter or collector.  The practice of random inspections of gun owners' facilities rings vaguely familiar to the type operations done here in Bosnia; when we root through peoples houses looking for weapons, for those of you who don't know this is called  â Å“OP Harvestâ ?.  Now my question is: now that the government knows where all the firearms are, when will the Government of Canada conduct an â Å“OP Harvestâ ?? Moreover, how will you, as a soldier, feel about going door to door to confiscate your fellow Canadian's weapons?  I know that I would have difficulty.  I know that I'm not alone in this concern.  Also alluded to in this forum is the fact that buddy in down-town Toronto, Vancouver or even small town Alberta is not going to patiently wait, as Maxpower did, to get all of his paperwork in order and get permission to transport his Uzi to jack the local CIBC!

This law is just a way to make the left wing tree huggers FEEL safe at night in their $800,000 condo in Toronto! NOTE: I said FEEL safe, cause it won‘t make the country any safer.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nerf herder on January 17, 2004, 12:44:00
I can‘t believe I‘m actually going to say this Rob but....WELL SAID!

Can‘t believe you wrote that. You usually have a hard time walking up stairs...I‘m impressed!

 :D    ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marauder on January 18, 2004, 16:42:00
Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can‘t defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you‘re gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it‘s much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
That‘s why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they‘ll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: logau on January 18, 2004, 17:58:00
Check this out. From  http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_040107.html

I think we`ve found 2 billion - 1 billions siphoned off by Jane Stewart (no puns intended - think about how you get gas out of a gas tank with a green hose) and 1 billion by Alan Rock on the gun control Farce.

Dear PM Martin

Since you never asked - we can be bought - about 2 billion for the Army would be in order - CASH - and then we may still vote you out.

The gun registry: A billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness

Jan. 7, 2004

For the second time in less than a year, parts of Toronto resemble a bad gangster movie.

Almost every weekend for the last while, one or more people are shot. Some are injured, others killed at clubs, at dances, on the street. There‘s usually a crowd present when the fireworks start, but there‘s hardly ever a witness with the guts to come forward afterwards. Vancouver is not as ripe with gun killings or injuries as Toronto, but there was one killing in Vancouver recently even more disgusting than some of the ones here. The young woman killed by a handgun was trying to help some poor character who was being set upon and kicked by a bunch of thugs. She got shot and killed in the downtown district of Gastown. It seems particularly miserable that the only person with spirit and conscience to interfere with a beating, a genuine good Samaritan, gets shot and killed, killed essentially for being a decent human being.

If this level of murderous thuggery were present in any other country but Canada, I suppose the public attitude would have to be one of despair and helplessness, but Canada, our dear Canada has had for a number of years now one of the most thorough and certainly one of the most expensive gun registry programs since the very invention of gun powder. And if we are to oblige the logic that went into setting up a system of registering firearms with the cost only slightly less than the missile defence program, it has to be that when a gun goes off criminally in this country, all the police have to do is tap the nearest computer keyboard, pick up the handcuffs on their way out, and nab the felon.

I know it will stagger everyone to hear this, but it doesn‘t quite work like that. Whether it‘s a rash of gun killings or just a single gun murder, our platinum priced gun registry with its billion-dollar cost overrun is not just ordinarily useless in cases of this kind, it is perfectly useless. It is useless without qualification. It does nothing. This may surprise a few anti-gun philosophers, but the knowledge that a farmer has a 12-gauge in Saskatchewan or a hunter has a .30-30 in Newfoundland is infinitely irrelevant. It is sublimely without purpose or point for a gang shooting in downtown Toronto or the butchery of a good Samaritan in the Gastown of Vancouver. You know why, of course. The very people who shoot other people as a hobby, a pastime, or a career are, wait for it, the very people who don‘t give a flying fig about registering their wretched handguns in the first place. People who shoot people do not join line-ups to tell police where they stole, smuggled, or bought their guns in the first place.

So now Paul Martin, staring down a billion dollars worth of ludicrously expensive wishful thinking, is about to look into the gun registry. If he doesn‘t scrap it all together, admit it was nothing more than wasteful piety from its very conception, and close it down, we will know he‘s only playing with the issue. It is a waste, he knows it‘s a waste, and a politically correct waste to boot. It‘s a billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness. Let‘s see him act on that knowledge.

For "The National," I‘m Rex Murphy.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: matt wright on January 24, 2004, 21:25:00
Time to throw my two cents in. First of all, I think Canadian gun owners can relax a little. I don‘t know of any police officer who is going out of their way to invade anyone‘s privacy to check up on registration or lack thereof. They are just too busy, for one thing.

Police officers are Canadian citizens as well, and many of them are gunowners when they aren‘t carrying their sidearm at work. They also realize that criminals do not and will not ever, register their fireams.

However, there are some valid motivations behind the implementation of the gun registry. If a firearm is registered, by a law-abiding citizen, and is later stolen in a break-in, then it can be a) entered onto CPIC as stolen,
b) identified as stolen if encountered, even if it has NOT been entered on CPIC ie, it‘s in the hands of a suspicious person and not the registered owner,
c)successfully tracked back to and probably returned to the rightful owner if recovered.

Additionally, the firearms registry is a usefull tool for police officers when responding to a call, if they can check in advance and know that there are firearms in the residence, they can keep that bit of info in the back of their mind. I‘m sure everyone here has probably heard that domestic situations are one of the most potentially volatile encounters a police officer can encounter. Every bit of info gleaned before going into one helps manage the risk. "Time spent in recce is seldom wasted"

I am not for one minute condoning the outrageous cost overuns plagueing the program, and I am not advocating that we take anyone‘s guns away if they are not abusing them. I personally was sad to see collectors get the short end of the stick. I personally know many military members who have turned over their collections of automatic fireams as a result of changes in the legislation.

I am simply proposing that there are merits to a firearm registry. I don‘t look at it as "gun control". I see it as a tool that can be used to help solve crime, and something that needs to be used carefully, not abused.

Comments?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 24, 2004, 23:47:00
Recce,

I don‘t think I‘m going out on a limb when I say that most of us Military types get a long well with most of the Police.

Re: registry- if guns are stolen, the owner can tell you what the serial numbers are- and it won‘t cost anything. (note- if the guns weren‘t registered, you may not get any input- from an othewrwise honest guy)

Re: Arriving at a home, guns?- you do not need to register the guns to know the homeowner has guns- he‘s licenced.

I‘ve got a friend who lost all his guns- he invited a Cop Bud in for coffe, his partner noticed a .303 by the back door, (farmer,predator control, legal!!) and came back the next day...trashed the house. Why should Police be able to sidestep the requirement for a warrant to search gun owners homes? Court case pending, but....

Enforce the laws we have, require personal responsibility- and maybe treat criminals like the societal rejects they really are?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on January 25, 2004, 04:12:00
To clarify a point made earlier, the amendments to the Criminal Code do not permit the police, or anyone else for that matter, to just waltz in to your home and inspect your firearms for safe storage.

S. 117.04(2) permits search and seizure without warrant because of a risk to public safety, based on reasonable grounds. Although this has not been defined, it is generally held based on precedence that this requires some sort of immediate danger to member of the public.

S. 117.04(1) permits search and seizure, based on reasonable grounds, if possession of a firearm, weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive is not in the best interest of the person or any other person, but this requires a warrant.

As always, search of a dwelling house without warrant is permitted if there are exigent circumstances (read: immediate danger to public safety).  This has always been the case, long before the Firearms Act made any amendments to the Criminal Code.

I cannot comment on Michael Moore, or his movies, not having seen any of them.  However, I suspect like most people in the media spotlight, he has found a way to manipulate the situation to suit his message (or the message to suit his situation, whichever).

Old School is right, we have had registration of firearms in Canada since 1930, in one form or another.

I think the majority of firearms users object to the need to register long guns.

Long guns are not commonly used in crimes, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that registering them is simply a "tax" grab (and an ineffective one at that, hence the cost of the registry).

Enzo‘s comment about not supporting Tec-9‘s as a hunting weapon is flippant.  Tec-9‘s are, and always have been, a prohibited firearm, and no reasonable sportsman has any wish to see that change.  Any Tec-9‘s that are legally owned in Canada have had to be registered, under the 1977 weapons laws, and the Firearms Act made no changes there.

Handgun hunting, on the otherhand, is a legitimate activity that has been banned in Canada for a long time, and law-abiding hunters who take an interest in that aspect of hunting have a reasonable issue with the firearms laws in that regard.  But this has nothing to do with the registry.

The fact is a vocal element of Canadian society believes the government should spend more money on healthcare, education, and other social programs.  A good number of these same people see no problem (I call them Liberal voters) with the government spending $1 Billion on a firearms registry which will clearly have no more than a marginal benefit to society, since it only adds (non-restricted) long guns to the list of firearms that must be registered, and these firearms have never factored significantly as being used by criminals in the first place.  The problem is clear:  money is being spent on a program with negligible benefits, and money is badly NEEDED in other programs which have wider impact or benefit.  And I haven‘t even included the military, simply because I don‘t think anyone here would disagree that the army needs more money.

Licencing?  A totally different issue, and one which I fully support.  Sport shooters in Canada should have at least some level of competence, skill, and knowledge of safety before being permitted to own or acquire any kind of firearm.  The military has a similar standard, I believe it‘s called a PO check.  My dagger on the sleeve of my DEU‘s tells the military community that I am trained to safely use various types of infantry small arms.

But we had licencing long before total gun registration.

Let me leave you with a few words from one of history‘s great supporters of total gun registration:

 
Quote
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolf Hitler, 15 April 1935.
(Caveat:  According to some internet source, this quote is "falsely" attributed to Hitler, but in any event did appear in contemporary publications and in any event makes clear German policy on gun registration, which likely went into effect much earlier under the Weimar Republic)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on January 25, 2004, 04:36:00
17recce bring up good points, and Garry has excellent counter-points as well.

I wanted to expand on them a bit, from a law enforcement perspective.

CPIC does in fact register stolen property.  A lawful firearm owner should know the serial numbers to their firearms anyway, as he points out.  However, that‘s academic anyway.  If a bad guy steals a hunting rifle or shotgun from your house, he is not likely to have the required licence he‘d need if he was stopped by police and found to be possessing them.  He‘d be charged anyway for a licence infraction, and charged again if he were committing a crime, and charged yet again if there was evidence the guns were stolen, and that‘s even before the registry comes into play.  Tracing the shotgun or rifle would enable the police to return your stolen firearm to you, but the odds of that happening after the trial are slim to none, and in our current climate, they‘d probably want to charge you for unsafe storage.  End result = registration doesn‘t prevent the bad guy from stealing the guns in the first place, nor does it make your guns any more secure.  Licencing and other laws have already required you, the owner, to take reasonable steps in ensuring your guns are secure.

Finally, I can think of no more useless information to a police officer than knowing how many guns are registered to a particular individual or address.

If you are a police officer investigating a complaint involving a gun owner, and you run a check on CFRC and find out Bob Gunowner has 3 firearms registered to his address, are you seriously going to ASSUME there are ONLY three firearms at his house?  No.  Any sensible police officer will keep his mind open to the possibility that there may be many more, or none at all, or somewhere in between.

Likewise, attending an address where NO firearms are registered is equally misleading.  Especially if you are attending a complaint of "shots fired" or another violent incident!  The fact that a computer tells you there are no guns there doesn‘t change the fact that you, as a cautious police officer, will take reasonable and prudent care in your dealings with that, or any other call for service.

As a cop, are you going to believe a computer, or your observations?  Which one is admissible in court?

Registration is a "nice to have" not a need to have, to the front line police officer.  It is, like other databases, only an investigative tool which may, at times, assist you.  It is not an end-all-be-all answer to crime solving.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Spr.Earl on January 25, 2004, 05:43:00
It‘s a Joke!!!!
I just got the paper‘s just to see what they whant to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It‘s worse than our own Security Clearance !!!!!!

Just because I‘m married I need my wife‘s O.K. to own a rifle!!
It‘s very intrusive and going over board and I don‘t blame the Gun Lobby fighting this one!!!

The question‘s are beyond beliefe!!!!!!!!!!!!  :mad:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 25, 2004, 15:38:00
A thought: we‘re all talking about "reasonable". Define reasonable. I guarantee that not all will agree.

We cannot legislate common sense, nor can we legislate inanimate objects into compliance with out version of good and evil.

We can legislate behaviour.

I think that there should be NO gun laws. You want to carry a gun? Fine. Act stupid, and you‘re gone. Personal responsibility.

Kinda tough in a welfare state, but an idea.....

Cheers-Garry
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Padraig OCinnead on January 25, 2004, 23:22:00
And put thousands of otherwise useless leeches of society that lawyers are out of work and mingling with real people? C‘mon Garry, there is an entire sub culture dedicated to keeping people free from personal responsability. Blame McDonalds for being fat, blame your boss because you drank too much at the office party ignoring offers to call a cab and hit and killed someone on the way home, blame mom/dad for being a low life criminal. If we could make it on our own without having "special interest groups" at every corner representing slackers then this personal responsability that you talk of could actually work.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: matt wright on January 26, 2004, 14:33:00
Portcullisguy;

My whole intent here was to add another perspective to further stimulate this thread, and it appears I succeeded.

One point I was getting at was that an experienced police officer will use every piece of information he can get his hands on when performing a risk assessment or conducting an investigation, and hopefully will not make too many assumptions. Of course I will trust my own observations over computer information which may or may not be accurate (garbage in, garbage out). But you would not believe how many bone-headed people out there do not have their serial numbers recorded or memorized (I realize this is an almost incomprehensible concept to any disciplined soldier). Anyway, I realize there are plenty of flaws with the system, and i agree the money could be much better spent in other areas.

On a side note, the vast majority of firearms that I encounter which have been used in a crime actually started out as long-barrelled firearms. Sawed-off shotguns and .22 cal rifles are by far the most popular.

Garry;

Sorry to hear about the individual who lost his guns, but without knowing all the facts I can‘t really comment. however, police do still require a warrant to search in most cases, unless there are "exigent circumstances", ie, immediate threat to public safety.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on January 26, 2004, 17:22:00
Recce,

Not your fault! ...but thanks, it was a little upsetting to all, this is a small community.

No matter what the trade, there will be a range of competence and professionalism. So far, the vast majority of Cops I‘ve dealt with have been pretty good.

I think the biggest thing here to note is that Cops enforce the laws that we, as a society, ask them to. I think everyone‘s day would be a little easier if we made things crystal clear.

Cheers-Garry
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: tmbluesbflat on January 30, 2004, 01:25:00
The gun registry, has to be a scam nobody but nobody is so stupid that they waste a billion dollars on this insanity, unless of course they have their hand in the till, when a very reliable workable system has been in place for 70 or more years. If it ain‘t broke keep your hands off! Recently here in B. C.  I understand some gunsel got probation for waving his weapon about, there are people doing hard time for flashing the real McCoy, go figure!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: tmbluesbflat on January 30, 2004, 01:36:00
One reason the American people are so rabid about gun control etc, is that they know the treachery of their government adequately demonstrated over their history, and they know better than to trust politicians etc. past a certain point. We in Canada are not nearly as familiar with the things our Gov. is capable of and has done. We have many more recent immigrants per capita than the U.S. and these people have had dramatic experiences with weapons, many of them having lost most of their families in this generation also an experience most of us have not had. There is no excuse however for the conduct of this program it is and it has and it will be a criminal enterprise. We should set up a lottery to see what the final cost comes in at. I‘m thinking about 3billion. (and it won‘t work)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: tmbluesbflat on February 14, 2004, 20:01:00
I see my previous prediction of costs and effectiveness are extremely accurate giving the Auditor Generals report, closing on three billion as we speak, I never thought of myself as a conservative. Graft, you don‘t say!!!!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nerf herder on February 14, 2004, 21:44:00
Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.

Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.

Regards
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: tmbluesbflat on February 14, 2004, 23:56:00
It looks like a certain Quebec Company gets about as much of the budget as DND, pays to have friends in high places, doesn‘t it??
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 16, 2004, 20:39:00
Ah, Michael Moore.  Suffice to say if he were one of my political icons, I‘d be obliged to hang myself for the crime of not having any intellectual self-respect.

Any government program should be subjected to the question, "Why?", at least annually.

The registry provides no benefit worth the cost.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Spr.Earl on February 18, 2004, 01:05:00
Quote
Originally posted by Franko:
[qb] Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.

Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.

Regards [/qb]
Speaking of Duddley Do Right.

Did you know that the Queen‘s Cowboy‘s along with all Police force‘s in Canada need an F.A.C.!!

This is how stupid our law‘s are!!

Under the new law‘s Cadet‘s can no longer  compete for Bisley using the present  force‘s C7.

Why?It‘s an assault rifle.

Under the new Law only the Military and designated Police personnel are allowed to use  assault rifle‘s!

Our Olympic shooting team‘s can no longer own their weapon‘s because under the present law they are illeagal because of magazine size!!!
Present law for magazine‘s is 5 rnd‘s max!!

Yet here in Vancouver crime with hand gun‘s has risen!!

$2 Bill. all for nothing just to make criminal‘s out of hounest citizen‘s!!  :mad:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on February 18, 2004, 02:50:00
Ah ... there‘s nothing like a spirited discussion!

(I just got back from Afghanistan, and this is the first thread I read ... hmmm ... I‘m a poet and didn‘t know it ... chuckle)

Congrats to everybody who contributed to this discussion - it warms the cockles of my heart!

(and, yes - I think the Registry is a fraudulent waste of taxpayer‘s money - another of Papa Doc Crouton‘s "legacies" to the Canadian sucker ... er, um, I meant to say "sheep who voted for Da Liddle Thug From Shawinigan")

I always liked that scene from "Red Dawn" - the bumper sticker that said "They Can Pry My Gun From My Dead Fingers" ... (pan to dead guy)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 18, 2004, 13:32:00
Welcome back Bossi.  Good to see you safe and in good spirits.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on February 18, 2004, 18:30:00
Spr.Earl - The Horsemen (RCMP) and other police and peace officers in Canada do NOT require an FAC or any other firearm document to use/carry/transport service-owned firearms while performing their duties.

Any peace officer or public officer may use/carry/transport, in accordance with regulations regarding safety, any type of firearm or weapon provided it is part of their duties.  No documentation is required.

Yes, even a small town cop could, if that cop‘s Chief decided it was needed (and the province‘s police act allowed it), carry a fully automatic assault rifle, quite legally.

The Olympic teams face a myriad of obstacles and corresponding exceptions.  The first problem is not magazine size, but calibre.  The common handgun calibres for Olympic shooting were .25 and .32 calibre, both banned under the new laws.  I believe exceptions now exist, but I‘d have to research it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MG34 on February 20, 2004, 23:24:00
The .32 cal competition pistols are indeed exempt,not so for the .25cal which are still prohibitted. The gun laws in Canada are a farce.Indeed a special thanks must go out to the PC Party and Lieberals for a worthy piece of social engineering,which has alienated a chunk of the population of Canada.Once again a large  "attaboy" to the sheep of Canada who swallowed the whole package..thanks alot or better yet thanks for nothing.
 The laws were meant to reduce crime,..for the sake of the children or some such nausea,as has been pointed out here criminals will never register their illegal firearms.As a law abiding firearms owner I am appauled at the limitations placed on my freedom to participate in my chosen hobby/sport. If the same restrictions were applied to any other minority in Canada the public outcry would be loud and fierce,but since all legal firearms owners must be either Elmer Fudd types or raving lunatics on the fringes of society it‘s ok to discriminate against us and restrict our freedom of movement. Disgusting
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: tmbluesbflat on February 22, 2004, 17:13:00
It is interesting to note that susequent to the Auditor Generals report every politician seems to be saying, that "they" knew nothing about this so called corruption (BAU business as usual), could it be that the can will be tied to the civil servants? Much the same as Kyle Brown was scapegoated by the DND, could this happen, again?
Mind you I have yet to see a poitician with enough brains to think of such a scheme.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: xFusilier on February 23, 2004, 03:17:00
Certain .25, .32 and .22 cal pistols have been exempted from prohibition, under Criminal Code, or Firearms Act, regulation.

I worked as a Firearms Officer for 3 years, and I can tell you that yes, criminals do apply to get licences and register their guns, and some very nasty ones at that.

There is nothing in Canadian Law preventing cadets from using the C7 assault rifle, in fact under current Canadian law cadets are prescribed to be public officers, same as police, customs officers, CO‘s and prison guards.  Any restrictions on Cadet use of the C7, come in fact from the CF.

Now, I know most of the people on this forum are against the Act (shocker, on a military website, whoda thunk it). Even I have some issues with the Act and the way it is being implemented, but some of the things that have been said about the Act and the Related legislation, even by peace officers, who should know better have been wrong.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 23, 2004, 04:17:00
I see the Cdn firearms registry is/has, or is about to fail! we all knew it would one day, and I hope it does. What a waste of money overall.

That bloody Wendy Cukier, I see she is still at it.

What killed guns in Canada was that Lepine wanker, nothing worse them killing 14 women at Woman‘ campus. yet you can still, own a mini 14 unrestricted, but with a 5rd mag. How ironic is that. Colelctors lost thousands of $$, and here we were appropiatly compensated by the nat‘l gun buyback scheme (another farce)

And that Rock bloke! Another waste. Where is he now? Kim Campblee too. Another waste of a pension.

You see, the population base in in Ont and PQ, in 1993 the blacked out results so the west would go and vote. There I was at the Sheraton in TO, (on a CF Safety Mgmt Course) by 2030 local, they call it a Lib win, when they were still voting back in the west.

Here in Australia it is complusary to vote, if not, you are fined (not cheap either.)

Here in Australia in 1996, we had a bloke named Bryant who shot 35 dead, and that ended it for semi auto rilfes. He used an AR15 and an SKS. Within days it the ban passed.

Now with bad ethnic gangs using illegal Glocks etc, the govt is now trying to limit anything over 9mm, and 15rd capacity for semi auto handguns. It will happen, so consider yourself lucky. here you have to register BB guns and hand cuffs must be bought with a permit. A very anti-gun place to live here, and to think just 10 yrs ago, it was what Canada was like 25 yrs ago. what a change. A gullible public fed by a one sided media and govt with a hidden agenda.

I still have a Cdn possession only FAC and my Aussie Shooters License, but own no guns here.

Regards from a soon to be legal firearmsless society, where crims rule the streets, B&Es on the rise, murder, rape, and home evasions too, as they know owners are not armed.

Feel lucky for what you still have.

Regards,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Rhodesian on February 23, 2004, 21:15:00
Yes, it sure has worked.  I spent 16 yrs in the army, have been with the RCMP for the last 3yrs and I got turned down for an FAC last year.  Never had a domestic disturbance, no criminal record.  I have carried a FNC1, C2, C7, C5, C6 and now a S&W pistol (and, ours are prohib weapons due to barrel length and mag capacity) since I was 17 and now they tell me I can‘t have my own weapon.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 23, 2004, 23:12:00
Wow, that is incredible Jay.  
Meanwhile, punks in downtown Vancouver are knocking eachother off in record numbers with Saturday Night Specials.

Shows you how screwed up bureaucracies can get.

PS...have you appealed that ridiculous decision?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on February 26, 2004, 19:08:00
Jay,

If it makes you feel any better, my next door neighbour, on return from an overseas tour, came over for a beer. He mentioned that he was a package commander, meaning he strapped on his jet, loaded with 2 thousand pound bombs, led over 100 other jets across three country‘s, bombed the heck out of the bad guys, and after months of this returned home.

He wasn‘t allowed to buy a shotgun.

 kinda makes you wonder....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on February 26, 2004, 21:18:00
If you join a "legit" gun club (i.e. one with their own range, and regular practices), you shouldn‘t have any problems.

However, if you make the mistake of saying, oh, well let‘s just hypothetically imagine saying something like "... and my significant other would feel more secure if we had a 9mm flashlight in our house ...", they‘ll turn you down without batting an eyelash (oddly enough, the bureaucrat in Toronto who turned somebody down for saying this was eventually discovered to be selling weapons which had been turned in for destruction ... but, I digress ... of course I was speaking hypothetically ... sheeyah, right ...

If you live in a large city, they get antsy about you owning a weapon.  However, as previously mentioned, if you belong to a recognised gun club you "tick the box".  It‘s also easier to own a long gun for hunting than it is to own a handgun for professional development ... (go figure, eh?)

And, another hot tip - get your FAC etc. while you‘re single - once you‘re married, you‘re the helpless hostage of the politically correct crowd (and your spouse, who has to give you permission ... yah - as if THAT‘s respecting YOUR rights and freedoms ...).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Colin P on February 27, 2004, 11:39:00
years ago I wanted to take my FAL to a military rifle shoot, I had a letter from my CO approving it. the RCMP would not issue me a permit, because the miltary was not a licenced gun club, I hit the roof and called him a uesless jackass!

It burns my butt, to think that Search & Rescue craft are tied up to the dock for lack of fuel, yet they can drop 1 billion on this program. Thios money would save far more lives if it was given to health, the military or SAR.

Better stop, I can feel my blood pressure raising.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on February 14, 2004, 06:44:00
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213

Gimme a break, and yet we can't afford to upgrade our tanks for example...

I'm not even going to go near the costs to maintain our bloody Senators for example.

Canada's controversial gun registry is costing taxpayers far more than previously reported, CBC News has learned.


Nearly $2 billion has either been spent on or committed to the federal program since it was introduced in the mid-1990s, according to documents obtained by Zone Libre of CBC's French news service.
  

The figure is roughly twice as much as an official government estimate that caused an uproar across the country.

The gun registry was originally supposed to cost less than $2 million. In December 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser revealed that the program would run up bills of at least $1 billion by 2005.

But the calculations remained incomplete, so CBC News obtained documents through the Access to Information Act and crunched the numbers.

A large part of the $2 billion expense is a computer system that's supposed to track registered guns, according to one document. Officials initially estimated it would cost about $1 million. Expenses now hover close to $750 million and the electronic system is still not fully operational.

Other errors and unforeseen expenses include $8 million in refunds to people who registered their guns, and millions more in legal fees that mounted during court challenges.

A spokesperson for the Coalition for Gun Control disputed Zone Libre's calculations, calling the $2 billion figure inaccurate.

The auditor general has pledged to re-examine the gun registry to come up with an updated assessment. Last month, Prime Minister Paul Martin rejected calls to scrap the program. But he said the government intends to review the way it's being run and is prepared to make changes.






Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 14, 2004, 07:36:00
You know...I‘m proud as **** to live in the greatest country in the world...And then I read something like that.

Our leaders are f#@ked.

With all of the problems our country has, these clowns spend 2 BILLION on gun control and start fights over the Conan O‘Brian Quebec comments. For Heavens sake the man is a comedian...He‘s supposed to say stuff like that.

Why do we put up with an immature government that acts in an irresponsible and childish way every chance it gets?

  :confused:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 14, 2004, 10:58:00
Slim, get your facts straight - the furor was not over what Conan said (though he made a comment or two as well), but in what a sock puppet said.

Yes, a sock puppet.  A sock puppet from the US speaking with a foreign accent may very well be the instrument via which Canadian Confederation is unravelled.

And ironically, it will be 1 million Canadian dollars that funds it.

  :D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Duotone81 on February 14, 2004, 12:09:00
Quote
Yes, a sock puppet. A sock puppet from the US speaking with a foreign accent may very well be the instrument via which Canadian Confederation is unravelled.
Are you suggesting that this whole fiasco will spark another separatist movement? I think the whole point was for the sake of comedy and Americans have a natural tendency to equate French-Canadians to the citizens of France which would explain why the Quebecers would be the punchline. Tasteless none the less however. What do they say about comedy which insults the audience? It‘s the lowest form of comedy? IMO I don‘t think Quebec will entertain any serious notions of seceding on account of some name calling by foreigners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 14, 2004, 12:16:00
I think Michael was being facetious
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: nbk on February 14, 2004, 12:49:00
Quote
Originally posted by Duotone81:
[qb] I think the whole point was for the sake of comedy and Americans have a natural tendency to equate French-Canadians to the citizens of France which would explain why the Quebecers would be the punchline. [/qb]
Exactly.  Iwonder how many of these people actually stayed up to 1 am and actually say the sketch, as opposed to how many of them jus theard about it, without realize the whole joke.

Although he was making fun of the Quebecois, if you were to just view it as that, you would be missing the bigger joke.

The puppet was making a joke about the americans. He was being the stereotypical loud, ignorant and obnoxious american.

"You are in North America now, learn the language!"

That was never meant to be a serious comment, it was a joke on television, after most people had gone to bed. The joke was not being rude, the joke was him being blatantly obnoxious and rude. Over the top and excessively. That was the funny part.

It only makes people who got offended look bad, like they cant take a joke...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: SFontaine on February 14, 2004, 15:02:00
I love Conan. Watch him every night. I can‘t believe people are getting uppity over a joke he made. What did they expect him to come in an sing Canadas praises?
You don‘t see the American government getting upset over every little joke Canadian comedians make about htem.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 14, 2004, 15:32:00
They would if they thought it could hurt their chance of re-election. ie [Liberal=Quebec=Seats‘o‘Plenty] I wish I had seen the show. I read a couple of the jokes and both  myself and my French-Canadian wife thought they were funny.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on February 14, 2004, 15:38:00
I‘ll give you that SF, anyone recall Mercer‘s trips to the US in the past? I seem to recall a moment w/ the Governor of Arkasas who happily wished Canadians the best of luck on our "peace dome" which we were going to build to protect our Parliament buildings in Ottawa from melting due to global warming primarily from American companies (Mercer told him that Parliament was made out of ice, great shot of them shaking hands  :D  )

Then there is the infamous moment w/ Dubya when he wasn‘t the "war president," greetings to "Prime Minister Poutine" anyone?

I‘ll grant the Yanks this, our man makes fools out of top government officials and they take it, a talking puppet (whom I enjoy immensly) shows up to have some fun and our "buzzkills" decide to make an issue out of this, I suppose the recent AG‘s report and the falling polls have nothing to do with this eh?

Politics and people with far too much time on their hands, whatever...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Yes Man on February 14, 2004, 16:01:00
This gun law cr@p is crazy.  Its getting to the point where they could just about buy every Canadian a gun, and scrap the program about knowing who has a gun.

I wish they would give me 2 billion dollars, I could have every gun in Canada checked in 6 month and be done with it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: mattoigta on February 14, 2004, 16:23:00
Not that I agree with the people who got their panties in a bunch over Triumph the insult comic dog, the comparison to Rick Mercer is hardly the same, Rick just makes them seem dumb by finding ignorant people and exploiting them, whereas Triumph walks around purposely insulting people to their faces
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on February 14, 2004, 17:02:00
Scarlino - "Rick just makes them seem dumb by finding ignorant people and exploiting them"

Do you mean the people on the street, or the Governor‘s (including former Gov. Bush (TX)) who Mercer was always surprised to be allowed to have an iinterview with, and they spoke for themselves.  :D  Your words, ignorant people who he exploits  :D  Sorry, I love that.

Sure, "Triumph" hides behind a sock puppet and goes after people of opportunity, including celebrities. He is aggressive. Mercer is assumed to be a reporter from the CBC and asks questions in a playful manner and is surprised at some of the responses. The thing is, the politicians who speak with him are under that same assumption, what are they thinking when they answer questions of which they are uninformed? The result is humourous for us.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bobthebui|der on February 14, 2004, 17:06:00
I love mercer. Anybody who can make a politician look even MORE stupid (in a tasteful manner) is top notch in my books.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 14, 2004, 23:40:00
Quote
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
[qb] Slim, get your facts straight And ironically, it will be 1 million Canadian dollars that funds it.   :D  [/qb]
Mike
Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.((Humour!!!  :D  )

Gents...I think we all realize that the country won‘t unravel over a talking dog puppet...I just think it‘s stupid for them to get upset over somjething a puppet says( even a talking dog one!)

They government should get it‘s priorities in order. I mean if you can‘t laugh at yourself...?

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: RECON-MAN on February 15, 2004, 01:42:00
Well that makes up for what our leaders did calling Bush A moron.
What goes around, comes around.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on February 18, 2004, 03:07:00
A Romanian officer told me this story, to illustrate the tenuous relationship between Americans and Canadians.

At a NATO conference, the following joke was told:

An American, a Canadian, an old lady and a beautiful woman are travelling in the same train through Europe.

When they go through a tunnel, the lights go out for a second - a loud slap is heard - and when they emerge into the daylight again the American is rubbing his jaw.

The old lady thinks "He must have gotten fresh with the young lady, and she slapped him."

The beautiful young woman thinks "He tried to get fresh with me, but by mistake went after the old lady, and she slapped him."

The American thinks "The Canadian tried to get fresh with the beautiful young woman, and she slapped me by mistake."

And the Canadian thinks "I sure hope we go through another tunnel soon, so I can slap the American again!"

The next speaker was an American - after the laughter had died down, he said "Well, y‘all are still welcome to come down to Florida during the winter ...".

My point?

I lived in England for a year, and was thankful we were allowed to shop at the USAF Commissary (where the beef was imported from the US, thus we didn‘t have to worry as much about BSE).

The Yanks are better neighbours than quite a few other nations - it‘s incredible how two-faced some of the others can be.

An American naval officer coined the phrase "blood is thicker than water" as he sailed to the aid of a British warship.

Sure, they‘re not perfect - but neither are we.
Thus, I‘ll cut them some slack.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: absent_element on February 27, 2004, 17:33:00
Quote
Originally posted by Enzo:
[qb] I‘ll give you that SF, anyone recall Mercer‘s trips to the US in the past? I seem to recall a moment w/ the Governor of Arkasas who happily wished Canadians the best of luck on our "peace dome" which we were going to build to protect our Parliament buildings in Ottawa from melting due to global warming primarily from American companies (Mercer told him that Parliament was made out of ice, great shot of them shaking hands   :D   )

Then there is the infamous moment w/ Dubya when he wasn‘t the "war president," greetings to "Prime Minister Poutine" anyone?

I‘ll grant the Yanks this, our man makes fools out of top government officials and they take it, a talking puppet (whom I enjoy immensly) shows up to have some fun and our "buzzkills" decide to make an issue out of this, I suppose the recent AG‘s report and the falling polls have nothing to do with this eh?

Politics and people with far too much time on their hands, whatever... [/qb]
Did you see the one where a student from one of their ivy league Universities wished Rick good luck on the seal hunt in Saskatchewan (sp)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Enzo on February 28, 2004, 00:35:00
Missed that one, but at least he knew that there was a connection between sealing and Canada. We should be impressed eh  :D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Limpy on June 22, 2004, 04:17:53
So what are some thoughts on gun control this election. If the Tories get there minority gov. will they get rid of just the registry or some of the adjoining rules as well. Rules like you need a Possesion and Acquisition or Possesion Only just to pick up a rifle or shotgun to be legal whereas once a valid hunting licence would have sufficed :rocket:.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on June 22, 2004, 04:51:53
Yip, over a billion bucks pisssed down the toilet, and just think where that money could have been put to good use. Wont Wendy Cukier be on the anti-gun warpath again! Alan Rock, eat your heart out!

When this law flounders it will echo in the guncontrol world, and I look forard to what the SSSA (our NFA) here will have to say. lets hope it can influence the draconian gun laws here too.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on June 25, 2004, 08:36:47
(gives new meaning to the Roman saying "love me, love my dog" ...)

Friendly dog halted killing spree

By NOAH LOVE
   
TORONTO (CP) - A man who told police he was bent on going on a murderous rampage believed people in his native New Brunswick were nice, so he planned to gun down people in Toronto instead - until a friendly dog changed his mind about the city's residents.

The man drove from the Maritimes with a carload of guns and ammunition intending to kill as many people in Toronto as he could, he told police. But a last-minute encounter with a woman and her dogs in a lakefront park convinced him Torontonians are nice too.

"He wanted to start a killing spree," said Det. Sgt. Bernadette Button. "He didn't indicate why, but (did say) that the people in the Maritimes were nice so he thought he'd come up to Toronto."

By chance, he encountered a woman walking her two dogs.

"One of the dogs approached him and it was playful and they got into a bit of a tug-of-war," Button said.

"He decided that the people in Toronto were nice and he didn't want to continue with his operational plan."

James Stanson, 43, was charged with eight weapons-related offences after a man surrendered to police Wednesday in front of a supermarket in the peaceful east-end neighbourhood known as the Beaches.

Stanson, wearing a scruffy light-brown jacket, appeared in court Thursday afternoon after being examined by a psychiatrist. A scruffy beard and moustache obscured lacerations on his round face.

Justice Richard Schneider ruled the accused would undergo further psychiatric assessment before June 30 and appear again in court for a progress report on July 14. At that time, the court will decide whether Stanson is mentally fit to stand trial.

Stanson was also remanded to the hospital unit of a Toronto jail so that he can be placed under suicide watch.

Police said a man had a loaded gun in his pocket and a car crammed with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition and had intended to start firing in the park on a sunny summer afternoon.

The man was a dog owner and his car was packed with doggie blankets and a big plastic dog dish still filled with dry kibble. Police said he had left his own dog in New Brunswick.

Stanson lived in a small, white bungalow that he bought in Wood Point, N.B., three years ago, ATV News reported Thursday.

He lived alone there with as many as five dogs at one point.

A former neighbour, Marion Daye, told ATV News she didn't like Stanson, but said it was obvious he loved animals.

"You knew he loved dogs because they were always with him," she said.

Gladys Wood described him as friendly, but on his own terms.

". . . he'd go in somebody's yard and take his dogs in, let them run all over their garden, whatever," Wood said.

"When he was asked to leave, he'd stand there, do strange things, and laugh at you."

After visiting the Toronto park, the man, who police described as mentally ill, drove around the city looking for a police officer.

Const. Fraser Douglas, 25, was responding to a shoplifting call in front of the nearby supermarket when the man drove up behind his cruiser and honked his horn.

"He asked the officer who he approached for (psychiatric) help, or he was going to do something serious," Button said.

At that point, the man said he had intended to go on a shooting rampage.

Officers tallied the cache Wednesday night, counting carton after carton of bullets.

The list included: a 12-gauge shotgun, a bolt-action rifle with a telescopic lens, a 9-mm semi-automatic, a machete, throwing knife, camouflage ski mask, black leather gloves, and 6,296 rounds of ammunition.

Police said all the firearms were legally purchased.

Stanson told neighbours in New Brunswick that he once worked as a corrections officer in Ontario and was bitter about his experiences there, ATV News reported.

Police say they have a dog to thank, but do not know the identity of the pet's owner.

Helen Stanson of Guelph, Ont., said she believed her nephew was in Toronto seeking medical help for a heart condition.

A blood vessel in the heart was expanding rapidly and required surgery, she said. "He was a walking time bomb."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ags281 on June 25, 2004, 09:34:19
At least he had the presence of mind to turn himself in.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on June 25, 2004, 10:29:17
Here in Sydney awhile back, a child with a daisy bb gun who shot a local boy in the bum was branded a SNIPER ('sniper shoots boy in park') on the front pages of the papers the next day.

At least this nutter is in the hands of the police now, and I hate it when the guns are legally obtained by these people. Goes to show ya the nutters can get thru too.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on June 25, 2004, 11:27:08
Unfortunately, it is typical of the anti-gun lobby to flock to instances like these for sensationalism.

Funny, when you see a car thief crash and wipe out a family in its minivan during a pursuit, you don't see calls for eliminating cars.

Deranged people will find ways to kill bystanders.  If you look at the weapons the police seized, you'll see they are mostly hunting pieces; shotguns and long-guns.  So now what, they will ban hunting rifles?  As well, was there any mention of whether this man was a licenced gun owner who had registered his rifles?  Wouldn't that be a great bit for proponents of the gun registry....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Gunnar on June 25, 2004, 13:46:56
Actually, yes in some articles I read there was such a mention.  The weapons were correctly registered, but had had the trigger locks removed when they were put in the truck of his car.  He had licenses, registration, and lots of ammo.  So he's being charged with things like "Improper storage" & etc., since he didn't actually KILL anyone.  But a psychiatric investigation has been ordered by the judge.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Guardian on June 25, 2004, 14:21:36
The weapons were correctly registered, but had had the trigger locks removed when they were put in the truck of his car. 

(Gasp) The gun registry failed to deter this guy from planning a mass murder? You mean a properly registered gun can still kill people? My faith in that beloved national institution is shattered....  :crybaby:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Guardian on June 25, 2004, 14:26:08
Sarcasm aside, though, I hope someone in the media points that out. Proof positive that it won't stop crime...

Incidentally, if that registry hits $2 billion like I've heard, and you pay the average cop $50,000 a year, that boondoggle would have paid for 4,000 cops for ten years. Imagine the dent that would have put in crime....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 25, 2004, 15:46:08
More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on June 26, 2004, 00:48:01
Quote
More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?

Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.

Policing is largely a reactive measure concerned with crime and punishment.  Break the law, you will be caught and forced to face the consequences.

The whole purpose of gun control is largely preemptive; restrict and control the access to firearms and people will be unable to commit crimes with them.  No amount of police on the street would have stopped this guy from getting out of his vehicle and killing people.  Unfortunately, I think an inefficient government registry that targets legal owners is simply not the best way to go about things.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: cheeky_monkey on June 26, 2004, 00:59:46
]quote]Here in Sydney awhile back, a child with a daisy bb gun who shot a local boy in the bum was branded a SNIPER ('sniper shoots boy in park') on the front pages of the papers the next day.
Quote

I thought that getting hit in the bum with a paintball hurt a lot. And it hurts alot.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on June 26, 2004, 01:04:53
Quote
More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?

Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.

Policing is largely a reactive measure concerned with crime and punishment.  Break the law, you will be caught and forced to face the consequences.

The whole purpose of gun control is largely preemptive; restrict and control the access to firearms and people will be unable to commit crimes with them.  No amount of police on the street would have stopped this guy from getting out of his vehicle and killing people.  Unfortunately, I think an inefficient government registry that targets legal owners is simply not the best way to go about things.

You're still not going back farther enough into the problem.  How about raising kids in an environement where they are responsible for their actions and have respect for their peers, their elders, and their community?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on June 26, 2004, 01:17:07
Quote
You're still not going back farther enough into the problem.  How about raising kids in an environement where they are responsible for their actions and have respect for their peers, their elders, and their community?

You're not being realistic enough.  Of course the ideal society would look that way, but how are we to go about implementing it.  There will always be criminals and lunatics; we must work in the context of migitating the damage they can do rather than thinking we can wish them away.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Limpy on June 26, 2004, 03:29:24
A billion dollars blown to hell, and it still wouldn't have stopped the man from going on a rampage had he wanted to. But I especially loved the part about where it said the guns were legally owned. Shove that it your pipe and smoke it Ann Macellan, Alan Rock etc. No registry can tell wether someone is mentally ill or about to become mentally ill, nor can it tell if your a criminal. What next, Nerf Gun registry? :soldier: :fifty: :mg: :sniper: :gunner: :akimbo: :cam: :rocket: :tank:   :flame:
                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                               Hi, me and some friends would just like to register     :threat:
                                                                                                                                                         our guns!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 26, 2004, 05:07:48
Unfortunately, it is typical of the anti-gun lobby to flock to instances like these for sensationalism.

Funny, when you see a car thief crash and wipe out a family in its minivan during a pursuit, you don't see calls for eliminating cars.

Deranged people will find ways to kill bystanders.  If you look at the weapons the police seized, you'll see they are mostly hunting pieces; shotguns and long-guns.  So now what, they will ban hunting rifles?  As well, was there any mention of whether this man was a licenced gun owner who had registered his rifles?  Wouldn't that be a great bit for proponents of the gun registry....
Maybe not for eliminating cars but the fact that it has a licence plate and is registered sure goes a long way towards solving who, where, when , why and how. No one ever said the registry would stop gun crime[if they do they're full of %#$@] but just be another tool for law enforcement.   Though yes I know it was implemented wrong and cost waaaay too much, the premise is still a good one.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on June 27, 2004, 02:55:14
As for this nut with a rather large arsenal, I highly doubt he would have shot anyone.  My, albeit non-expert opinion, is that he would have chickened out after he fired the first shot or even before that point.  I even wonder if that dog existed.  If a dog was all that was needed for him to see what he was doing was wrong, I don't see him shooting anyone.  Although it is possible that if he did get one shot off it could have hit someone, but he'd probably be shaking so much that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

As for the gun registry.  I don't think its purpose was to prevent crimes like these... if it was then the people who crafted the law were total morons (well, they were politicans... but I digress), a system like this is more useful after the fact.
And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican.

On a side note, i'm kinda curious as to where the Alliance got its figure of the regiistry costing 2 billion dollars?  Everything I can come up with puts it at an estimated 1 billion by the end of FY2004. 

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Limpy on June 27, 2004, 08:34:10
"And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican"
quote]
Quote


That however is the Cheifs of Police. I have spoken to many plain constables, the officers on the front lines and they say it is a nightmare for average officers to enforce.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: hoser on June 27, 2004, 12:54:48
As for this nut with a rather large arsenal, I highly doubt he would have shot anyone.  My, albeit non-expert opinion, is that he would have chickened out after he fired the first shot or even before that point.  I even wonder if that dog existed.  If a dog was all that was needed for him to see what he was doing was wrong, I don't see him shooting anyone.  Although it is possible that if he did get one shot off it could have hit someone, but he'd probably be shaking so much that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Well, thats speculation.  I'm going to guess that you've never met the guy, aren't a psychiatrist, and are only basing your judgement on this single article.  Nobody here can guess what the guys real intentions were. 

Quote
As for the gun registry.  I don't think its purpose was to prevent crimes like these... if it was then the people who crafted the law were total morons (well, they were politicans... but I digress), a system like this is more useful after the fact.

Ok, what is its purpose?  About the only thing I can come up with is that if there's a incident, I'm already being investigated, and I happen to have a similar firearm as that used in the crime, then it provides some evidence (which is questionable at any rate).  Not a bad idea, I agree, but this incident does point out that having registered guns doesn't really help things. 

Quote
And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican.

True enough, but as Limpy pointed out, these aren't the beat cops.  The Chiefs are bureaucrats whose job it is to play politics with the police force.  Also, the question isn't whether they support it, its whether or not its effective.  I'd be curious to see some info on how and when the gun registry is being used, and some numbers on how its being used. 

Quote
On a side note, i'm kinda curious as to where the Alliance got its figure of the regiistry costing 2 billion dollars?  Everything I can come up with puts it at an estimated 1 billion by the end of FY2004. 

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213

I've been curious about that too.  They're all estimates anyways, so we won't know the real cost until the Auditor General releases a final report on the matter.  The $1 billion estimate was released in December 2002, and the $2 billion estimate is as of a few months ago... I don't know if its an updated figure, or if its just doing some new math on the numbers to make a point.   Either way, wasn't it supposed to cost a couple million?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on June 28, 2004, 00:20:22
As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.   I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc :)

I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.

I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is? 


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: hoser on June 28, 2004, 04:48:59
As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.   I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc :)

I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.

Good enough, I suppose you did provide a perfectly good disclaimer.  My bad.

Quote
I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is?

Sure... but what does that achieve?  Why bother tracking firearms?  It always traces back to preventing crime.  Even as a tool for law enforcement, there's the underlying principle that better law enforcement will help lower crime rates (well, in the ideal case at least, maybe I'm just being naive though).  Things like the gun registry sell to people in the first place because people believe they will help on the war on crime.

But, just to make my point clear, I don't think the gun registry could or would prevent things like this.  I'm not about to pretend this proves the registry itself is useless.  Stuff slips through the cracks, and something like this the registry never could stop.   It does highlight the fact that the registry isn't a very proactive aid to the overall problem (but you contend that the aid it provides isn't supposed to help the problem?). 

Besides, as a tool for law enforcement, is it really the best tool?  When it was implemented, did the politicians go to the chiefs, the street cops, and the detectives and say "hey, we've got some cash to spend, and we're curious what the best tool for you folks would be?"  I doubt it.  They had an agenda, their agenda believed this would lower crime, and they implemented it.

However, I'm still undecided on how effective the gun registry is (obviously it wasn't implemented properly or efficiently, but all we can do is ***** and moan about that now... and trust me, I will).  I think the principle is a good one, I've got no problems with the basic idea.  Like I said, I'd like to see some numbers on its effectiveness, and I wonder how and when its being used and its success rate.  I doubt those numbers could be compiled at this stage, but I'm curious nonetheless.  Doubtful, but curious.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on June 28, 2004, 10:26:59
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate with regard to the suggestion this fellow wouldn't have harmed anybody ... but, in one news story his own uncle suggested it was all a ploy (i.e. the uncle said his nephew wouldn't have shot anybody, and that it was all in aid of getting the needed surgery in Ontario vice N.B. ... hmmm ... isn't the Liberal gun registry HQ in N.B. ... hmmm ... maybe here's one example of what the wasted gun registry money could have provided - improved health care, since the pollsters tell us it's such a burning issue). :evil:

On another note:  A letter to the editor suggested the federal government should invest the money wasted on the gun registry on breeding friendly dogs, since apparently they've done a better job of preventing gun crimes (ha!)

We now return to our regular broadcast schedule of family-friendly programming ...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on June 29, 2004, 01:04:35
I like that letter to the editor. :)

I can't say the gun registry is a good or a bad project.  It honestly hasn't affected my life in anyway, or than my tax dollars being used for it. 
I'd like to find out if the registry is even working, becuase if it does then I have absolutely no problem with spending whatever it takes on it.  If it doesn't then we abolish it and replace it with something that actually works. 

just my 0.02

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Chris Pook on June 29, 2004, 19:36:30
Quote
Quote
More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?

Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.

Policing is largely a reactive measure concerned with crime and punishment.  Break the law, you will be caught and forced to face the consequences.

The whole purpose of gun control is largely preemptive; restrict and control the access to firearms and people will be unable to commit crimes with them.  No amount of police on the street would have stopped this guy from getting out of his vehicle and killing people.  Unfortunately, I think an inefficient government registry that targets legal owners is simply not the best way to go about things.

Actually, I am afraid I have to disagree here.

More police is not just political rabble rousing.

I agree that policing as she is understood now in Canada (and maybe the west at large) definitely seems to be a "reactive" activity ... wait for a crime then try and find the perpetrator.

But policing as envisaged by Sir Robert Peel in London in the 1820s was about presence.  The idea was to have a highly visible government presence on the streets to dissuade the many malingerers there at the time.  The situation was so bad that those that could afford it carried weapons and even bodyguards to protect themselves.  Situation much like Iraq today.

The value of presence is still demonstrated by the effectiveness of programmes in New York, London and even in Vancouver where increased presence decreased criminal activity.  Some argue that the crime was not eliminated, that it just moved, but the counter-argument is to increase the area covered by high visibility controls.

Another example to bolster the presence argument is the value of watchmen in downtowns, factories and secure communities.  Presence deters (does not eliminate) criminal activity.

Modern policing (police in cars) is an attempt to make better use of an expensive resource.  Policemen cost money (deservedly so).  But in the process of hiring fewer cops  that are paid more we can eventually reach the logical absurdity of paying one supercop the nation's entire policing budget to solve all the nations crimes.  That individual will be busier than all cops have ever been because there will be more crime happening where she isn't and there will be more crimes to solve.

There is an argument for numbers and presence.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on July 03, 2004, 01:14:14
I agree, friendly dogs are the answer.  :)

The government should raise taxes to breed friendly, docile Labs, and issue one freely to each household, along with some kibble and a coupon for dog food.

Clearly, we've been right off the mark all this time.  We need a Royal Commission to sit and investigate this friendly dog business.

Sadly, I fear the anti-gun lobby logic isn't far off from that.  The fact that the gun registry did nothing to deter or identify this individual - and it was only by his encounter with a slobbery, carefree, congenial canine that a disaster was avoided - proves to the reactionary anti-gun lobby that guns should be banned period, end of story.

This is precisely what has been happening in so many places, including Britain, where it is now harder to obtain a gun than it is to practice medicine (or law for that matter).

Contrast this to places like Switzerland, where by law everyone has to serve in the military and gun ownership is widespread - yet crime is quite low.  How can that be?  Hasn't it been proven already that GUNS cause crime, not people?  Only if you're a Liberal.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on July 03, 2004, 21:42:15
It also doesn't prove that guns prevent crime.  Just look at the United States, where gun ownership is ubiquitous, as is crime. 

The only way I could see the registry preventing crimes like this is if he bought all the firearms at, or around, the same time, and if so a reg flag should have been raised.  I admit, I know next to nothing about the registry, as I haven't had to deal with it. 

In fact, I think the only way the gun registry could have even prevented something like this from happening is if the individual was subjected to a psychological profile, or something of that nature.  But I seriously doubt that would go over well with gun owners.

And if I may ask, why should guns be easy to obtain? 
I can think of several reasons why I wouldn't want the general public to be able to go into a gun store and buy a desert eagle, an MP-5 at will. 
 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on July 04, 2004, 02:50:14
It all depends on your perspective.  I've talked to many Americans who take a hard line on their Second Amendment.  It's there to prevent a tyrannous government from abusing their individual liberties, period.  "Arms" interpreted in that light means arms of war.  It's not even up for discussion, as the second amendment was seen as part of the "inalienable" rights.. meaning fundamental rights that exist from birth, and which the government, or anyone else, can do nothing to alter or remove (hence "inalienable" ... unable to remove or alienate).  The fact that it is written down is just as a formal reminder.  Accepting that, the reason WHY someone would want a Desert Eagle or an MP-5 or even a .22lr pea shooter are irrelevant.  The relevant issue is solely if they still have that inalienable right as a free citizen.  If they are law abiding, they keep that right.  If they are criminals, tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty of a felony, then they no longer have that fundamental right.

So, according to this logic, it makes no difference why a law abiding person would want to own "assault" rifles, etc..  The fact that they are law abiding is reason enough.

Contrast this to the Canadian system.  We never fought a war of independence from a tyrannous king, and so the view of arms goes way back to pre-Criminal Code times.  A common law right to hunt for sustenance has always existed, as has a common law right to defend one's property.  But arms of war have generally fallen under the governance of the Crown, since it is the Crown alone that can raise armies, declare war, and make treaties.  It is the duty of the crown's subjects to be loyal, so raising up arms to overthrow the government isn't even on the agenda, much less an inalienable right.

This has developed into the system and ideal we have today.  No one expects us to cry foul because we can't buy a neat-looking MP-5 just for target practice, or even home defence.  We accept that that type of weaponry is probably best left to the experts (military & police).  We are content with common hunting rifles, and the odd WWII relic - as a collector's item, because we don't believe in the inalienable right to bear arms in the event that we have to remove an evil king ... we've never had to do it.  Societal liberty comes first, at the cost of individual liberty.

I'm not saying either view is right nor wrong, but that may help explain why things are so different between Canada and the US.  And keep i nmind this is all anecdotal, I have not done an exhaustive research paper on the subject, and have only my 10+ years of firearms experience and my many travels to and fro and contact with gun nuts in the US to relate this viewpoint.

I will hypothesize this, however:  If they DID legalize MP-5's or Desert Eagle .50's for ownership by existing licenced gun owners in Canada, I submit that there would be no increase in the number of gun crimes in Canada, beyond what we already accept as a norm.  Guns still account for less deaths in Canada than heart disease, lung cancer, and drunk driving incidents.  Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide or suicide.  If anyone wants the sources for those stats, I can get them, but for the most part they are on the Canadian Firearms Centre website.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on July 04, 2004, 14:21:48
Quote
as has a common law right to defend one's property.

I thought that under the Firearms Act, you would be charged for defending yourself or your property from an intrusion with a firearm.  I think the way that the theory was pitched to me was that in doing so you loaded and discharged a firearm in an area where it was unlawful to do so, so you've commited an offense.

I remember a case in my hometown that was over this.  Four teenagers broke into an isolated home/gas station owned by a 70 year old man.  The old man got up and grabbed his shotgun, the kids bolted.  The old man shot and killed one of the kids in the back.  His firearms were seized and he was charged with manslaughter.  He claimed that it was dark and he had just shot at one of the four figures he noticed moving around his property for fear of his life.  The jury let him walk, which I must say I was happy for, knowing the character of the intruder who was shot.  Imagine that will set some precedence here, that you better make damn sure there is a threat to your life if you use a firearm, or else you're going to be explaining it to a judge and jury.  (Better to be tried by twelve than carried out by six, I say)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on July 04, 2004, 14:34:55
excellent post.

I used to be one those leftist who believed that no gun is the only good gun.  However, as I've aged (albeit its only been a difference a few years) I have begun to recgonize that both sides of legitiment arguments. 
I also believe that the authors of the 2nd admendment down south dind't envision C7s, Mac 10 (is that what they're called?) etc etc .,.. But i'm not an American citizen and don't really have a right to discuss issues such as these.

As for Canada, I agree that if MP-5s became accessable to the general public the level of crime woudln't increase, however, I wouldn't be surprised that if training wasn't required there would be more accidental shootings, or, along those lines, people using the weapon without proper regard.

Quote
Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide
Actually, i just checked statscan and between '98 and '02 they've been at the top 3 out of the 5 years and stabbings has the other two years. ALthough you are partially right, at the worst year, firearms only accounted for 33% of all homicides in Canada, that is still a lot mind you.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal01.htm
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Smoothbore on July 04, 2004, 21:31:21
Although I love firearms (my father recently granted me his Sig-Sauer P226) the harder they are to obtain - ther better. The key to preventing violence is a wholesome middle-class society and the way our children are raised, not the number of firearms. Take Switzerland for an example, all citizen soldiers that are drafted and pushed into the reserves have an obligation to keep and maintain their SG551 assault rifles at home, and the number of firearms offences is close to zero.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 04, 2004, 21:34:55
Doesn't Switzerland have thee highest suicide rate in the world?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Code5 on July 04, 2004, 23:53:08
I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Smoothbore on July 07, 2004, 14:42:35
I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1

Murders with firearms: 40 (2000)
(per capita): 0.00 per 1000 people

That is a very low figure when you have 400,000 individuals with fully automatic assault rifles at home along with ammunition.
No country has ever had completely no gun related criminal offences (well, maybe Lichtenstein or Pandora etc.), these figures further prove my theory.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on July 09, 2004, 02:50:39
I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1

Switzerland - 40 gun homicides (2000)
Canada - 165 gun homicides (1999)

Yes, we do have 4.5x the population as Switzerland, and yes that is comparable to our own total and per capita rates of firearms murders.  A few points though:

- The website only lists firearms used in murders, not other types of offences, such as robberies.
- The statistics for Canada are 5 years old, and are only 1 year after the Firearms Act passed, when most of its regulations had not yet been implemented.
- The firearms laws are vastly different between Canada and Switzerland, from who may own firearms, to everything else.  Here is a link to a United Nations database document on firearms statistics by country - http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
- My original point was that CRIME is lower in Switzerland than in Canada ... since I cannot find my original source for that claim, I retract my statement, however I will reserve the right to make an anecdotal claim that based on my law enforcement experience of some 9 years, it is generally held and accepted amongst law enforcement that crime is considered lower in Switzerland than in Canada, and this includes gun crimes.  Take it for what it's worth, as I can't find any empirical evidence to support my claim at this time (my Whitaker's Almanack is missing!)

Bottom line is gun laws are no suitable replacement for common sense and responsible firearm ownership.  The creation of a myriad of laws relating to owning or using firearms in a safe and ethical manner, and the process of criminalizing some irresponsible practices by otherwise law abiding citizens, I believe leads to more serious and intentional contraventions of those laws.  Right or wrong, normally law-abiding citizens are mad as hell that laws have been written to make sure they are doing what they have been doing already, such as responsibly and safely owning and using firearms.  Because they feel singled out, they choose to commit acts which disobey laws written to prevent them from doing what they weren't doing in the first place.  And the real shame is that the criminals are still getting away with being criminals.

I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.  I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on July 09, 2004, 03:44:09

I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.   I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.


Mandatory sentences for using a firearm to commit an offence!! Oh my god what a concept! Now why can't our judges (we have those laws somewhat already they are just not implemented) actually hand down stiff sentences.  I mean it's like they live in a friggen bubble, what are they doing smoking all the crack and pot in the evidence lockers?!  Before all the bleeding hearts and what not start hollering for stricter laws, lets start enforcing the ones we have first. For example using firearm or replica in the commision of an indictable offence can get you up to 14 years. 
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41775.html

Use Offences
 
Using firearm in commission of offence
 85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.
 
Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
 (2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence,

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.
 
Punishment
 (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;
(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and

(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
 
Sentences to be served consecutively
 (4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 85; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 2003, c. 8, s. 3.
 

It is right there, just remove that ridiculus mandatory min, and have the it say mandatory 14 years.  The laws are there but the judges, parole board members etc don't have the cojones to actually use the tools they already have.

As a side note it is my opinion (and that of many others), the long-gun registry was created to pacify Canadians, into believing that the Government was taking firearms crimes seriously.  The money spent on the useless piece of garbage could have been spent better.  Not on more cops, like most people would suggest, but at our borders and on customs enforcement.  Like PortCullis Guy mentioned in another thread, the amount of stuff they have to prevent from getting over the border is quite a large list.  More money for more front-line customs officers, and the tools and resources to better search items coming into Canada would greatly decrease some of those statistics (drugs coming into Canada, and more importantly illegal handguns smuggled across the border, which are the main weapons in firearms offences). 

End Rant
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: portcullisguy on July 09, 2004, 15:07:59
I am fully aware that mandatory sentencing laws for firearms offences are already on the books in Canada, and they were long before the Firearms Act.  I am further aware that the courts have not been liberally handing out those sentences.  Part of the problem is a reluctance to add punitive sentences (consecutive sentencing only happens in exceptional circumstances).  The other part of the problem is the offences are often plea bargained away in exchange for convictions on the other, more serious offences, and consequently, a lighter sentence often occurs anyway because of the "cooperation" shown through plea bargaining.

And, remember, Parliament doesn't make the laws in this country.  The judges do.  Don't believe me?  How often have we seen perfectly good laws thrown out by the Supreme Court?

There are all sorts of problems on every side of the issue.  And the criminals are laughing themselves silly over the whole affair.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on July 10, 2004, 00:04:38
I know, my sarcasm was not directed at you.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MrRGoyer on December 10, 2004, 18:28:47
I have two points to bring up with the money that has been spent ont the gun registry. You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: aesop081 on December 10, 2004, 18:35:39
I can't comment on the stats but IMHO, the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.  Al, it does is keep hones ppl honest, it doesnt get guns out of the hands of criminals.........

my opinion of course
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: GerryCan on December 10, 2004, 18:51:16
Well your opinion is right. Criminals don't rob convenience stores and shoot people on buses with registered firearms, unless they're complete idiots. What they have done is screwed the average joe who would never commit such an offense in the first place. It's not only appaling to see the money that we waste, it's embarrassing.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on December 10, 2004, 20:41:58
I personally hate it..

I wrote my non-restricted posssesion and acquisition license earlier this year and it took three friggen months to get it back. I had to include a stupid little photo in my letter to them too, it felt so amateurish.

I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.

What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.

That all being said, I do think the card system is good. As one of the local gundealers put it, "when people show me that card with their picture on it, I know they passed the tests and are certified to hold guns" that is the big benefit of it. However, all of the above plus the ridiculous cost overshoots the positive by far.

In my opinion.. it would be much more effective to simply allow the dealers themselves to create the cards. This would eliminate the horrendous waiting periods. The dealers would simply send your test marks down the electronic line to the firearms registry bureau, some clerk gives his or her approval, and you come back in a few days to pick up your card.

Our gun registration as it is now ... is a joke.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on December 11, 2004, 00:47:35
You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!

I think you (or maybe your source) forgot a few zeros in the monetary figure you put down.  The Toronto Police Service employ approx 5000 uniformed officers with an average Salary of $70,000.  Last year approx 100 or so officer topped the $100,000 mark.  Just an observance but the point you make is understood, the registry ate a load of money that could have been spent on front-line officers.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on December 11, 2004, 01:27:01
I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.

What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.


Our gun registration as it is now ... is a joke.

Just a few points, it has been a requirement to register restricted class firearms (in particular handguns and pistols) for the better part of the last century (since the 1920s I believe).  Second the perpatrators of the North Hollywood shoot-out were using fully automatic AKs, not semi-autos.  Third as was pointed out to me, by the instructor running my firearms course, is that all the weapons that are deemed restricted/prohibited under the order-in-council provision of the Firearms Act, are done so mostly based on looks.  You have to remember when things are decided by "order-in-council", that means the Cabinet or Privy Council (ie dumb@$$ politicians) of the respective level of government.  All you have to do is look at the list of weapons deemed res/prohib by o-in-c and is plain most of it is based on looks based on what the "bad guys" and "good guys" use in movies and tv for so long.  The Colt AR15/M16 series of weapons (good) are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types are prohibited.  Other weapons are designated prohibted soley on looks,  Benelleli M3/M1 super 90 shotguns (the "tactical ones), .50 cal Rifles (Barrett "Light Fifty" Model 82A1 rifle , McMillan M87), Steyr AUG rifle, HK G3, Galil, MP5 etc.  So it is not just the "long-gun" registry that is messed up, but how we actually classify weapons as non-res/res/prohib.

That enough rambling outta me, if you wanna see the full list go here http://www.cfc.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/r&p_e.asp
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ramy on December 11, 2004, 03:00:02
The gun registry is such a waste of money.... As the fella stated, we could have used the money better for law enforcement.... 

I wonder if the Hells Angels and all those Indo - Canadian gangs register their firearms ?

hahaha
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: I_Drive_Planes on December 11, 2004, 04:23:33
Quote
are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types

FYI the SKS is non-restricted.   :fifty:
 
If you want some real non-restricted firepower personally I would call up the great folks at Marstar (they really are good to deal with) and have them send down one of these http://www.marstar.ca/semi-mg/live-M2HB.htm A .50 Cal M-2 Browning MG, converted to semi auto.  I think it would be much fun.   :fifty: That is, if you can afford the ammo (at oh $6-12 per shot)

On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste.  It doesn't work.  Many gun owners have only registered the firearms that they use regularly.  I one registered my entire collection because my future career path does not allow me to take any risk of having a criminal record, otherwise I wouldn'tve registered one of them.  I feel that firearms licences are important, but I feel that the same regulations that apply to long guns should apply to handguns.  I think it's silly that I can blast away with my rifles in my back yard, yet I cannot discharge a handgun anywhere except for a certified range, and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).  I feel that there should be a "firearms licence" which trains in the use of all firearms.  The firwarms licence course could be beefed up too, and should include live fire.  The IPSC Black Badge course is a good example.  I got to try IPSC shooting this summer (I did really well I might add for never having fired a handgun before, I outshot nearly everyone there.  All those years of playing duck hunt really paid off ;D) and I was really impressed with the level of saftey on the range, even though it was just a few people shooting informally.  I'm sure the firearms registry looks very appealing to those who have no knowledge of firearms, but as nearly any firearms owner, or police officer will tell you it just doesn't work.

Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment.
 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MrRGoyer on December 13, 2004, 10:10:34
thankx for your opinion guys. :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: bossi on December 13, 2004, 10:35:10
They're going to have to add some stuff to their list ... based on the conversation I overheard while Christmas shopping last week:
"Where do you keep your baseball bats?"
"Sorry, we don't have any right now - they're seasonal and we only sell them in the summer."
"What?  I need one for tonight!"
(hmmm ... funny - he didn't need a glove or baseball ... I guess it's some new sport, eh?)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on December 22, 2004, 20:07:59
Quote
are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types

and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).

There is no requirement to be a member of a gun club to get a restricted licence.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ghost(Banned) on December 22, 2004, 21:52:56
Quote
Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment

lol like he is gonna get 8,000 new soldiers.

its been 4 months and I still am waiting for an offer
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 22, 2004, 22:12:12
the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.  
my opinion of course

It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.

There is nothing wrong with firearms education, and the registering of handguns, and other 'restricted' weapons, but general long arms is outragous. One day the only people that will have guns in Canada will be the police, military, and the criminals.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Its already happened in Canada, tell that to owners of the .22 Calico semi auto rifle, FAMAS semi auto rifle, and the SPAS 12 shotgun (just to name a few of the total prohibition from the early 1990s). The honest tax paying general public had to surrender them without compensation. I had a FAMAS in SA, a $1500 investment, and I sold it before the ban at a tragic loss in $$$ ( at that time it was still un-restricted so, no paper trail., but at least it did not get the torch ;D.

Weird, because they left the AUG alone, allowing it to be in a grandfather clause, while the FAMAS was notally prohibited. They are both bull-pups of teh same calibre and all, but its all about being PC I guess, even then.

In any democracy thats wrong. Gun owners in Australia were raped by the government, and you can't even own a pump action shotgun or semi atomatic rifle in ANY calibre here. Retarded, as the crims have even out armed the police.

At least here gunowners here were compensated for their loss of not only their privaste property, but their hobbies and passtimes too. Totally unfair.

Steve, I know John H of Wolverine personally. Good bloke. BTW that AR180 was it used? I at one time had one. Ser No, S206XX. I seen it in 1999 at a gun show in Regina still unsold and doing the circuits.

Regards,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: aesop081 on December 23, 2004, 00:38:51
It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.


Look , i agree with you but i also ealize that political realities demanded such legislation...like it or not.  Not too sure on how much public support you would get for scraping the registry all together but i highly doubt you would find enough to do it.  The government misshadled ( a bad idea IMHO) the program and it ended up costing a fortune.  The current gov will not comit political suicide .....it would rather witter the storm over the costs because it will survive that.........path of least resistance.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 23, 2004, 19:03:34
It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.

On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste. It doesn't work.

What kind of idiot would think that firearms registry will stop criminals from getting firearms?   I really don't think criminals get an FAC, register their gun and commit a crime with it.   It doesn't stop criminals at all.   If they would really wanted to fight crime they would've employed thousands of police officers with the billions of dollars that were put into the failure that they call the firearms act.

Gun control just ticks off firearms owners by making it hard to buy guns.   What does firearm registry change crimewise?   Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 23, 2004, 19:08:57
Quote
Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.

Do you have stats to back that up?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 23, 2004, 19:11:22
Yes there are stats to back that up.  The liberals don't like to talk about it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 23, 2004, 19:13:26
Well please produce them.

And keep this in mind:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17343.0.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 23, 2004, 19:14:50
Looking for them.  Saw it in an issue of guns and ammo few days ago.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 23, 2004, 19:17:29
Still looking for those stats.  Found something on the same topic.

Murder Rate and Firearms
According to the FBI, as reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to 19,645--from 1993 to 1996.  There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.

 

The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per

100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)

 

Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994, while, as shown above, the murder rate decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)

 

In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders, but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S.   Of these, 15,551, or 69 percent, involved the use of a firearm.  The percentage of firearms-related homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994.  (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

 

In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 23, 2004, 19:18:52
Got it.

The Numbers Speak For Themselves
 

Despite anti-gun propaganda, the U.S. murder rate is nowhere near that of many other countries.

By John Hay Rabb

Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world.

The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries.


 
Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.

What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

Try as they might, Sarah Brady and her bunch will never be able to defeat man's primal instinct to protect himself and his family through whatever means necessary. This fundamental human truth may offer some small measure of comfort to law-abiding gun owners around the world.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 23, 2004, 19:27:49
I am not a fan of the Gun Registry but this looks like something the loonies in the NRA would submit.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 23, 2004, 19:32:50
I notice they don't have the UK, Canada or a lot of the rest of the developed world in there, mostly 3rd world....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: aesop081 on December 23, 2004, 19:34:44
Got it.

The Numbers Speak For Themselves
 


NO..numbers do not speak for themselves......Using your numbers ( to illustrate my point), somepone with any sort of debating skills could use them to make you beleive that there actualy is a santa clause !!!   Numbers are very routinely twsited around.....i'm with Ex-D on this one
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on December 23, 2004, 20:18:20
Yes .. that article while decently written and worded didn't include countries like Canada, UK, Japan, Korea, China or any other developed nation. It focused on Brazil, Russia and other messed up countries like Tobago. I don't know what the latters deal is, but Brazil has never really been "developed" and Russia hasn't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. I bet if you included the aforementioned developed countries into this equation things would look a bit more balanced.

That being said, once again I still think our registration is utterly stupid. There must be something better than what we are doing now, and I still insist it would be some sort of hybrid between the American system and our own. I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun, but we (as it always seems to be) appear to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. I wish both countries would collaborate to introduce a system combining the best of both worlds and impose it on the entirety of North America, it would reduce crime and keep guns in the hands of the rightful owners. Of course, the odds of that happening are roughly the same as seeing North and South Koreans dancing happily with linked hands under a rainbow.

Wes: Unfortunately I didn't check out that Armalite 180 close enough to remember the serial number :( there was a fantastic gunshow in the Keystone Centre in Brandon and Wolverine Supplies had a gigantic and probably most impressive site set up. They had their .50 cal sniper rifle on display (that sucker is huge, more than I imagined and only a measly 4 grand!) as well as several carbines and other assault rifles. They had the C7 and C8 and some assault rifles that looked like something out of a Terminator movie, and the AR180 was there but I could not pick it up :(

All in all ... if I had the money, I would have purchased the Desert Eagle off of them, I had never seen one up close and now I am blown away by it. Although, I did walk away with a Cossack type Mosin Nagant :)

However, the gun was labelled as "used" who knows ..... it may have been that very one!


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 23, 2004, 20:40:11
There is nothing wrong with firearms education, and the registering of handguns, and other 'restricted' weapons, but general long arms is outragous.


What, am I an 'idiot' for suggesting the above quote? Or am I reading something wrong here?

The current gun registry is a disgrace, and there was nothing wrong with how things were pre 1990.

I love Canada, but don't trust the governemnt, after all they are trying to discourage gunowners like there are doing here in Australia. Only the hardcore are left now.

I have owned firearms since 1971, and I have seen a lot of changes over the years with the introduction of the FAC in Jan 78, to the most idiotic (knee jerk reaction to Marc Lepine) changes by Rock in the early 1990s, to the present foolishness now ( CA's now grandfathered, etc).

Highlights were in the early 1980s when the PCs de-registered the AR-15 (now since restricted again), and the lows were too, when the FN FAL went restricted in 1983, all because of an influx of Aussie L1A1 SLRs which came into Alan Lever's hands in Vancover. Lever Arms was a great place.  
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Limpy on December 23, 2004, 21:14:58
I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun,



I don't think there is anything wrong with being to gun happy, some people are car nuts or golfing nuts. I do believe the problem here stems from the fact that many States allow you to buy firearms without proper instruction or education. Besides a believe that the State gov. not the Federal makes most of the decisions in terms of firearm laws for that particular state.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on December 23, 2004, 23:11:06
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't find anything wrong with being gun happy either. Hell, I only own 3 rifles now, but I honestly plan on buying at least one gun every 2 months once I'm in the Reg Force. I enjoy everything about firearms.

What I was trying to say by saying they are too gun crazy is that they seem to like their guns a little too much, to the point of resolving issues with it, and how it goes along with the American ideology about everything being a fight of sorts. I know some of you may bring up Bowling for Columbine in reference to this but I do think the movie touched upon a prevelent attitude in America. And once again to cover my ***, I know that not everyone in America is like this - just that it seems to be above the few rotten bananas who tend to ruin it for others.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 48Highlander on December 23, 2004, 23:19:34
I don't know man, I've met hundreds of americans during my time with the CF and gotten into heated disagreements with a number of them.  I can't recall any of them trying to settle the dispute with a gun.  Nor did they have an "ideology" about everything being a fight.  The vast majority of them seemed mainly interested in making some money, drinking a lot of beer, and scr....seing a lot of women.  It's funny, if I didn't know they were such violent bastards I'd almost say they were just like Canadians.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 24, 2004, 01:08:37
  The vast majority of them seemed mainly interested in making some money, drinking a lot of beer, and scr....seing a lot of women.   It's funny, if I didn't know they were such violent bastards I'd almost say they were just like Canadians.

I agree on this.

Here 48, the common denominator, is young professional solders, no matter where they are from.

A while back I watched BHD in a group of about 50 soldiers, from 10 different nations. The only thing different was the cams, boots, and accents. Being there with those guys was better than the movie! French Marines with Royal Marines, with US Marines, along side Australians, Canadians, US Army, East Timorese, Fijians and the rest. All watching the movie while swilling their favourite adopted Aussie grog, swaping tactics, and talking shop.

Regards,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on December 24, 2004, 01:22:25
I can't find the articel anymore (pity), but I have read Canada's murder rate has actually increased since the introduction of the Gun Registry. I suppose siphoning a billion dollars from actual policing might have something to do with this (sigh).

If anyone can come up with the citation, I would be very interested to see it posted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on December 24, 2004, 01:32:03
One thing that needs to be mentioned M16, is that while there are some numbers to indicate that murder (ie people dying) is being reduced,  gun laws or the lack thereof are not repsponsible for this.  The reason is improved Emergency Medical care over the last 20 years, both pre-hospital (Ambulances) and the instituition of dedicated Trauma Centres, which are equipped to deal with things like gunshot victims.  People who would have died 5-10-15 years ago, are saved.  The numbers I am interested are attempted-murder rates using firearms.  If I can find them I will post them. I am willing to bet those numbers have been increase in Canada and the US.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Will on December 24, 2004, 01:34:09
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aGEsdK7xB3M8&refer=canada

Actually this news source states that last years murder rate was the lowest in three decades. I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 24, 2004, 07:35:59
Quote
I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.

Hearing and knowing are two different things, please try and deal with facts.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on December 24, 2004, 19:56:47
...2000 times a day?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Not a Sig Op on December 25, 2004, 23:53:43
Sounds like a reasonable number to me... it's often checked before serving a warrant... if somone has firearms in their home, it's generally a good thing to know before you kick in their door.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on December 26, 2004, 04:54:25
Now this is an interesting thread.  I've been a collector (more than 10 firearms, PAL with 12(3), 12(5) OiC 13, 12(6) handgun, non-restricted and restricted since I was 18.  I've been tested, certified, registered and record checked. 
There are sites out there with the information that people are seeking.  You may wish to check out:
www.nfa.ca  (Canada's National Firearms Association - go to links and check out Garry Breitkreuz's information - lot's of verified stats)
www.CanadianGunnutz.com (Discussion group - some great info, some dubious, just like any other)
www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/  (This is the federal government's web site - Canadian Firearms Centre)

As to my opinion, registering firearms is a tremendous waste of money.  Handguns have been required to be registered in Canada since 1935, all firearms were required to be registered during WW2.  The resounding failure of the WW2 registration led to that programme being dropped in the early 1950s.  About 7 years ago I met an older gentleman who assured me that his rifle and handgun were registered and then proudly produced his 1942 - dated registration certificates.  They were long not valid, but they were what he had.  Registering those firearms has not prevented any crime.  The handgun registration fiasco is another matter entirely, the problems with that are explained at length on the sites I have provided above.  And, quite frankly, I know of no sound argument for registering handguns and not registering anything else.  All firearms shoot, and they are remarkably simple technology - all you need is a projectile, a propellant and a strong tube plugged at one end.  The argument that handguns are more dangerous because they are easily concealed doesn't sell with me - I heard that one from a fellow that I was golfing with.  My response to him was:  "What's in my gold bag?"  He responded "Golf Clubs?"  and I said "Can you tell, by looking at that zipped up bag, that the bag doesn't contain a high powered rifle, or for that matter any sort of firearm?"  "Ok, I see your point" was his acknowledgement.  There is no value to registering any firearm unless there is an intention to take it away.
The only thing registration has done in my experience is create a list for the authorities to use on confiscation day, and yes, firearms have been confiscated from Canadians in this country for no other reason than the firearm became prohibited by Order-in-Council with no grandfathering provision (ie. if you have one you can keep it.)  In one case that I am personally aware of the woman (competitive shooter) who was ordered to turn in her 9mm Calico Carbine (expensive) smashed it to pieces with a sledge hammer before handing it in to the mounties.  Neither her nor her firearm were at all likely to be involved in any crime; no, the crime was created for her by the federal government.  The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering.   There were some prohibited with grandfathering.
As to the registration system being useful to police, consider this scenario - Police officer called to scene of domestic dispute, checks occupants on computer to see if they are listed as having a firearms license and registered firearms.  Computer comes back negative.  Is the officer going to walk into that house now with his alertness any lower or higher as a result?  There are certainly lots of firearms in Canadian home without licenses or registration attached to them.  Consider the opposite result, yes there is a firearms owner with registered firearms at that house - how does the officer's reaction change - would she or he perhaps be a little more nervous or excitable than otherwise - perhaps something that may otherwise be minor might become a major problem?  How exactly is that computer check useful to the officer or the occupants?  Anyone checking on a domestic dispute should always assume that there may be weapons of whatever kind present and conduct themselves carefully.  Something to think about. 
In every country in the world where registration of firearms has been brought in, the goal has clearly not been reduction of crime, but in fact, reduction of civilian ownership of firearms.  One classic example is the registration laws enacted by the German government of the Weimar Republic in 1928, later used from 1938 on by a nastier government to selectively limit ownership and  confiscate firearms from particular groups and ultimately all civilians not connected with a government party organization.  There are other examples. 
How would you spend 1.5 billion dollars?  I bet you wouldn't waste it registering firearms and their owners. 

Anyway that's probably enough out of me on this one - there are many sources for opinions and information on this topic.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 26, 2004, 05:29:10
it.)      The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering.     

Yip, I was about to loose a French semi-auto FAMAS ($1,500) because it went totally prohibited with no grandfathering. However I did not let the Feds have it. I simply sold it to another FAC holder (by law at the time), and since it was not yet prohibited, it was legal. Now I do believe that FAMAS went south of the boder, and did not come back to Canada after that  8).

So, my crime? Owning a firearms which the government deemed to be a 'bad' gun. My penalty? A loss of well over $1,000. I traded it for a used home alarm system, and a used electric garage door opener. Was I bitter? I still am!

Regards,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 54/102 CEF on December 26, 2004, 09:52:59
My little number 9 mm is registered....

The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.

The Firearms Information System is a successful police investigative tool. Police make more than 13,000 queries each week. Over 3 million queries have been made in total since the Program was first implemented in December 1998. About 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. More than 900 affidavits are produced each year by the Canada Firearms Centre to support prosecutions of gun-related crimes across the country.

How the system is performing http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp

Registration is too difficult for you? - see you local cops as registration is very simple.

It seems that knives and beatings are the real killers --- a link PDF on Family Violence in Canada from STATS CANADA  http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE00002.pdf

Here's how we like to beat the crap out of each other - and the Liberals will have you believe we are so peace loving --- http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm and! http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm --- no wonder the Mountie I once met quit the force - he had no knuckles left!

An interesting link - http://www.spruce.ca/gunctrl.htm

Toronto Police - Guns are off the streets and here come the stabbing wounds! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041214/SPATE14/National/Idx

And now the good stuff! .... At least as many murders are committed with knives as guns in Canada and in
Australia twice as many murders involve knives as guns ........... 80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides,

See The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser Number 71 / November 2003 a paper produced by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver here http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf --- in short - how to detect trouble? Look for the 2 x 4 in the back of the truck or the rowdy person's purse / back pocket

More glorious stuff
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
Contact(s):
   Gary Mauser, Professor
   Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-3652
   Email: mauser@sfu.ca
 
His interest in firearms and â Å“gun controlâ ? grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense. He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club.
 
Release Date: November 27, 2003 (its the link you see above)
 
Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

â Å“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,â ? says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade â “ for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world â “ in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise â “ for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

â Å“And for what?â ? asks Mauser. â Å“There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers' money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.â ?

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ? says Mauser.

GUn Control is not Crime Control  http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/

Seems there is lots of stuff out there - draw you own conclusions - if the government is doing it - seems safe to say there is money available to do it ------ to protect you or to grow the size of government? I lean to the second idea.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 26, 2004, 20:49:19
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ?

Gun Control is not Crime Control

I agree with those points.  Statistics show that new introductions of gun laws increase deaths with firearms.  If they put billions of dollars into police funding instead of gun control then we get actual criminals instead of law - abiding citizens.

...2000 times a day?

Doubt it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Limpy on December 26, 2004, 21:14:12
. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date.

I cannot agree with any statement about the registry that states "how many". Here's my example why.
At the end of the Great War imagine that somebody returned to Saskatchewan to raise a family on a homestead and farm.  Let's pretend he bought an Iver Johnson in .32 short to dispatch cows and such. Years pass. The revolver is passed down to from generation to generation. Now it's the years of this gun registry. The pistols barrel is under 105mm and the caliber is now illegal. But, it's a family heirloom. 3 generations. This family doesn't think it owes Gun Control the sweat off they're nuts. Are they going to register the revolver?
But they registered all the long arms? So it looks like they are all nice and legal.

Thats why I don't agree with those types of statements.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on December 27, 2004, 02:25:38
The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.

Ha, the program is a success in which reality?  Yes while you mention and provided links for the stats on weapons used in homicides and it turns out knives and firearms are used pretty equally, what you fail to mention is that most firearms used in homicides are HANDGUNS.  Since those have had registration requirements dating back 70 years, I fail to see how a long-gun registry will help reduce that number.  What redleafjumper said about rifles just easly being concealed is ridiculus.  Sure you can stick a rifle into a bag of golf clubs or similar item, but I would love to see you try and conceal it on your person and then try and walk into a club.  Handguns are the favoured weapon, simply because they are easier to keep on your body than a rifle, period.  So the CFC denied/revoked  licences to 12000 people, I don't see how it is going to prevent them from getting a gun.  As many people in large citys like Toronto know, getting a gun is not difficult if you really want one.  I am sure all the gangbanger/drug dealers/thugs etc. in Regent Park, Jane/Finch, Malvern, Parkdale et al are really concerned that they need to get their PAL and the appropriate registration papers.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 54/102 CEF on December 27, 2004, 10:18:17
Everyone is missing the point - there are more beating deaths than gun deaths and most gun deaths are suicides (if I recall correctly)

Be like an infantryman - determine the cause of the problem and eliminate it

Its not the mechanics imposed on you - the rules etc

Its the mechanics who impose it on you - the politicians

So lest stop being Canadians and go after the politicians

Of course you can still rant to your hearts content but I thought this would help you write your email to the MP or thug that represents you in Parliament   ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Freddy Chef on December 27, 2004, 11:33:06
Regarding federal gun regulations in general:

Ever hear field exercise stories on course, where buddy fell asleep on OP/Sentry duty, and the DS came along and stole her/his weapon? Poor weapons' security. Lethally poor weapons' security, if it were operations and not just a field ex.

In Toronto, a gun is a valuable commodity on the streets. April 21, 2004, Louise Russo, an innocent by-standard, was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Toronto. The weapon, CAR-15, was stolen from a registered owner. Russo is now paralyzed form the chest down. Shabby weapons' security in the civie sport shooting community leads to tragedy.

Toronto may not speak for the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, federal weapons' security regulations should insure that civie guns don't fall into the wrong hands, young children inclusive. If you were truly a law abiding citizen, that is responsible enough to own a gun, then you would comply with any and all weapons' security regulations. If you don't comply with weapons' security regulations, then the law has every right to crack down on you.

The law should crack down on criminals that use guns to commit crimes. The law should also crack down on the proliferation of guns on the streets, including inept weapons' security by law abiding citizens in the civie sport shooting community.

Criminals will still get guns into their hands. Federal gun regulations should prevent legal gun owners from becoming another source for the bad guys.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: my72jeep on December 27, 2004, 12:02:58
Sounds like a reasonable number to me... it's often checked before serving a warrant... if someone has firearms in their home, it's generally a good thing to know before you kick in their door.

last time I asked my wife who is an OPP Officer, long guns are registered to a person not an address so the door they are about to knock for a noise complaint  may not have any listed firearms but Joe Bloggns who just moved in has all kinds an is off his anti depression meds.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Garry on December 27, 2004, 12:47:26
In my Canada, we'd all be personally resposible for our actions, and discussions like this would be moot. However, we're here, and here's my two cents.

I agree with licensing gun owners. I don't want mentally unstable individuals owning guns. I also agree that displaying basic competance with a weapon is a good idea. I equate this with a drivers license- easily obtained and held with a minimum of fuss by any competant citizen.

I disagree with registering individual weapons simply because it provides no benefit.

I'd imagine that many agree with my views so far, here's where we may digress: the gun registration was propelled by Marc Lepine (the cowardly sob that murdered women in Quebec). Many wring their hands and moan about the horror of that night....and I agree- but the horror wasn't so much that Lepine (may he rot in hail) was a whacko, but that we, as a society, denied those women the right and ability to defend themselves. Any one wonder how many women would have died if, as Lepine made his intentions known, 5 or 6 of those women had pulled handguns out of their purses and fought back?

We existed as a generally peacefull society for many years. I believe that period is over....and it will get worse. Our "distinctly Canadian" culture is changing, and those who cannot defend themselves are being targeted by those with different moral standards. I never really understood this until I had a daughter. She and her friends are simply unable to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. There are few places in the city where they can safely go at night without their boyfriends.

This disturbs me greatly, both as a Dad and as a citizen. Canadians should be free to go wherever they want, whenever they want, free from fear.

Of note, the recent movements in the US are towards allowing their citizens the right to carry a concealed handgun. While statistics are what you make of them, most states have now joined the bandwagon: must be a reason.

Licensing guns is a major pita- nothing more. The inability to defend ones self is a travesty that we must soon address.

Cheers-Garry
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on December 28, 2004, 11:42:23
Right on the money Garry.  The only point I would add to is that Marc Lepine's action was only used as an excuse to implement legislation that was already prepared.  That terrible isolated act by a mad man was used much the same way that other incidents in history have been used to justify a course of action that might otherwise have been more strongly contested.  Examples include the the assination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Reichstag fire and the 911 attack, there are others.  The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was justified on the grounds of the Luther and Kennedy assassinations, but the law was already in the works beforehand.
This country has been engaged in an incremental proces of increased control over civilian ownership of firearms for many decades.  What we have seen recently is not the end of it. 

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on December 29, 2004, 17:30:25
What we have seen recently is not the end of it.

Far from the end.  The U.S is laying up on it while Canada wants more on gun registration.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: M16 on January 24, 2005, 00:04:48
Here is an intersting site on the debate.
It's Australian but has some interesting information on other countries.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/research.html#Australia
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Le Gars on January 24, 2005, 00:31:34
I personally believe the gun registry should be dropped. Those who intend to commit crimes with firearms are most likely smart enough not to be caught before the crime. You can make a zip gun from many things, none of which need to be registered. I think reform of firearms handling courses would have a more realistic chance of saving lives, as you don't have to fire a weapon in order to get your POL or PAL. How does the federal gov't know that the person who passed their handling test has any knowledge of firearms past what they had to do in class? If they're intending to shoot, make sure they can hit what they're aiming at. If they're crazy stop them, restrict them, whatever it takes for them not to be in a position to harm someone. When purchasing a firearm perhaps we should be made to wait 2 weeks while the purchase is approved bu higher authority. The registry will not prevent crime committed with firearms, I'm not sure any law truely can.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on January 24, 2005, 02:16:48
Goodform,  I agree with many of the points that you raise, but mandatory waiting periods only stop honest folks from buying firearms.  Crooks don't wait, why should you?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on January 24, 2005, 21:06:27
Well said, however I'd take a 2 week wait over a 3 month one
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ramy on February 05, 2005, 03:08:55
http://www.nfa.ca/nfafiles/legal/Ruger-Mini-14-ProposedBan.htm

 :rage:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Hatchet Man on February 06, 2005, 18:47:53
I read it, and I did not see anything that mentioned AR-15s
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 06, 2005, 19:04:39
I thought the Ruger was already banned ?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ~RoKo~ on February 06, 2005, 19:35:09
I've been hearing rumors of the AR-15 being banned for years now...

I've got to get myself one of them before the rumors become truth...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 06, 2005, 21:41:23
IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Mark C on February 06, 2005, 22:52:31
IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.

Well Marty, I heartily disagree.  It is not a question of "need", but rather a question of why shouldn't military-style firearms be available to the public?  Canada already has some of the most restrictive laws and regulations in the world to govern the safe storage and use of such firearms.  Responsible firearms owners adhere to those laws and regulations.  Criminals do not, which is why they are classified as criminals.  Removing certain types of firearms from the hands of the law-abiding public based on a perception of "menacing appearance" smacks of hoplophobia.  The fact of the matter is that your average "military-style" semi-automatic firearm is less of a threat to public safety than the average hunting rifle or shotgun.  And neither is a threat unless they are willfully misused in direct contravention of the law.  Just like any other inanimate object - a car, a baseball bat, or a kitchen knife.....

Laws need to be based on fact and reason, not mere emotion.  To suggest that the Canadian public has no legitimate use "assault-type" firearms is manifestly false.  Just ask any of the thousands of law-abiding Canadian citizens who derive recreational enjoyment from their frequent participation from sanctioned Service-Rifle matches - a Canadian tradition dating back well over a hundred  years.  Or ask those who enjoy practical shooting competitions.  Or how about those who simply collect such firearms as an adjunct to their interest in military history and science?

You apparently believe that there are "acceptable firearms" and "unacceptable firearms".  Worse, you would purport to dictate what I as a law-abiding fellow citizen am entitled to own and use for my own recreational pursuits.  A pursuit (the shooting sports) which I might add is statistically far safer for myself and my fellow citizens than taking a shower.  Thanks for your concern and your input, but it is sadly misplaced.   

If we were to follow your logic, all automobiles capable of exceeding the maximum posted speed limit would be banned as "inappropriate".  Cars with only 2 seats would be banned as "impractical".  And so on....  No doubt we'd all soon be wearing protective helmets for a stroll in the park. 

Nobody is asking you to develop an appreciation for military-style firearms.  What I am asking you to do is refrain from stepping on other people's legitimate interests simply because you don't happen to understand them.   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 407QOCH on February 06, 2005, 23:00:03
If they ban the mini-14, they will ban the mini-30 to will they not. The diffrence is the mini 14 is .223 while the mini 30 is 7.62.
Also, i dont see why they should ban these rifles when most uses for them are on farms and what not to shoot coyotes and wolves when they bother cattle. Also i know several people who own mini 14s for farm use.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 06:58:20
If my concern is misplaced so be it ......Im guilty , I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things . If you need to shoot a coyote, shoot it but do you really need aa AR 15   to do it ? Ive been shooting them for years with a 22-250 A Bolt, I dont put as many holes in them this way . And I do aggree with you in that the criminals do not respect the law ..........so why is it that you see so many Restricted Firearms on dispaly when the Police raid a dealers house . I can tell you from personal experience , that I would much rather be going to a Domestic Dispute involving an A bolt that one where an AR 15 is being used . I dont know  how the bag guys are getting them but they are , and if they had absolutely no access to them ( legal or otherwise ) this would be a safer place .
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Mark C on February 07, 2005, 12:17:37
I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things

Well Marty, I just don't see the need for anyone to own a 22-250 A Bolt, but as a fellow firearms owner I am not about to question your particular preference.     No offence intended, but it is precisely your type of "my gun is good, yours is bad" thinking that creates divisions within the Recreational Firearms Community and allows the Federal Government to pursue its incremental "death of a thousand cuts" iin the ceaseless attack against legitimate firearms owners.   If you understand the history of firearms legislation in Canada and the underlying motivations of our elected representatives, then you are fully aware that the stated intent of the Liberal government and their overly-urbanized supporters is to slowly but surely eradicate private firearms ownership within this country.   They started with incremental prohibitions placed on certain types of military-style firearms back in 1978, and have successively tightened the screws ever since.  

Having now prohibited the vast majority of military-style firearms and legislated their confiscation (without compensation) within the current generation of owners, the hoplophobes are simply following their established plan by moving on to firearms such as the Ruger Mini series of "Ranch Rifles".   Please tell me how the Ruger rifles are any more "dangerous" to the public interest than your Browning A Bolt?   The Ruger "Minis" have a legitmate and well-established role in Canada for sporting, sustenance, and predator-control purposes.   However, because the Government can play on the residual emotion of one deranged criminal's horrific acts at L'Ecole Polytechnic, they see the Ruger rifles as an ideal "flagship" to lead the charge for their next entirely predictable round of prohibitions.  

And once the precedent is set with prohibition of the Ruger sporting rifles, guess who is next.   You'd best enjoy your A-bolt while you can, because once the "antis" have banned everything else, firearms like yours will be next.   I'm willing to bet that you have a scope on your Browning.   That, combined with the high-velocity long-range 22-250 cartridge makes it a perfect "sniper rifle", wouldn't you say?     My point being that those with an emotional agenda can "demonize" anything.   Unlike you, they don't attempt to distinguish between "good guns and bad guns".   They want them ALL banned.   And mark my words, they won't stop with the next round of prohibitions.   Just like they didn't stop with the previous prohibition orders in 1978, 1992, 1994 and 1998.....

Why do we see Restricted Firearms on display when the Police raid drug dens?   The answer is simple - criminals smuggle or steal what they cannot obtain by legitimate means.   Your belief that the criminal element would suddenly lack access to restricted and prohibited firearms if they were banned outright is utterly facile.   The fact that criminals ALREADY have no legal access to such firearms certainly doesn't seem to have much of an impact on their ability to readily acquire them, does it?   And please don't try to tell me that this is because such firearms are stolen from licensed owners.   The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of firearms used in crime are "black-market" guns.   They are either smuggled in bulk across the border, or are the very same formerly-legitimate firearms that the Federal Government unwittingly pushed onto the black market with its continued implementation of draconian firearms laws.     

Once again, your logic is fundamentally flawed and your distinction between certain types of firearm is completely irrational.   My .223 AR-15 with its legally blocked 5-round magazines is no more of a threat to Canadian society than your .22-250 Browning A Bolt.   Just because YOU don't personally have a use for such a firearm doesn't mean that it has no legitimate sporting purpose (see my post above).

It is time to get your head out of the sand Marty.   Playing the "my firearms are good, but yours are bad" game simply provides the anti-gun forces with increased opportunity to attack a fractured recreational firearms community.   To paraphrase, "either we all stand together or we shall surely all hang as individuals".   Maintain your current attitude and one thing is certain - the time will come when your "evil, high-powered sniper rifle" is next on the chopping block.   Perhaps then you will finally see the light.   Sadly, by that point you will be standing all alone.....

Some food for thought.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 12:56:25
S_ Baker , if you are anywhere near the East Coast of Canada , why dont you come and pull my head out of my fourth point of contact yourself!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 13:07:25
OK ????? Right.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 07, 2005, 13:30:02
  Yup lets ban the ones that look bad  ::)

So tell me Marty, what is the difference between a Rem. 7400 and an AR?????? eh???

Like Mark has said it's BS to say my gun is good, yours is bad. My way of hunting is good, yours is bad.

  If you really are a gun owner you will know that you can put as many holes in a coyote with a bolt as you can with a semi!!!!

 Have you every tried to take a second shot at a coyote with a semi or bolt????

These laws are stupid feel good laws for people that don't have a clue. It's why I need 6  5/30 mags for my mini-14 instead of one 30 round mag for the 3 gun matches, because 30 round mags are dangerous  ::)

  And if guns kill people then I had better take mine back cause they are defective :threat:

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 14:23:10
As a matter of fact I have taken a second shot with an A Bolt . I dont very often have to though, for me anyway one well aimed shot has always been better than hosing er down, ( I think Ive heard that before )I dont think there is much of a difference between the two at all (7400 and AR). I thought I was pretty clear about that ......sorry if I wasnt . And if your idea of hunting is to blast away , I do say my way is better and make no bones about it . I hope I never have the misfortune to be in the same woods as you are .
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on February 07, 2005, 16:50:38
Apparently the Minister of Justice intends to take action to prohibit these two firearms(Ar-15 and Mini 14) this session.
For more information go to:   www.nfa.ca

Send him a letter!

Redleafjumper
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 07, 2005, 17:38:35
 You really need to get out more

 
Quote
one well aimed shot has always been better than hosing er down,

 Tell me exactly how you "hose er down" with a semi auto.   ::)

     THIS IS THE BS THAT THE MEDIA PREACHES!!!

 Now tell me why then if the Rem. 7400 and the AR are pretty much the same thing, why is the AR restricted and the Rem. isn't?????????

Quote
I hope I never have the misfortune to be in the same woods as you are .

 You won't cause I highly doubt you are a gun owner or hunter!!   :threat:

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 17:44:46
Doughts are like @##$%^&* everyone has one . I guess Im not an expert ......like you but if its a semi you keep pulling the trigger till the working parts dont come forward again. And you asked me about the 7400 and the AR . I said that I feel they are about the same . I have no problem with not ever seeing a 7400 again.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 07, 2005, 17:52:17
IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.

So tell me something Marty, if someone drove a yellow Corvette into a group of people at a crowded bus stop, and killed people, should then all yellow Corvettes be banned too?

Get a grip on reality, and all this PC crap! Don't be fed by a one sided media that has a matched hidden agenda with the PRC government.

You JUST remember one thing Marty, ONE THING, once they ban and take away 'the bad guns' from the law abiding people, they'll be coming for all of your guns too. They already know what type you have,   how many, and where you live.

Gun owners in Canada should stand shoulder to shoulder no matter who owns what type. If not, you are all doomed as gun owners in general.


Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on February 07, 2005, 18:17:35
Marty, it's like this. Do I need one? No, of course not. Most people don't need guns. But most people who are gun lovers ENJOY having them.

I for one, would enjoy having an AR-15. It is unlike what I have now and I would enjoy the difference in firepower not to mention the technical side of using a semi-auto over my regular bolt action rifles. I would enjoy that side the most to be honest, but firing it would be just as fun and entertaining.

So, because you and the Liberals think people don't need these kinds of guns, we now lose the right to have one? Wow, great job there Stalin, way to dictate what people should/should not have instead of letting them make their own minds up.

You then proceed to utterly destroy your own anti-gun argument with this little gem:

And I do aggree with you in that the criminals do not respect the law ..........so why is it that you see so many Restricted Firearms on dispaly when the Police raid a dealers house.

And on top of that, answer why gun registration is an utter joke in this country to begin with. Oh sure it succeeds in taking guns away .. from law aibiding citizens!. Take that crime! Ever wonder why criminals are called criminals? There is strong evidence to suggest it is because they don't give a damn about the law - but this is only a rumour.

Last week, several handguns and rifles were stolen from Jo brook firearms and Home Depot here in Brandon. Amongst the weapons stolen were happy little guns such as a Desert Eagle, a Taurus revolver and a Remington 700. Boy, good thing the Liberals are imposing gun control! I bet those criminals are totally frightened knowing that their weapons are unregistered!

Yet if I wanted to buy a Desert Eagle, and God willing I will soon, I have to jump through the flaming hoops like a tiger in the Shrine Circus just to get the permission to buy one, then comes three months of waiting until I'm allowed!

So let's see what this has accomplished shall we? I, a law abiding citizen who simply wants a Desert Eagle or AR-15 or whatever else to shoot with, see what it's like and because I like technical side of guns, must wait a few months and pay testing fees to be allowed to get this gun. A criminal like the one who robbed Home Depot makes off with 3 or 4 large caliber guns in under 15 minutes and there is no way to track them, and they sure as hell aren't planning some fun times in the sun with them.

Who really loses in this deal?

Wake up Marty, you're being duped.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 07, 2005, 18:20:17
Quote
I guess Im not an expert
or a gun owner. :o

Quote
I have no problem with not ever seeing a 7400 again.

 Yup, not a gun owner at all   :threat:



 Care to comment on how you "hose em down" with a semi???



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 07, 2005, 18:33:15
S_ Baker , if you are anywhere near the East Coast of Canada , why dont you come and pull my head out of my fourth point of contact yourself!

Childish remarks like the one above will NOT get you anywhere on this site Marty. I know you are new here, but first impressions go a long way here, as they do most other places.

I suggest you have some manners on here, and talk to people like you would expect to be spoken to.


Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Marty on February 07, 2005, 19:23:46
Farmboy ........I am most certainly a gun owner , read my post  (hosing down) , why is it whenever someone makes a statement about firearms an anallagy about a car or a truck or a color comes up . We are talking about guns here ..........not cars, I could say when was the last time you heard of someone climbing a tower and throwing a car at someone , doesnt make much sense does it?..............Apples and oranges

Wes
I am talking to peolpe how I was spoken to !


And speaking of PC crap , do you realize that the Ranch Rifle wasnt called a Ranch Rifle till people started to get killed with them ? It was a Mini 14 up until then ...............Sounds pretty PC to me

.02 C
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 07, 2005, 20:16:46
 I read all your posts and I say again, you are not a gun owner. And you have still not explained to me how you hose somthing down with a semi auto.

  And in comparing cars to guns, the point is that it is the person behind the object that we should be concerned about, not the object.

  As for the Ranch rifle - mini-14 PC BS, they name change was because of the rifle change. The first being the one you can mount scopes on.

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: CFN. Orange on February 07, 2005, 20:20:35
damn right cole tell em! :threat:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 07, 2005, 20:38:18
, I could say when was the last time you heard of someone climbing a tower and throwing a car at someone , doesnt make much sense does it?..............Apples and oranges


Dear Marty,

Are you really as arrogant as you sound? Do you think we are all idiots here or what?

What about not that long ago in Memphis when a man deliberatly used his car as a weapon and drove into a crowded bus stop, or two nights ago in Sydney when a speeding car deliberatly knocked over about 12 people injuring many on a sidewalk, or the Cop who was 'hit and ran' last night by a sports car in Sydney too. He was doing radar checks.

I am referring using a device (this case a vehicle)   as a weapon, so there is some common links between the two.

I heard of the 'ranch rifle' term for the Ruger family of such, being used in the 1970s.

I have been a gun owner since 1969. From BB guns to BRENs, I have at one time owned them all, so I think I know what I am talking about.

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on February 07, 2005, 20:40:24
Marty, your car analogy is more screwed up than your anti-gun argument (if it can even be called an argument). Okay, so no one has climbed towers and thrown cars off except maybe Superman on a bad day. But what about the countless people that were run down in hit and runs?

OMG BAN CARS

Marty it seems you prefer to just make open ended statements instead of actually rebutting anything said here. You screwed up the hosing down thing, you screwed up the mini-14 thing and you totally screwed up in terms of making any meaningful post to counter anything anyone here said.

Seems you're full of it - and not what you would originally assume (although that is applicable as well don't get me wrong). I am talking about what you've been told to believe, and what you're been influenced to believe. You spout off all this anti-gun crap yet have nothing substantial in which to back it up. You're just mindlessly regurgitating everything the anti-gun propaganda has been telling you. Next you'll be telling us that health care is perfectly fine and that our military is swimming in funds.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 07, 2005, 21:01:12
Marty, you and the rest of the Liberals should learn the difference between a tool and a weapon.

Until then, why don't you and your Liberal pals butt-out and quite deciding what is best for everybody else.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ~RoKo~ on February 07, 2005, 21:26:34
Quote
I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things

I'm a reservist, and a non-combat arms reservist at that. How many rounds downrange do you think I get on a C7 on a given year? Not many.. Most of my shooting is actually going out to the range with my buddies from the unit who own firearms, including the AR-15, as civilians and paying out of our own pocket to do so. It gives us the experience with *real* stopages on the weapon, as well as more experience just shooting the weapon that we don't get enough of in the army. I'm getting into service rifle competitions too (still with my friend's weapons, the 'starving student' phase makes it hard to afford guns).

But say I wasn't in the military, and still wanted to fire an AR-15 and other service rifles? Why shouldn't I be able to go to a range and do some shooting? Most gun owners are law abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a gun, he's going to get a gun no matter what the laws are. If it's a crime of passion, and there aren't any guns available, it'll be a knife. Or a bat. Or a board with a nail in it*. or any other object that's readily available and can do a lot of damage. And there are a lot of them.

* One day they'll build a board with a nail in it so big that it'll crush them all!!!! (Simpsons reference.. come on.. you guys know which one I'm talking about)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Mark C on February 07, 2005, 23:41:38
Hmmm....   I made a concerted effort to restrain myself and calmly rebut Marty's initial posts on the first page of this thread.   Despite having based my comments on established fact and logical extrapolation, I apparently don't even rate the courtesy of a response.   It would instead appear that those who cannot face reason automatically default to emotion-laden arguments with others.

Ah well - there's simply no reasoning with some folks.   Realizing that this is evidently the case with our new member Marty, I shall simply move on to other things rather than waste any more of my time with this topic.

Marty - Just remember that when the goverment comes calling for the surrender of your "A-Bolt" a few years from now, you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.  Never happen you say?  Yeah - that's exactly what a whole bunch of ostrich-like Mini-14 owners thought a few years ago when the "antis" were busy banning my military firearms collection.  Good luck, 'cause with your attitude you're going to need it.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MG34 on February 08, 2005, 00:15:44
It is something to be concerned about yes,but the Mini 14 memo is over 10 yrs old,as is the AR15 info. I am concerned and have written my MP on it but hopefully nothing will come of it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ghost(Banned) on February 09, 2005, 00:38:46
Well considering nintendo was forced to change the color of the zapper from grey to orange anything is possible.

Good thing they did that because I might have tried to play duck hunt with an AR-15 mistaking it for a nintnedo zapper.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on February 10, 2005, 14:38:32
Apparently, writing letters and calling MPs does work sometimes.  Here is an article that apparently retracts the ban.

Redleafjumper

PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
DATE:  2005.02.10
BYLINE:  Tim Naumetz

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said yesterday that a letter he wrote to a gun owner announcing plans to ban the Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle during the current session of Parliament was a mistake.

Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans at this time to ban the weapon, which was used by mass murderer Marc Lepine to kill 14 women at a Montreal engineering college in 1989.

He was responding to a furore among gun owners across Canada this week caused when Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz published the letter on his website last Friday.

An aide to Mr. Breitkreuz said yesterday his office was flooded with e-mails from incensed gun owners who believed the letter was proof the government has a secret plan to prohibit all semi-automatic rifles.

In response, Mr. Breitkreuz circulated an e-mail challenging the government to prove the Ruger Mini 14, which Mr. Lepine used when he randomly gunned down women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, is a threat to public safety while "in the hands of a law-abiding firearm owner."

By late yesterday, the controversy caught up to Mr. Cotler, who tracked Mr. Breitkreuz down in Parliament to inform him the letter to the anonymous gun owner was incorrect and he would be writing a second letter to retract the first one.

An aide to Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans to ban the rifle during this session of Parliament, and Mr. Cotler signed the letter "in error."

"The minister's office takes full responsibility," said communications director Denise Rudnicki, who added "no decision" has been taken on banning the Ruger Mini 14 at this time.

In the Jan. 27 letter he wrote to the anonymous gun owner, Mr. Cotler said Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, the former justice minister, had forwarded correspondence about the Mini 14.

"The Government of Canada is committed to introducing legislation to prohibit the Ruger Mini 14 at the earliest opportunity during this session of Parliament," Mr. Cotler wrote.

While Ms. McLellan is responsible for the Canada Firearms Act, Mr. Cotler is responsible for Criminal Code provisions for prohibited weapons.

The Mini 14, a lightweight .223-calibre rifle equipped with a magazine that can legally hold up to five bullets, is used by farmers and ranchers to hunt small game and control pests. Former justice minister Allan Rock said in 1995 when he introduced the Firearms Act that the government intended to ban the gun, but no action has been taken since.

The Firearms Act, passed in 1998, prohibited 21 weapons that had been restricted under previous gun laws, including military assault weapons such as the AK-47. Gun enthusiasts who were registered owners of the weapons prior to 1995 were allowed to keep them for life, but could not transfer them or sell them to other people.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: my72jeep on February 10, 2005, 15:03:10
OK now lets ban all assault Weapons we hear about in the news lately
1. pitbulls
2. hockey mom's/dad's
3. hockey sticks
4. baseball bats
5. beer bottles
6. Fords/gmc's/dodge
mostly harmless objects but they all can kill if in the wrong hands does any one else have any thing to add to this list.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ghost(Banned) on February 10, 2005, 16:54:01
Why don't they ban snowboard leashes

They have to be the most useless things ever.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: mo-litia on February 11, 2005, 03:08:32
(removed by moderator for lack of insightful comment)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: mo-litia on February 11, 2005, 03:13:48
Guess I should have read to the end of the posts . . . I see Marty seems to have already sodded off!

Glad to see 98% of the views here were supportive of gun ownership :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: I_Drive_Planes on February 11, 2005, 03:24:16
You know one thing that I truly love about Army.ca is that I very seldom have to say anything.  It seems inevitable that someone will say exactly what I had to say better, and more eloquently than I could have.  So to all who replied to that Marty fellow, I say thank you for taking the words out of my mouth!  :)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 11, 2005, 04:12:43
It seems a common argument against gun control is that it's the people, not the guns that do the killing. This is often used in conjunction with examples such as legally available blunt instruments, knives etc. that are used to kill. I think that's a valid argument to some degree.

However, if that argument applies to firearms in the way advocates intend it to, does that mean we should legalize RPG's, artillery pieces, hand grenades, and other weapons? If the "I want to have fun with it" argument is valid, it can be advanced for each of those items likewise. I'm not necessarily taking a side on gun control, only pointing out what I see as a fundamental flaw in the reasoning advanced by some firearms advocates.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 04:30:45
Ape,

Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.  Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.

As well, "semi-automatic" is a boogy-man argument by gun control advocates - they are no more dangerous then a bolt-action rifle in the hands of someone who can use it right.

RPGs, Mortars, and Grenades have no real purpose other then to kill (unless their is some Anti-Tank Enthusiasts Organization I am not aware of).

I'm not too heavily involved in this debate, these are only facts that seem starkly obvious to me after being around weapons for the last few years.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 11, 2005, 05:06:59
Hey...Here's an idea...

Lets keep the Mini 14 and the AR 15 and ban the Liberal party...

As for the proposed ban. It has nothing to do with safety and everything   to do with politics. The gov't couldn't care less about what responsible gun owners in Canada think...They're busy pandering to the braless ones who DEMAND that guns be taken away.

Slowly but surely this is what is happening. Soon only the criminals will have them.

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 11, 2005, 05:11:57
Ape,

Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.   Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.

As well, "semi-automatic" is a boogy-man argument by gun control advocates - they are no more dangerous then a bolt-action rifle in the hands of someone who can use it right.

RPGs, Mortars, and Grenades have no real purpose other then to kill (unless their is some Anti-Tank Enthusiasts Organization I am not aware of).

I'm not too heavily involved in this debate, these are only facts that seem starkly obvious to me after being around weapons for the last few years.

Good points. I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though. I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 05:59:15
I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though.   I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public.

Well, what are your hobbies?   Just because you may not be a sport shooter or a firearms enthusiast doesn't automatically invalidate the hobby, does it?   I know you're smarter then to say "yes".  

Do you feel the need to justify something you do on your own spare time to others?   Banning activities because of their social usefullness is silly (get rid of board games, Pokemon, and Nintendo) and smacks of something out of 1984.

Quote
One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token.

I think one could reasonably draw the line on these because they are inherently extremely dangerous (having been around both) and that their use will most likely most likely not be worth the risk involved in allowing people to use them privately.

Clearly, most firearms do not fit in this category of "risk".   A car and a gun can be equally lethal if used wrong, but the extent and the danger is not so extreme to justify banning either.   If there wasn't a great chance of handfuls of people being killed or seriously injured everytime a high explosive mortar or RPG was used, then I would have no problem with them being available.

Quote
Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

Again, firearms have other uses in the sport/collector areas.   Ever been in a biathlon?

I'm failing to see how your perception of gun-ownership should apply to everyone else?   You seem to argue vehemently enough against "group-think" in the politics forum - are people who enjoy firearms not worth that same protection?

Quote
If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment.   I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?

See the "risk" concept above - an AR-15 with a legal 5 round mag and a Rocket Propelled Grenade are two different things.

Again, you seem awefully keen to deny the right of an individual citizen, who has displayed that he is responsible enough (through an FAC), to own a firearm.

A firearm, like a bow and arrow, a knife or a car, is a tool.   Since they are potentially lethal tools, there is a requisite level of responsibility that needs to be displayed for the safety of others before one can use it (which is done).   Beyond that, it is really none of your business what a person wants to own or do on with their spare time.   Your personal attitude leads you to believe that they are unnecessary in the hands of civilians.   So where are YOU going to draw the line on what other citizens can do.   Pornography can be harmful if it is violent or exploitive - get rid of that to since it serves no purpose, right?

What one thinks about the value of firearms in specific is irrelevant.   If it isn't affecting you, bug off.   The fact that you seem to think that it is fair-game to restrict the freedoms of individuals to decide what they wish to do on their spare time (when it is done in an unoffending and responsible manner) is troubling.   If you do think that this is a good precedent, then I'm starting to wonder what exactly you've chosen to accept the Queen's Commission for?

PS: I've never bought a gun.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 11, 2005, 06:33:38
Quote
. . . Guess when your regional economy is collapsed, wrapping your lips around the Liberal pole is preferable to starvation; and hey, how important can property rights be anyway?


Glad to see your arrogance and hatred for martimers has not gone away...retract your statement please or suffer the consequences.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: noreaga808 on February 11, 2005, 06:41:29
Glorified Ape, anything used for recreactional purposes doesn't necessarily need a legitimate purpose other then to entertain you. Because of this there is no need to rationalize the existance of anything that is used for recreation because if we did everything fun wouldn't exist. We'd be all leading depressing, boring lives with no meaning other then to exist taking up space. Without entertainment and creative outlets we mine as well be single celled organisms. I do agree that the original intent of guns was for killing things but it doesn't have to solely be used for that purpose. People have found other productive means to use such a tool in a harmless alternative manner in competitive target sports. What I'm getting at is that not everything needs a practical purpose to serve humanity positively, entertainment is vital to our lives. Also when it comes to entertaining ones self it's all relative, what you like may not be what someone else likes. Variety is the spice of life.

Quote:
"If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?"

Have you ever thought of the origin of the baseball bat? It's a club. Clubs were used to kill things and are still being used today to kill things. According to your rational we should ban baseball bats and only allow hunters to use such an implement. As for RPG's and Mortars I can find fun ways to use them.  ;D As long as you're not hurting anyone then it's all good.

If I'm not making sense it's because its 5 AM, shift work is screwing up my sleeping pattern. Insomnia has settled in.

Edit: Hey Ape, no need to reply to my post. This arguement will just go on and on. The other posters on this subject that have the same feelings as myself are giving different valid points but for the most part we're all saying the same thing. I see no point in dragging this on any further. But if you feel like continuing the arguement or anyone else with the same sentiment then have at it because I'm sure that someone out there will be more then up to the challenge. I'm sure much more eloquently then I would be able to do.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 11, 2005, 11:02:27
 
Quote
I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

Yup only farmers should have firearms.  ::)

 All of those who compete in the olympics, to bad, to compete in your sport you must first be a farmer.

 Oh yeah all you collectors and museums must give your firearms to farmers.

 Actually almost all my meat for the year comes from hunting, along with quite a few other guys I hunt with. I also live in Richmond Hill not out in the boonies some where. I don't need to hunt, because there is a grocery store close, however I like my meat to be free range and organic, and paying $25 at the store for one steak is brutal.

 Recreational mortar or RPG, hmmm I can't think of any competitions being held for those at the moment.

What the outrage is about is
1. Private property and the fact that this government ignores it.

2. The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

    One semi auto rifle is the same as the next period. A bolt action in the right hands in about the same. So why ban one type of rifle??

3. Registration on top of licenses on top of "travel permission" for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

4. THE FACT THAT CRIMMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!


  The othe BS is that somthing should be banned because it was used in a bad way. Once again we can say knives, cars, bats, GASOLINE!! How many arsons do you here about all the time.

  Another argument we always hear for gun registration is "dogs have to be licensed" Yeah that's fine, DOGS CAN ACT ON THERE OWN WITHOUT A PERSON INVOLED.

  When was the last time you heard of a gun getting out of the house on it's own and killing a few kids.

 How about the crime rates in the UK that rose 44% after most firearms were banned.







 

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Ghost(Banned) on February 11, 2005, 12:58:35
Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on February 11, 2005, 15:06:38
rofl ..

that entire "recreational" RPG and grenade thing is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

Let's see. With my bolt actions, one of my rounds will make a 1, 2 cm large wide hole at most (using my 22 cal) and with the Mosin, a hole about 3/4 to 1 inch. With an AR-15 or something similar, the impact sizes aren't terribly different, there will just be more of them.

One round from an RPG would take out the entire section 5 area of my range, send shrapnel flying everywhere, and would probably leave a few flaming pieces of wood.

With the rifles (bolt or semi) there is strategy to shooting, windages, elevations, blah blah you all know about it all. As already pointed out however, something like an RPG has none of this. It is -purely- designed to kill. While a gun is obviously in the end meant to kill things, it has the option of being used for other things. A friggen RPG or grenade or flamethrower or whatever other equally stupid comparison does not.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 11, 2005, 16:09:00
Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.

They are around. the RPG2 ( I am sure there is the odd RPG 7 around too) and other Com Bloc equilivant. All legal in Canada to own, fully operational, but you can't own any ammo. Its also legal to possess M203s etc ( only star flares, smoke etc are legal ammo for them) as they are classed a 'flare launchers'. You can even own empty M72s too, and yes if you had a complete rocket for it, you could insert it as they can be reused - load just like the 21mm rocket. But that would be illegal   ;D

I bought my RPG 2 from Wolverine in Virden Manitoba about 15 yrs ago (he had many of them), and it can be seen at the Saskatchewan Military Museum on display (firing pin removed) in the Regina Armouries, in Regina. As of late, you can still encounter these at gun shows ( 2003).

You can also own artillery pieces too, fully functional. The gun laws do not include these things.

A wierd funky fact, but do not confuse US laws with Canadian ones, as in the USA things are different.

Here is a pic that i took in Jul 04 at a friend's, back in dear ole Canada who collects such. The ammo is inert, as the top 'rocket' is made of wood, and the bottom an actual inert collectors item. The launchers are real and servicable.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 11, 2005, 16:43:47
"remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"

Did anybody else laugh when they read this???

>> The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?  Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS, especially in the hands of criminals.  If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.  Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?  No.  If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.

This is a very emotional issue for both sides, but it seems that those in favour of gun-control are out-numbered here, so I wanted to add my support to that position.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 11, 2005, 16:52:49
"remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"

Did anybody else laugh when they read this???

If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people


I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth, and frankly Mr P kaye   ::), I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here. How are 'we' making it easier for crims to get guns????

So, whats your opinion of the .303 Lee-Enfield and the German Mauser 7.92mm rifles??

These were military rifles and still are in some 3rd world countries (the .303 is still used by Canada's Rangers too), and combined have KILLED more people in the past 100yrs than all the modern military rifles on earth!

These rifles are magazine fed (10 rds for the .303), capable of having a bayonet fixed, and launching rifle grenades (HE Frag etc). I guess in your opinion these too are designed to KILL people and should be banned also.

Wake up!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 11, 2005, 17:18:23
>> I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth

A "fact" ??  It doesn't even mean anything... "an attack on all firearms"?  Give  me a break.


>> and frankly Mr P kaye  , I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here

Well frankly, Mr Wesley H. Allen, I think I am as free as anyone else to express an opinion here.  I am a big supporter of gun control in this country.

>> Wake up!

I don't generally like to lower myself to stupid attacks like this on people posting to this forum, but right now "grow up" comes to mind as a suitable response.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 11, 2005, 17:24:15
I don't generally like to lower myself to stupid attacks like this on people posting to this forum, but right now "grow up" comes to mind as a suitable response.



Do you really think I have 'attacked you' here????? I just stated an opinion, thats all.

If you do you think you have been 'attacked' or victimised, you got a real problem, and you SIR are an idiot. As for growing up, I am coming 46 and have almost 30yrs service in two different armies, buried both my parents long ago, so my growing up was done when you were still a boy.

Nice attitude. I am sure you are quite popular with your men.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 11, 2005, 17:29:50
>> I just stated an opinion, thats all.

The phrase "Wake Up!" does not express an opinion... you're basically saying that I must be sleeping to be thinking the way I am. 

With the highest respect for your career accomplishments, I don't "got" a problem, and I don't consider myself an idiot.

I apoligise for the "grow-up" comment, but it seemed a nice comeback to "wake up" (had a ring to it anyway).

I propose we call a truce and agree to disagree on the firearms issue.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 11, 2005, 17:34:23
The term wake up was ment to be in regards to the continued and misguided anti gun ignorance fed by the media and the Wendy Cukier supporters.

If you are worried about the safety of your family and especially your children, if I was you, I'd be more concerned about the pisss weak justice system (which gives rights to the criminal, and none to the victim), the drunk drivers and paedophiles in your neighbourhood as compaired to licenced gun owners. They are the least of society's problems.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 18:23:53
Can the personal attacks guys - stick to the facts of the arguement.

Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?

Well, your crowd certainly hasn't given any logical reason to doing so.   How is it that an FN is prohibited (IIRC - as it was a Canadian military rifle) while a M-14 isn't even restricted, although they are essentially the same rifle in terms of capability.   Seems like "evil looks" (the FN has a pistol grip) to me - or is there something I'm missing?

Quote
Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS

How many stories do you read about old people plowing into a crowd of people with a car because they weren't paying attention?   How many people did the guy in LA kill?   A car can be very dangerous if abused.   I can take a knife or a machete and run up and down the street hacking people to death - ban that too?   Should we ban karate - after all, people learn skills that can have the potential to be very DANGEROUS when used on another human being.

As I said before, firing a HE mortar round or an RPG round has a risk factor that is simply to great to accept.   You could probably say the same about a Machine Gun with a 1,400 RPM capability.   But a gas operated rifle with a five round mag isn't so inherently dangerous that it is essential, for the sake of society, to clamp down on the rights of the individual to own one.

Quote
especially in the hands of criminals.   If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.

Are you saying that by telling people that they cannot legally own a firearm, criminals who would acquire them illegally wouldn't have access to them?   If you're saying this, then you got your head in the sand.   Honestly, think about that statement again and decide if that is what you believe.

I remember reading somewhere that a good portion of the illegal weapons that turn up seem to be coming from the United States, getting mixed in with drug transactions.   How stopping a Canadian citizen from owning an AR-15 is going to stop that is beyond me.

Quote
Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?   No.   If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.

How do your personal desires and hobbies have any relevance to what other people may wish to do.   You're in the same department as Glory Ape.   If people are participating responsibly and safely in a hobby and have proved that they can do so (by getting a permit), I don't see how it is any of your business on what they do.   A firearm is a tool that can be used by hobbyists and enthusiasts.   Are you trying to tell me that your personal dislike of them invalidates the hobby?

If someone shoots another person it is a criminal matter, you deal with it just as if someone ran another person down with a car (that whole guns don't kill people, people kill people thing...).

Quote
This is a very emotional issue for both sides, but it seems that those in favour of gun-control are out-numbered here, so I wanted to add my support to that position.

I don't see how it is a very emotional one.   I'm merely arguing this because people of your stripe seem eager to trample over the basic property rights of the average citizen to support some inane notion of "crimefighting" or "utility".   I could see you logically extending your argument to pornography, etc, etc.   As I said before, the base assumption you seem to be crowing belongs in Orwell's 1984 - citizens aren't capable of owning firearms, so get rid of them....

Bottom line, you and Glorified Ape are most likely from an urban area and outside of the PWT you did on your Basic Course at St Jean, you've never even seen a firearm - so yeah, you could say that your argument is very emotional - as opposed to rational - on this issue.   Wesley has been an armourer in two Armies, and has handled the things for a good portion of his life.   I've handled loaded weapons on ops and I can tell you now that your whole "boogyman" theory of firearms as some extreme risk to society is a load of crap.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 11, 2005, 18:55:09
rofl ..

that entire "recreational" RPG and grenade thing is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

Let's see. With my bolt actions, one of my rounds will make a 1, 2 cm large wide hole at most (using my 22 cal) and with the Mosin, a hole about 3/4 to 1 inch. With an AR-15 or something similar, the impact sizes aren't terribly different, there will just be more of them.

One round from an RPG would take out the entire section 5 area of my range, send shrapnel flying everywhere, and would probably leave a few flaming pieces of wood.

With the rifles (bolt or semi) there is strategy to shooting, windages, elevations, blah blah you all know about it all. As already pointed out however, something like an RPG has none of this. It is -purely- designed to kill. While a gun is obviously in the end meant to kill things, it has the option of being used for other things. A friggen RPG or grenade or flamethrower or whatever other equally stupid comparison does not.

How is it a stupid comparison? So what if it's "more deadly"? If firearm owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions because of criminal behaviour by others, the deadliness of the weapons shouldn't matter since responsible weapon owners don't commit crimes. As for the "strategy" of shooting, from what I've read firing a Russian RPG takes windage considerations at any considerable distance. It's immaterial. The option of using an RPG or mortar for fun is still there, it just takes a larger, more fortified range. Insofar as utility and necessity are concerned, for the average gun owner a firearms is as unnecessary as a RPG.

Who cares about the level of damage done by the weapon - that's something to worry about only if a criminal gets ahold of the weapon, which shouldn't be a consideration in legalizing it because that would punish responsible weapon owners.



Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.

Yes, thank you. That completely misses my point. If one applies the same arguments used for firearms to RPG's, mortars, etc. one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that those weapons should be legal too. To concede otherwise based on the degree damage inflicted, firearm owners would have to acknowledge that A) that potential for criminal misuse should be a consideration in banning weapons, and B) that the damage potential inherent in the weapon should be a consideration (good bye assault rifles).


Yup only farmers should have firearms.  ::)

 All of those who compete in the olympics, to bad, to compete in your sport you must first be a farmer.

 Oh yeah all you collectors and museums must give your firearms to farmers.

 Actually almost all my meat for the year comes from hunting, along with quite a few other guys I hunt with. I also live in Richmond Hill not out in the boonies some where. I don't need to hunt, because there is a grocery store close, however I like my meat to be free range and organic, and paying $25 at the store for one steak is brutal.

If you can prove financial dependency on the meat you get from hunting, you should be able to have a firearm.

Quote
Recreational mortar or RPG, hmmm I can't think of any competitions being held for those at the moment.

Only because they're not legal, which they should be by some people's logic.

Quote
What the outrage is about is
1. Private property and the fact that this government ignores it.

I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.

Quote
2. The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

I don't think the "look evil" thing was a consideration. As for military roots not being a legitimate reason for a ban, we're back to RPG's, grenades, and mortars.

Quote
One semi auto rifle is the same as the next period. A bolt action in the right hands in about the same. So why ban one type of rifle??

Indeed, why ban one when you can ban them all. 

Quote
3. Registration on top of licenses on top of "travel permission" for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

I agree - the costs of the programs, both to the public and the government is ridiculous. Far more money would be saved by simply banning them.

Quote
4. THE FACT THAT CRIMMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Again, I agree - all the more reason to reduce the availability of deadly implements which, to the overwhelming majority, are completely useless and unnecessary for functioning in daily life.

Quote
The othe BS is that somthing should be banned because it was used in a bad way. Once again we can say knives, cars, bats, GASOLINE!! How many arsons do you here about all the time.

Anything can be used as a bat that's sufficiently long and hard. Banning baseball bats isn't going to prevent anyone from using blunt objects to kill. There aren't many implements that can be used as a gun except a gun. As for knives, they are neither useless nor unnecessary for functioning in daily life as they are essential to the preparation of food and have utility as a tool in many other common activities. Firearms fulfill neither criterion. Cars go the same as knives - useful, and for rural and suburban populations, necessary to functioning in daily life without imposing undue hardship. Firearms aren't. Gasoline is necessary to the functioning of cars - a legitimate implement - and to various other necessary and useful devices such as generators, tractors, etc.

The potential, and intentionally designed lethality of firearms combined with their complete and utter uselessness for the population makes them a prime, and I believe to some degree appropriate, candidates for removal.

One compromise that I think would be decent would be an absolute ban on handguns with the retention of existing restrictions on long guns.

Quote
How about the crime rates in the UK that rose 44% after most firearms were banned.

How about crime rates lower in Canada that are higher in the US? Or lower in Japan that are higher in the US?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 11, 2005, 19:04:54
I believe the colour black was actually used as a determinant of which weapons could be banned or not banned - pistol grips, etc. - stuff that is functional were also selected as criteria, however, these are also "evil" looking features - why a pistol grip would be more or less used in a criminal manner than a shoulder stock is beyond me - a good criminal could put a pistol grip on any kind of weapon.  The paratrooper version of the M1 Carbine is proof of that, or the Sten Mk V vice the earlier "non-para" marks.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 11, 2005, 19:06:06
Mortars ARE perfectly legal, a friend of mine owns two 81mm mortars.  No permit necessary.  It is officially a muzzle loading single shot.  He reloads used illumination rounds with black dot gunpowder and shotgun shells.  There are no warheads in his rounds, he fires it for fun.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 19:09:48
Right - I knew that as well.  I should have specified the rounds.

I see that the Proletariat has responded to the knee-jerk responses, but I'm seeing no counter-rebuttal on my defence of basic property rights.

<crickets>
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 11, 2005, 19:11:49
Sorry Ape,
....but even as one who is not at all a fan of firearms that post was stretching any reasonable argument....
I think this is a better way, don't ban the instrument, ban those who have and use them illegally.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 19:13:35
I think this is a better way, don't ban the instrument, ban those who have and use them illegally.

Yeah, ban them to Bruce's loving arms.... :D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 20:06:14
For the sake of showing how utterly ridiculous any of this tripe that Glorified Ape has put forth is, I've combed through his last response.

How is it a stupid comparison? So what if it's "more deadly"? If firearm owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions because of criminal behaviour by others, the deadliness of the weapons shouldn't matter since responsible weapon owners don't commit crimes. As for the "strategy" of shooting, from what I've read firing a Russian RPG takes windage considerations at any considerable distance. It's immaterial. The option of using an RPG or mortar for fun is still there, it just takes a larger, more fortified range. Insofar as utility and necessity are concerned, for the average gun owner a firearms is as unnecessary as a RPG.

Who cares about the level of damage done by the weapon - that's something to worry about only if a criminal gets ahold of the weapon, which shouldn't be a consideration in legalizing it because that would punish responsible weapon owners.

Driving 100 KMH on the highway is inherently dangerous - go find the Safe Driving guide and it'll tell you all about reaction times, yadayadayada.   But it is a risk that we must allow for the sake of not treating the average citizen like a 2-year old child.

Driving 200 KMH down the highway is dangerous by an exponential factor to the point that the risk is deemed to outweigh the necessity of permitting everbody to bury the needle.   So, in the interest of greater public safety, it is deemed unsafe and is illegal and punishable by fine and/or suspension of a license.

The same applies to firearms and your bringing of High Explosive munitions into the equation.

Quote
Yes, thank you. That completely misses my point. If one applies the same arguments used for firearms to RPG's, mortars, etc. one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that those weapons should be legal too. To concede otherwise based on the degree damage inflicted, firearm owners would have to acknowledge that A) that potential for criminal misuse should be a consideration in banning weapons, and B) that the damage potential inherent in the weapon should be a consideration (good bye assault rifles).

Again, your lack of any real knowledge of firearms is showing through.

Quote
If you can prove financial dependency on the meat you get from hunting, you should be able to have a firearm.

Thanks for that - it is good to know that Big Brother will let me be on this.   ::)

Quote
Only because they're not legal, which they should be by some people's logic.

As Michael Dorosh and Wesley pointed out, they (RPG's and Mortars) are legal.   If I remember correctly, it is because they don't fit the legal definition of a firearm.

Geez, looks like you're talking out of your hat again.

Quote
I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.

WHOOT, WHOOT, WHOOT!!!   TANGENT ALERT!!!

So, now you are going to use taxes as a reason to strip people of property rights?   That should be a stretch.

Quote
I don't think the "look evil" thing was a consideration. As for military roots not being a legitimate reason for a ban, we're back to RPG's, grenades, and mortars.

So, what is the logical reasons for banning a certain firearm while leaving a different one with similar characteristics as unrestricted.   Again, explain the difference between outlawing an FN while leaving an M-14 on the market.

You seem awefully eager to put forth that defence but don't seem willing to back it up with any facts.

Quote
Indeed, why ban one when you can ban them all.

Why stop at firearms, hey.   You could use that sentence with regards to Rights and Freedoms as well, I guess - then it would just be easier for everyone to appeal to your own (juvenile) impressions of how society works.

Quote
I agree - the costs of the programs, both to the public and the government is ridiculous. Far more money would be saved by simply banning them.

To date, you've advocated banning them outright because you don't like them.   This is an empty argument that has no logical leg to stand on.   Again, you're showing you ideological bent and that you don't really have a clue on what your talking about.   Unless you are going to come up with a credible defence of banning all firearms, stick to picking your nose in class and maybe pay attention next time your Poli Sci professor mentions John Locke.

Quote
Again, I agree - all the more reason to reduce the availability of deadly implements which, to the overwhelming majority, are completely useless and unnecessary for functioning in daily life.

Overwhelming majority?   Care to back that up?   Come out of the urban environs and you'd find yourself hard pressed to prove that.

Anyways, since when was the "tyranny of the majority" the way things are done in this country.   Your type seems so eager to defend minorities, Iraqis, gays, Latin Americans, and anyone else who happened to interact with the United States, but all of the sudden "majority rules" when it comes to people who enjoy the recreational use of firearms?

HYPOCRITE

Quote
Anything can be used as a bat that's sufficiently long and hard. Banning baseball bats isn't going to prevent anyone from using blunt objects to kill.

Is banning firearms going to prevent the use of guns in crimes?   If you think so, you got your head in the sand right next to P Kaye.

Quote
There aren't many implements that can be used as a gun except a gun.

What is a firearm?   A method of projecting an implement (the round).   I could use a bow and get the same effect.   How about a blowgun?   Hell, I could use a rock to throw at some one to bash their skull in if I wanted to.

Weak argument, guy.

Quote
As for knives, they are neither useless nor unnecessary for functioning in daily life as they are essential to the preparation of food and have utility as a tool in many other common activities.   Firearms fulfull neither criterion.

Shooting is an Olympic sport, both in the Summer and Winter games.   Is sport a "common activity"?   I don't recall ever seeing a Gold Medal for Knife Fighting.

Weak argument, guy.

Quote
Cars go the same as knives - useful, and for rural and suburban populations, necessary to functioning in daily life without imposing undue hardship.   Firearms aren't. Gasoline is necessary to the functioning of cars - a legitimate implement - and to various other necessary and useful devices such as generators, tractors, etc.

That's funny, civilization seemed to get by for six thousand years without the automobile.     It is a tool, like a firearm.   They can be used for malicious purposes (a weapon), they can be used for utility (farming/hunting), they can be used for sport (marksmanship/auto racing), and they can be collected by those who simply find them interesting.

Now, if this activity doesn't extend into criminal areas, is it up to you to decide what others may do with their spare time?
 
Quote
The potential, and intentionally designed lethality of firearms combined with their complete and utter uselessness for the population makes them a prime, and I believe to some degree appropriate, candidates for removal.

Again, you're defining "utility" through your own limited and narrow experiences.   It seems that you feel that your own experiences trump those of others.

I said it once, and I'll say it again - Hypocrite, pure and simple.

Dude, your credibility to think coherently around these forums is in the sewers....

Quote
One compromise that I think would be decent would be an absolute ban on handguns with the retention of existing restrictions on long guns.

Why?

Quote
How about crime rates lower in Canada that are higher in the US? Or lower in Japan that are higher in the US?

Does having a gun have anything to do with a Crime Rate?   How about Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate then Canada and the US and where every citizen has an Assault Rifle and Ammunition in their closet?

Linking two different phenomenon - Crime (which may or may not be violent and may or may not involve a firearm and/or weapon) and Gun Ownership - is pretty weak; but after reading your arguements, it's par for the course.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 11, 2005, 20:51:06
Tobacco and alcohol consumption are legal but marijuana consumption is not.  Do you see why the "if guns are allowed, then bombs and shells should be also" argument is fallacious?  People have privately owned and used handguns and long arms for centuries.  It would not bother me if people willing to pay the cost of ammunition wished to spend the day at a grenade or rocket range, though.

Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.  I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.  It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.  Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.  "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."  In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security.

>I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.

Nearly everyone pays taxes and nearly everyone makes use of the essential services of government.  Here's a better example: I propose to seize and destroy (without compensation) all automotive products capable of exceeding 120 k/h because there should be no reason for anyone to unsafely exceed the maximum speed limits of the land.  How do you feel about that?  Am I intruding on something that makes you feel uncomfortable yet?

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2005, 21:32:05
The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored. OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you? How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness? Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.

You know, I never really cared about the issue until now - I own four old rifles that I inherited (and have never fired) and I have an FAC that I got through the Army, but I've never been a sport-shooter.

However, I have challenged the idiocy expounded by some people on this thread for the same reason as Brad Sallows highlighted above.   It seems a few around here have no problem with abandoning principles when it is convenient enough to serve their motive (whatever that may be).

Since the "holy written word of academia" seems to be the only thing that the "unprincipled egoists" around here wish to listen to, here is a final nail to this coffin in the form of an exerpt I found while researching the Act of Killing and the Armed Forces.   PS: The author is a Ph.D and a Combat Veteran, if that makes you happy.

Quote
"Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.   Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....

But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.   The National Academy of Sciences concluded, "Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries".   Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.   To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.

More data separating guns from murder rates come from Robert J Mundt's study of homicide rates in twenty-five U.S. cities versus twenty-five similar-size Canadian cities.   It revealed that among non-Hispanic Caucasians, murder rates were the same, despite the availability of handguns in the United States versus their longtime ban in Canada.

A classic demonstration that ready availability of guns does not, in itself, raise murder rates is a comparison of Switzerland, Japan, and England.   Every able-bodied Swiss man is required to keep at home, for life, a fully automatic rifle or pistol plus ammunition.   Yet among 6 million people privately owning 600,000 assault rifles, half a million pistols, and thousands of other guns, murders are extremely rare.   Even gun suicides are low.   Japan, with no guns, and Switzerland, which is heavily armed, have identical murder rates, 1.20 and 1.23 homicides per 100,000, respectively (less than half of the Swiss murders were shootings).   England's homicide rate, also with most guns banned, was 1.35 per 100,000.   In short, both in America and internationally, the presence of guns does not correlate with the murder rates....

When I started work on this book, I held the opinion that laws restricting handgun ownership were vital to curbing murder in America.   It only makes sense, doesn't it?   Not when one knows how men who decide to murder think."

Michael P. Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence; pp 119-121.

The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles, right?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 11, 2005, 21:41:19
I think people who are truly "anti-gun" should quit riding on the coattails of we who might be armed and post big signs in their front yards:



NOTICE

There are no firearms kept in this house




That would really demonstrate their convictions to everybody   ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 11, 2005, 21:56:32
I think people who are truly "anti-gun" should quit riding on the coattails of we who might be armed and post big signs in their front yards:



NOTICE

There are no firearms kept in this house




That would really demonstrate their convictions to everybody   ;)

Yup, just like the people of Cochrane, Alberta who declared their town "Nuclear Free."  Like - WTF?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on February 11, 2005, 22:01:34
Yup, just like the people of Cochrane, Alberta who declared their town "Nuclear Free."   Like - WTF?

Hmm...  Welcome to Ocean Free Calgary, 2,546,190 days with no Oceans!
Welcome to Edmonton, where bubonic plague is outlawed!
Welcome to moral-free Ottawa!  (had to.  Sorry)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Rider Pride on February 11, 2005, 23:46:47
Instead of banning firearms, why don't we just cut off everyones right and left index finger at birth. That way they won't have a trigger finger to shoot the weapons and hence nobody or nothing can be harmed by them....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on February 12, 2005, 00:56:20
Skimming this thread it seems no one is willing to back down. The arguments for banning guns are the same lame ones we hear over and over, but assertions about property rights, comparative rates of crime in gun owning and gun free societies, the utility of various sorts of firearms, rocket launchers, artillery pieces(?) do not seem to be making any impact.

I will offer a few observations in the interest of venting (and pushing my posting count, but that is an altogether different matter  ;D)

1. People do own and use firearms recreational, even military weapons like HMGs. At the really big gun conventions, there are usually days set aside where the big iron is brought out, and owners either fire themselves or let you do it for a price. Some indoor ranges also have submachinegun rentals, and/or allow you to bring malfunctioning houshold appliances or obsolete computers to the range to use as targets. (Working in IT myself, I fully understand that impulse.) Other people go to Oshkosh every summer for the big airshow to see and maybe fly the latest in homebuilt aircraft, or Daytona Beach for motorcycle week, or Detroit for the auto show....people are interested in different things, and it is not up to you or I to decide what they should or should not do. I can suggest a few hobbies I find interesting, and you are free to partake or not.

2. Lots of activities are inherently dangerous. The more danger you potentially pose, the more you need to demonstrate your fitness. Driving an 18 wheeler requires a different licence than driving a car. A pilots licence needs even more rigorous testing (ever thought about the kinetic energy of an airplane moving at @ 300kph?)We currently have FACs to demonstrate suitability to own firearms.

3. There are bigger and better things than "recreational mortars" out there. "Pumpkin chucking" usually involves replicas of ancient and medieval catapults, Batista and trebuchets. Substitute a large rock or javelin, and you have a real war machine capable of smashing houses. Should we ban pumpkin chucking too?

4. Banning rifles to keep them out of the hands of criminals can only be a result of seeing the movie "Heat" too many times. Although the gunfight scene is spectacular, in the real world criminals do not pull AK-47s from under their sweater, because it is too hard to support (ammunition) and too hard to conceal. Pistols are much preferred, Knives are better because they are easier to get, and locally procured materials (a broken bottle, piece of lumber or a pair of Doc Martins) is best of all. I have been assaulted, always by bad guys using local materials, never with knives and certainly never with a gun.

Banning guns and the Gun Registry are solutions looking for a problem. They target law abiding citizens, yet do nothing at all to reduce criminal activity. Indeed, I believe there was an article in the National Post which pointed out the murder rate in Canada has risen since the passage of the Gun Registry bill. If I had to guess at the causal connection, it would be the diversion of one billion (or more) dollars from policing to go to a gesture.

In the end, if you cannot or will not take responsibility for your own actions, then you should not be entrusted with firearms, or a driver's licence or anything else. Property ownership is the practial expression of your political rights, so attempts to restrict property ownership are fundimentally attempts to restrict your rights.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on February 12, 2005, 02:36:07
Just checked this topic to see if anyone had actually made a good, well thought out counter-reply to the pro-gun arguments in this thread.

Looks like I'll be kept waiting. I guess I'll check tomorrow, maybe I'll be surprised. And maybe the Pope will break out into a sudden break dance.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 12, 2005, 12:18:00
Quote
Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?

  
 Yes this would be why the AR family of rifles are restricted and the Remington 7400 is not.

 
Quote
Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS, especially in the hands of criminals.


 So can gasoline, but anyone can buy that along with the containers and matches.

 
Quote
If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.


 See my above post "Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law in the first place"

 
Quote
Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?   No.   If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.

 How about we ban and destroy pedephiles, they are more dangerous to kids than firearms are. heck do we even have a sex offender registry yet?

 Should my kids (all under 12) join the military right now? They very much enjoy shooting my firearms at the range and my two oldest also hunt with me.

 Assault rifles are prohibited in Canada. Assault rifles fire on FULL AUTO, the ARs are semi auto!!! Which is another problem considering owners off these firearms are no longer allowed to use them on a public shooting range!

 and I did join the military, however it was not to play with guns it was to serve my country.

 Do you have a passion for anything that you would defend?? besides not allowing your soldiers to have unissued kit, Sir?

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 12, 2005, 13:56:29
For the sake of showing how utterly ridiculous any of this tripe that Glorified Ape has put forth is, I've combed through his last response.

Driving 100 KMH on the highway is inherently dangerous - go find the Safe Driving guide and it'll tell you all about reaction times, yadayadayada.  But it is a risk that we must allow for the sake of not treating the average citizen like a 2-year old child.

Driving 200 KMH down the highway is dangerous by an exponential factor to the point that the risk is deemed to outweigh the necessity of permitting everbody to bury the needle.  So, in the interest of greater public safety, it is deemed unsafe and is illegal and punishable by fine and/or suspension of a license.

The same applies to firearms and your bringing of High Explosive munitions into the equation.

Again, your lack of any real knowledge of firearms is showing through.

Having no publicly available firearms isn't dangerous, having them is (relative to not having them) more dangerous by an exponential amount if one takes all the deaths and injuries from legally owned firearms.

Quote
As Michael Dorosh and Wesley pointed out, they (RPG's and Mortars) are legal.  If I remember correctly, it is because they don't fit the legal definition of a firearm.

Geez, looks like you're talking out of your hat again.

You're right - I was wrong on RPG's and mortars being illegal. The ammunition isn't, though.

Quote
WHOOT, WHOOT, WHOOT!!!  TANGENT ALERT!!!

So, now you are going to use taxes as a reason to strip people of property rights?  That should be a stretch.

As a reason, no. As an example of readily accepted property seizure, yes.

Quote
So, what is the logical reasons for banning a certain firearm while leaving a different one with similar characteristics as unrestricted.  Again, explain the difference between outlawing an FN while leaving an M-14 on the market.

You seem awefully eager to put forth that defence but don't seem willing to back it up with any facts.

I think it's idiotic - we're in full agreement. The remedy thereto is where we differ.

Quote
Why stop at firearms, hey.  You could use that sentence with regards to Rights and Freedoms as well, I guess - then it would just be easier for everyone to appeal to your own (juvenile) impressions of how society works.

I've never bought this argument - the old "take our guns and they'll take our freedom" crap. If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.

If we're discussing ridiculous comparisons, I think firearms vs. intangible rights and freedoms is a prime candidate. And now we're getting into the personal attacks, eh? Speaking of juvenile behaviour...

Quote
To date, you've advocated banning them outright because you don't like them.

Not at all - I have a great interest in firearms and enjoy using them on those rare occasions I have opportunity to do so.

Quote
This is an empty argument that has no logical leg to stand on.  Again, you're showing you ideological bent and that you don't really have a clue on what your talking about.  Unless you are going to come up with a credible defence of banning all firearms, stick to picking your nose in class and maybe pay attention next time your Poli Sci professor mentions John Locke.

Overwhelming majority?  Care to back that up?  Come out of the urban environs and you'd find yourself hard pressed to prove that.

Sure - only 22% of Canadians live in rural environments. http://www.rural.gc.ca/cris/faq/pop_e.phtml

Only 4% of gun owners claim property or self-protection as the reason for owning their firearm. Hunting, collecting, and target/sport shooting compose the remainder. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf

Maybe you'd like to prove widespread necessity to non-farming rural dwellers?

Unless you're dependent on the meat from hunting, none of the categories besides personal and property protection are "necessity" oriented. As for why we should ban firearms, I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm. You may believe otherwise, that's your right.

As for the continued personal attacks, keep it up - it's really getting you somewhere.  ::)

Quote
Anyways, since when was the "tyranny of the majority" the way things are done in this country.  Your type seems so eager to defend minorities, Iraqis, gays, Latin Americans, and anyone else who happened to interact with the United States, but all of the sudden "majority rules" when it comes to people who enjoy the recreational use of firearms?

When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?

Quote
Is banning firearms going to prevent the use of guns in crimes?  If you think so, you got your head in the sand right next to P Kaye.

To some degree perhaps, but likely nothing substantial. I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime.

Quote
What is a firearm?  A method of projecting an implement (the round).  I could use a bow and get the same effect.  How about a blowgun?  Hell, I could use a rock to throw at some one to bash their skull in if I wanted to.

A firearm and a blowgun are comparable on the grounds of "projectile weapon" at about the same level as a cherry bomb and C4 are as explosives.

Indeed - weak argument, guy.

Quote
Shooting is an Olympic sport, both in the Summer and Winter games.  Is sport a "common activity"?  I don't recall ever seeing a Gold Medal for Knife Fighting.

I believe I specified activities relatively necessary to functioning.

Quote
That's funny, civilization seemed to get by for six thousand years without the automobile.   It is a tool, like a firearm.  They can be used for malicious purposes (a weapon), they can be used for utility (farming/hunting), they can be used for sport (marksmanship/auto racing), and they can be collected by those who simply find them interesting.

Civilization also got along without the telephone, but I wouldn't try to argue comparable necessity and utility between it and firearms in our society.

Quote
Now, if this activity doesn't extend into criminal areas, is it up to you to decide what others may do with their spare time?

If we're going to argue permissibility based solely on the "as long as you don't do anything bad with it, you can have it" principle, why should RPG ROUNDS be illegal? Proportionality of potential damage and utility to the populous? I already went over both vis a vis firearms and no firearms. 
 
Quote
Again, you're defining "utility" through your own limited and narrow experiences.  It seems that you feel that your own experiences trump those of others.

I said it once, and I'll say it again - Hypocrite, pure and simple.

Dude, your credibility to think coherently around these forums is in the sewers....

Dude, I believe the arguments thus far have been coherent, man. You may not consider them valid, buddy, but I don't see how they're incoherent, pal. But such is your perception, bro, and I'm not likely to change it by arguing it with you, dude.

As for utility, I'm not defining it based on my own experience, I'm basing it on the item's applicability to some functionally necessary activity or task. Hunting (with exceptions), collecting, and plinking don't exactly qualify.

Quote
Does having a gun have anything to do with a Crime Rate?  How about Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate then Canada and the US and where every citizen has an Assault Rifle and Ammunition in their closet?

Indeed - I don't believe gun ownership is the primary cause of gun crime. Even Michael Moore got that right. But since Farmboy was tossing irrelevant statistics around, I thought I'd get in on it. I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime, but not by any substantial amount. From what I understand, most come up from the US.

Quote
Linking two different phenomenon - Crime (which may or may not be violent and may or may not involve a firearm and/or weapon) and Gun Ownership - is pretty weak; but after reading your arguements, it's par for the course.

I believe you meant phenomenA, but I digress... dude.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 12, 2005, 14:49:08
>If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.

If you look south, you'll see that people with a much better historical perspective on that threat recognized the proper solution.  The Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights isn't there for the purpose of home defence or defence against foreign incursions.

>I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm.

That line of argument boils down to "my positive rights should trump your negative rights".  That is a very dangerous road to tread.  Liberty should as much as possible have pre-eminence over security, and no one doubts that in all true liberty there are elements of risk.

Some of the people afflicted with HIV are out there deliberately trying to infect others or are negligently continuing to practice a promiscuous lifestyle with no precautions.  What they seek is pleasure for its own sake, and they pose a manifest health risk.  Shall we incarcerate them for their natural lives to eliminate the risk?

I am unconvinced, by simple comparison of risks in our lives, that firearm ownership by mostly law-abiding citizens poses a risk which justifies infringements of liberty.

>When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?

You misunderstand.  The concept of tyranny of a majority isn't about discrimination against visible minorities.  It is any situation in which the will of a majority is imposed for wrong or merely weak reasons. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 12, 2005, 15:25:32
Having no publicly available firearms isn't dangerous, having them is (relative to not having them) more dangerous by an exponential amount if one takes all the deaths and injuries from legally owned firearms.

Please explain to me how having publically available firearms is dangerous?

Do you care to back that statement up with facts?

Don't worry, I'll do it for you.

Firearms Deaths In Canada between 1970-1996:   Approximately approximately 37,399 (so, very roughly .1 percent of a population of around 30 million).

Percentages of types of deaths:
14% were Homicides   (meaning that 86% of the time, criminals used something else)
4% were Accidents
2% were legal intervention (police officers doing their job)
79% were suicides

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/death/default_e.asp

Now, as the figures point out, the rise in firearm use in homicides has risen to 32%, which is a given considering all of the illegal firearms flowing in throught the rapidly growing Drug Trade.   All the murders in the Indo-Canadian community (bit of a news item) in Vancouver in the last 5 years are a perfect example of this.   They were not killed with long-guns, assault rifles, or legally acquired 81mm mortars - they were killed with illegally acquired pistols, most likely from the US.   So how is a ban supposed to prevent this?

Other then that, what rational do you have for sticking to your viewpoint?   Do you want to ensure that any wacko who wants to off themselves can overdose on pills, jump from a bridge, or run into traffic instead?

Quote
As a reason, no. As an example of readily accepted property seizure, yes.

I felt Brad Sallows did a fair enough job of differentiating between tax payment and gun seizure.   If you can address that, be my guest.

Quote
I think it's idiotic - we're in full agreement. The remedy thereto is where we differ.

Have you managed to back your remedy up with any logical base what-so-ever?   No.

Quote
I've never bought this argument - the old "take our guns and they'll take our freedom" crap. If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.

If we're discussing ridiculous comparisons, I think firearms vs. intangible rights and freedoms is a prime candidate. And now we're getting into the personal attacks, eh? Speaking of juvenile behaviour...

Well, why don't you look into why Firearms ownership is written into the Constitution of the United States - they certainly didn't form their country through debate and reform.

But dealing with the here in now - no, taking guns and taking freedom is not a direct relation.   Obviously you are failing to see the point I was making.   As Brad alluded to (and you have failed to answer to), restricting the rights of citizens to own private property, whatever it may be, on a purely irrational and emotional standpoint that you are taking is morally wrong.   It's a slippery slope when the government bans firearms, because the same justification could be used for pornography, internet access, books.

If you choose to take my ridicule of your viewpoint as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   I'm ridiculing your argument because I've yet to see a logical leg to stand on.   Clearly, you've got the blinders on full bore, even when the statistics are infront of your face.

Quote
Not at all - I have a great interest in firearms and enjoy using them on those rare occasions I have opportunity to do so.

Since interest in firearms is beyond the limits of the military, it is safe to say that people may have a great interest (and choose to use the opportunity) to enjoy using them outside of the military?

Quote
Sure - only 22% of Canadians live in rural environments. http://www.rural.gc.ca/cris/faq/pop_e.phtml

Only 4% of gun owners claim property or self-protection as the reason for owning their firearm. Hunting, collecting, and target/sport shooting compose the remainder. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf

Maybe you'd like to prove widespread necessity to non-farming rural dwellers?

If you wish to define "rural" as strictly a community of less then a 1,000 people, then sure, 22% works.

I live in a town of about 10,000 people in which there is a large population of gun owners.   Outside of major Canadian cities (of say 100,000 people), you are going to find significantly more of the Canadian population that enjoys the use of firearms.

Besides, what difference does it make where someone lives?   If they wish to own a firearm and legally store it, what business is it of yours?

Quote
Unless you're dependent on the meat from hunting, none of the categories besides personal and property protection are "necessity" oriented. As for why we should ban firearms, I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm. You may believe otherwise, that's your right.

As for the continued personal attacks, keep it up - it's really getting you somewhere.   ::)

Well, I guess your moral stripe has truly revealed itself (as the unprincipled egoist).   It is good to see that you would denigrate the interests and pursuits of other citizens as "negligible enjoyment".   There is no point in arguing this, as you clearly have no respect for what others may wish to do with the private lives.

I've put out the facts that show that access to firearms does not equal an extremely lethal situation.   You've shown nothing concrete to back your point up - quite simply, you're talking out of your ***.

Again, if you take my ridiculing your argument on the grounds that it lacks any grounding in the political notion of private property as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   Maybe you should pay attention in class.

Quote
When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?

It's not.   It is a matter of approaching all issues of a private matter (sexual preference, personal pursuits, political convictions, religion) in a consistent and logical manner.   You clearly don't seem to think this applies to you.

Quote
To some degree perhaps, but likely nothing substantial. I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime.

Then what other reason do you have for banning them, because you've yet to put it forward here?   "Public safety" seems to be your watchword - "Guns are extremely dangerous".   So, besides protecting the public from criminals, what is your argument?

I've clearly demonstrated that guns do not present an extreme danger to society (Switzerland is the living case study).   Are you going to respond to this at all?

For some reason, I am not expecting to get a response on this one.

Quote
A firearm and a blowgun are comparable on the grounds of "projectile weapon" at about the same level as a cherry bomb and C4 are as explosives.

Indeed - weak argument, guy.

But both a blowgun and a firearm can be "extremely dangerous", as can me throwing a rock at someone's head.   This is the link that I was drawing.

As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, your perception of "extreme danger" is baseless an lacking of any knowledge of the subject matter.

Quote
I believe I specified activities relatively necessary to functioning.

 ???

You said you would ban firearms.   So Canada will have to abstain from skeet shooting, biathlon, pistol marksmanship and the myriad of other Olympic sports centered around the sport of shooting, since this is a "negligible and useless" enjoyment.

What other point to you have to make on utility?

Quote
Civilization also got along without the telephone, but I wouldn't try to argue comparable necessity and utility between it and firearms in our society.

A telephone is a tool - it can be misused as a weapon (to strangle someone with), it can be for utility (someone functioning in an Information Age economy), it can be used for enjoyment (my teenage sister sure likes it), or it can be collected by people who find the evolution of the telephone interesting.

As you can see, your notion of an "extremely dangerous" weapon can be applied to just about anything if put in the right (or wrong) hands.

Quote
If we're going to argue permissibility based solely on the "as long as you don't do anything bad with it, you can have it" principle, why should RPG ROUNDS be illegal? Proportionality of potential damage and utility to the populous? I already went over both vis a vis firearms and no firearms.

Look at the 100KMH and 200KMH difference as a reasonable reason to restrict certain activities.   I can see the justification for it and obey it as such.   I've clearly demonstrated that gas-operated firearms do not present an "extreme" danger to society in any way, shape or form with both rational argument and objective facts.

You've yet to do me the courtesy of returning the favour (argument and fact), all you've done is to continue to stick to your silly line.
 
Quote
Dude, I believe the arguments thus far have been coherent, man. You may not consider them valid, buddy, but I don't see how they're incoherent, pal. But such is your perception, bro, and I'm not likely to change it by arguing it with you, dude.

Again, back your points up.   Justify to me why it is essential to outlaw private possession of property (firearms) for the sake of public safety.   You don't seem to be able to do this.

Quote
As for utility, I'm not defining it based on my own experience, I'm basing it on the item's applicability to some functionally necessary activity or task. Hunting (with exceptions), collecting, and plinking don't exactly qualify.

"Utility" is now the deciding factor in what is legal and what is not?   That's lame and you know it.

Quote
Indeed - I don't believe gun ownership is the primary cause of gun crime. Even Michael Moore got that right. But since Farmboy was tossing irrelevant statistics around, I thought I'd get in on it. I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime, but not by any substantial amount. From what I understand, most come up from the US.

I've taken what you "believe" to task, and so far, everyone seems to agree.   If you are going to put your "belief" up and extend it to what others can and can't do, you better be prepared to justify it (again, with fact and rational argument, incase you missed that part in University).

"I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime"

That's funny, earlier above you said

"I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime."

Wow, you don't even know why you want to ban them now, because you say two of the opposite things in the same post.   Obviously, you are not even taking the effort to put some critical thought into this issue, so I fail to see why there is any point in arguing with someone like you.

Alas, I'll sum it up for you again, because you obviously glossed over the presentation of facts and just want to hear (or read) yourself talk (or post) -   I've shown that the available supply of firearms has no affect on the crime rate at all.   Switzerland (armed to the teeth) and Japan (no guns at all) have the same crime rates and murder rates.

Counter this with facts and rational argument or do us a favour and go away.

Quote
I believe you meant phenomenA, but I digress... dude.

That was cute.   Anymore useless points to make in this debate, or are you just going futher "troll" for argument and increase your reputation here amongst your fellow soldiers as a fool?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 12, 2005, 16:07:59
Please explain to me how having publically available firearms is dangerous?

Do you care to back that statement up with facts?

Don't worry, I'll do it for you.

Firearms Deaths In Canada between 1970-1996:   Approximately approximately 37,399 (so, very roughly .1 percent of a population of around 30 million).

Percentages of types of deaths:
14% were Homicides   (meaning that 86% of the time, criminals used something else)
4% were Accidents
2% were legal intervention (police officers doing their job)
79% were suicides

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/death/default_e.asp

Now, as the figures point out, the rise in firearm use in homicides has risen to 32%, which is a given considering all of the illegal firearms flowing in throught the rapidly growing Drug Trade.   All the murders in the Indo-Canadian community (bit of a news item) in Vancouver in the last 5 years are a perfect example of this.   They were not killed with long-guns, assault rifles, or legally acquired 81mm mortars - they were killed with illegally acquired pistols, most likely from the US.   So how is a ban supposed to prevent this?

Other then that, what rational do you have for sticking to your viewpoint?   Do you want to ensure that any wacko who wants to off themselves can overdose on pills, jump from a bridge, or run into traffic instead?

I felt Brad Sallows did a fair enough job of differentiating between tax payment and gun seizure.   If you can address that, be my guest.

Have you managed to back your remedy up with any logical base what-so-ever?   No.

Well, why don't you look into why Firearms ownership is written into the Constitution of the United States - they certainly didn't form their country through debate and reform.

But dealing with the here in now - no, taking guns and taking freedom is not a direct relation.   Obviously you are failing to see the point I was making.   As Brad alluded to (and you have failed to answer to), restricting the rights of citizens to own private property, whatever it may be, on a purely irrational and emotional standpoint that you are taking is morally wrong.   It's a slippery slope when the government bans firearms, because the same justification could be used for pornography, internet access, books.

If you choose to take my ridicule of your viewpoint as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   I'm ridiculing your argument because I've yet to see a logical leg to stand on.   Clearly, you've got the blinders on full bore, even when the statistics are infront of your face.

Since interest in firearms is beyond the limits of the military, it is safe to say that people may have a great interest (and choose to use the opportunity) to enjoy using them outside of the military?

If you wish to define "rural" as strictly a community of less then a 1,000 people, then sure, 22% works.

I live in a town of about 10,000 people in which there is a large population of gun owners.   Outside of major Canadian cities (of say 100,000 people), you are going to find significantly more of the Canadian population that enjoys the use of firearms.

Besides, what difference does it make where someone lives?   If they wish to own a firearm and legally store it, what business is it of yours?

Well, I guess your moral stripe has truly revealed itself (as the unprincipled egoist).   It is good to see that you would denigrate the interests and pursuits of other citizens as "negligible enjoyment".   There is no point in arguing this, as you clearly have no respect for what others may wish to do with the private lives.

I've put out the facts that show that access to firearms does not equal an extremely lethal situation.   You've shown nothing concrete to back your point up - quite simply, you're talking out of your ***.

Again, if you take my ridiculing your argument on the grounds that it lacks any grounding in the political notion of private property as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   Maybe you should pay attention in class.

It's not.   It is a matter of approaching all issues of a private matter (sexual preference, personal pursuits, political convictions, religion) in a consistent and logical manner.   You clearly don't seem to think this applies to you.

Then what other reason do you have for banning them, because you've yet to put it forward here?   "Public safety" seems to be your watchword - "Guns are extremely dangerous".   So, besides protecting the public from criminals, what is your argument?

I've clearly demonstrated that guns do not present an extreme danger to society (Switzerland is the living case study).   Are you going to respond to this at all?

For some reason, I am not expecting to get a response on this one.

But both a blowgun and a firearm can be "extremely dangerous", as can me throwing a rock at someone's head.   This is the link that I was drawing.

As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, your perception of "extreme danger" is baseless an lacking of any knowledge of the subject matter.

 ???

You said you would ban firearms.   So Canada will have to abstain from skeet shooting, biathlon, pistol marksmanship and the myriad of other Olympic sports centered around the sport of shooting, since this is a "negligible and useless" enjoyment.

What other point to you have to make on utility?

A telephone is a tool - it can be misused as a weapon (to strangle someone with), it can be for utility (someone functioning in an Information Age economy), it can be used for enjoyment (my teenage sister sure likes it), or it can be collected by people who find the evolution of the telephone interesting.

As you can see, your notion of an "extremely dangerous" weapon can be applied to just about anything if put in the right (or wrong) hands.

Look at the 100KMH and 200KMH difference as a reasonable reason to restrict certain activities.   I can see the justification for it and obey it as such.   I've clearly demonstrated that gas-operated firearms do not present an "extreme" danger to society in any way, shape or form with both rational argument and objective facts.

You've yet to do me the courtesy of returning the favour (argument and fact), all you've done is to continue to stick to your silly line.
 
Again, back your points up.   Justify to me why it is essential to outlaw private possession of property (firearms) for the sake of public safety.   You don't seem to be able to do this.

"Utility" is now the deciding factor in what is legal and what is not?   That's lame and you know it.

I've taken what you "believe" to task, and so far, everyone seems to agree.   If you are going to put your "belief" up and extend it to what others can and can't do, you better be prepared to justify it (again, with fact and rational argument, incase you missed that part in University).

"I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime"

That's funny, earlier above you said

"I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime."

Wow, you don't even know why you want to ban them now, because you say two of the opposite things in the same post.   Obviously, you are not even taking the effort to put some critical thought into this issue, so I fail to see why there is any point in arguing with someone like you.

Alas, I'll sum it up for you again, because you obviously glossed over the presentation of facts and just want to hear (or read) yourself talk (or post) -   I've shown that the available supply of firearms has no affect on the crime rate at all.   Switzerland (armed to the teeth) and Japan (no guns at all) have the same crime rates and murder rates.

Counter this with facts and rational argument or do us a favour and go away.

That was cute.   Anymore useless points to make in this debate, or are you just going futher "troll" for argument and increase your reputation here amongst your fellow soldiers as a fool?

Touchy touchy, Infanteer. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. As it is, you and Brad have done a good job of convincing me I'm mostly wrong, though it could have been achieved without the personal attacks. All that achieved was making you appear a distempered ***----, which I'm sure isn't the case.

One specific thing, though - the "absolute effect" didn't mean "reduce completely", rather that it would reduce it by an amount "unqualified by extent or degree". Homicides committed with a legally owned firearm would, by definition, disappear if all firearms were illegal - hence the "absolute" effect. I think I'm right in that, and that all legally obtained firearm related non-suicide deaths and injuries would reduce to near nil if a ban (with exceptions) was in place.

I think you and Brad are correct is in the risk vs. rights payoff. We already agreed that crime wouldn't be inordinately affected and since the number of deaths and injuries from legal firearms isn't that severe, the right to firearms is worth the risk - point conceded.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 12, 2005, 16:48:01
Touchy touchy, Infanteer. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. As it is, you and Brad have done a good job of convincing me I'm mostly wrong, though it could have been achieved without the personal attacks. All that achieved was making you appear a distempered ***----, which I'm sure isn't the case.

Well, I'm a distempered ******* when it comes to people talking out of their hat.  I've attacked your arguments and never really received a response, so I could only make one assumption, and I made it clearly.  If you're put off by a "distempered *******", boo-hoo - I'm not here for a popularity contest.

Quote
One specific thing, though - the "absolute effect" didn't mean "reduce completely", rather that it would reduce it by an amount "unqualified by extent or degree". Homicides committed with a legally owned firearm would, by definition, disappear if all firearms were illegal - hence the "absolute" effect. I think I'm right in that, and that all legally obtained firearm related non-suicide deaths and injuries would reduce to near nil if a ban (with exceptions) was in place.

Read that over and try and explain that to yourself - that is ludicrous and you know it.

1) I don't know how you expect me to not confuse "absolute" and "completely".

2) Of course a ban of firearms would reduce homicide deaths by legally owned firearms.  That is like saying that a ban on automobiles would reduce all vehicular homicide and drunk driving fatalities.  True in a logical sense, but completely absurd.

3) Since you are making this assumption with no reference to facts what-so-ever, I'll do the research for you again.

-  Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

-  In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.  How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)

In arguing that "you are right" in this regard, you seem to be willing to abrogate the property rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian citizens and create a dangerous precedent in government intervention into the private sphere to prevent roughly 50 murders a year in which the person who committed the homicide, naturally wanting to kill someone, could (and most likely would) have used another, more common, implement (as 75% of homicides in Canada do play-out).  That is a pretty slippery slope to be playing with.  If you're happy in doing so and feeling good about it, then you obviously have your own impressions of "public good".

Read the Ghiglieri book that I mentioned - the plain fact is that people only use guns because they happen to be around when they decide to kill someone; if they aren't around, people will find something else to kill with.

Quote
I think you and Brad are correct is in the risk vs. rights payoff. We already agreed that crime wouldn't be inordinately affected and since the number of deaths and injuries from legal firearms isn't that severe, the right to firearms is worth the risk - point conceded.

Well, that's a start.  You still seem to be convinced that firearms somehow add to the level of danger and criminality in society, even if it is not severe.  Read above.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 12, 2005, 17:13:05
I would like to point out just one fact...That the majority of guns used in crimes in this country come from the U.S. and not from licensed owners here in Canada.

You will always have the odd goof (aka Larry Stevens here in Toronto) who starts collecting these things and getting out of hand. But people like that are not in the majority by any means.

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on February 12, 2005, 18:15:09
I would like to point out just one fact...That the majority of guns used in crimes in this country come from the U.S. and not from licensed owners here in Canada.

You will always have the odd goof (aka Larry Stevens here in Toronto) who starts collecting these things and getting out of hand. But people like that are not in the majority by any means.


I'll have to ask where you got that particular tidbit...  The references that I have (Stats Can, Juristat, etc) say different.  Cheers.

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 13, 2005, 03:27:40
Let's see the stats Torlyn.  I've heard that a good many of the illegal handguns are thought to have come from the state, however, this was only anecdotal.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on February 13, 2005, 11:15:27
I'm looking, (gotta go through the ol' textbooks) but in true army.ca fashion, he proferred a stat as fact with no backup, and I'm hoping that he can prove me wrong.  Just looking for clarification.  Didn't we have a thread with a dead SeaBiscuit regarding this?  ;)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 13, 2005, 23:28:37
Well, I'm a distempered ******* when it comes to people talking out of their hat.   I've attacked your arguments and never really received a response, so I could only make one assumption, and I made it clearly.   If you're put off by a "distempered *******", boo-hoo - I'm not here for a popularity contest.

I didn't assert that you were, but since (especially of late) there have been numerous appeals to civility, by moderators even, that you would care.

Quote
Read that over and try and explain that to yourself - that is ludicrous and you know it.

1) I don't know how you expect me to not confuse "absolute" and "completely".

My fault - which is why I rephrased it.

Quote
2) Of course a ban of firearms would reduce homicide deaths by legally owned firearms.   That is like saying that a ban on automobiles would reduce all vehicular homicide and drunk driving fatalities.   True in a logical sense, but completely absurd.

I don't see how it's absurd, except in the risk vs. rights regard, in which case I already conceded that you were correct.

Quote
3) Since you are making this assumption with no reference to facts what-so-ever, I'll do the research for you again.

-   Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

-   In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.   How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)

In arguing that "you are right" in this regard, you seem to be willing to abrogate the property rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian citizens and create a dangerous precedent in government intervention into the private sphere to prevent roughly 50 murders a year in which the person who committed the homicide, naturally wanting to kill someone, could (and most likely would) have used another, more common, implement (as 75% of homicides in Canada do play-out).   That is a pretty slippery slope to be playing with.   If you're happy in doing so and feeling good about it, then you obviously have your own impressions of "public good".

Not at all - I said I was right insofar as the reduction would take place but, again, I specifically said you and Brad were correct that the abbrogation of rights doesn't justify the restriction.

Quote
Read the Ghiglieri book that I mentioned - the plain fact is that people only use guns because they happen to be around when they decide to kill someone; if they aren't around, people will find something else to kill with.

Well, that's a start.   You still seem to be convinced that firearms somehow add to the level of danger and criminality in society, even if it is not severe.   Read above.

Criminality, no, danger yes - just not sufficiently to warrant a ban. Like you said - cars increase the danger in society but banning them outright is too much.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 09:57:56
I've just read through the last few days' posts on this thread.  I want to summarize some of the arguments of my opponents that I don't think are valid, and one big one that I DO think is very valid.

1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid.  It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon.  These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people.  Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much differen than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon.  Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.

2)  The other arguments that I don't find to be valid are the ones about personal property rights, and that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot do.  One of th cornerstones of civilization is LAWS.  Every law is, by definition, the government (by extension, society) telling you you something that you can or cannot do.  Societies need laws (if anybody starts advocating anarcy, I don't even know how to respond).

nother type of comparison could be made... if you object to the banning of firearms, what do you think about the banning of cocaine and other narcotics?  What business is it of the government what people do in their spare time after all?  If someone wants to mainline in their living room, what right does the government have to say they can't??  To me, the answer is that we as a society ban such things because we don't think they serve society any useful purpose, and they can indeed to damage to society.

3)  The other argument I don't buy is the "you should focus on society's real problems" argument.  On this thread we are arguing about gun control.  Just because I want higher gun control doesn't mean I don't care about any of the other problems.... of course I would love to see a more agressive justice system, bigger and better equipped police forces, etc, etc.  But the issue we are debating here is gun control, not these other things.

4)  The final type of argument that I think has no content and is not even worthy of consideration is the "P Kaye, you have your head in the sand", or "wake up".  Make your arguments, provide your evidence, and try to remain civil.  You don't add anything to your arguments with comments like these... some of you have valid points to make, but making childish remarks like this aren't adding any force to your ARGUMENTS.

So I don't buy the arguments based on comparisons between banning guns and banning baseball bats, and I don't buy the anarchist argument that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do.  I also don't buy the arguments that say gun control won't solve crime problems (of course it won't solve them).  I also don't have any patience for the "get your head out of the sand" type comments.

5)  I DO, however, buy some of the statistical arguments that show that access to firearms is not correlated with higher crime rates.  I did not know this, and reading has given me something to think about.  I would like to do some more research on this and perhaps modify my position on gun-control accordingly (although I think I will still lean towards the higher-control side of the argument).  I would lilke to thank those who have provided these statistics, and provided the references.  THIS is the way people SHOULD be debating.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: George Wallace on February 14, 2005, 10:24:07
1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid. It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon. These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people. Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much differen than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon. Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.



I am not really on either side of the argument, but I find this to be utter nonsense.  Guns don't kill; people do.   A gun is a tool, like a baseball bat, or a bow and arrow.  It can be used to kill, as can a car or a bat, and a billion other things.  Your roomate can sneak up behind you and stick a Bic Pen in your jugular and kill you.  The means to kill are infinite.  What are next on the list; all knives?  Any pointed stick?

To state that "their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people" is false.  They are a tool created and used in hunting, a development from the first tools used by man in the search for food.  Yes, they have been adapted and used for other means also, but to make that blind statement is outright crap. 

Next question is to address what weapons are being used in the commissioning of Crime?  In most cases these weapons have not been registered by the criminals using them.  Gun Control then only affects the "Honest Citizen" and has little or no effect on the criminal element. 

GW
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 10:38:57
>> To state that "their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people" is false.

Notice I said "Certain classes of firearms".
Hunting rilfes, yes, their primary function is hunting.
Handguns and assault rifles, no, their primary function is as a weapon to be used against people.
Of course guns don't kill people by themselves... nobody suggested they do.   What I am arguing is that what makes an assault rifle or handgun DIFFERENT than a baseball bat (with respect to whether they shoudl be banned) is that a baseball bat has a primary use as a tool for something other than killing people.   An assault rifle or handgun really does not.

I personally don't like to hunt, but I don't think hunting rifles should be banned.  A hunting rifle has a legitimate use as a tool for hunting.

You COULD argue that a handgun has a purpose as a deterrent against attakcs on a household, like a nuclear weapon is a deterrent for attacks on a country, perhaps.

>> to make that blind statement is outright crap.  

Thank you, but obviously I wouldn't have made the point if I thought it were "crap".   Notice that I haven't used a word like that to describe any of your arguments.   Sometimes I wonder why certain people on this site can't have reasoned debates without resorting to comments like these.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on February 14, 2005, 13:04:23
I worked in Law Enforcement in Toronto. Any my opinion comes from seeing guns in an urban environment in the hands of criminals.

 :cdn: Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners.   :threat:

Membership lists of gun clubs or something like Ducks Unlimited can be sold to criminals for big dollars. If you own a gun keep it a secret. After cash and jewels guns fetch the most cash on the street. I think gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun. Gun registry sure would be convenient for criminals.

To me more legal guns means more stolen guns.   If you've had to smell drying brains on the wall you might have more sympathy for the urban anti gun lobby.

There is a big difference between the uban and rural environment. Having dealt with an urban sniper who was never apprehended in Toronto. (and then telling the public the area was closed for a gas leak) I really would like assault weapons banned. They have "rampage" appeal.


My 2c.

P.S. If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.   Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels? Think about it.

 In the States this is acceptable behavior, hence all the carnage. Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 14, 2005, 14:09:30
I "sort of" agreed with you, up until this:

Quote
In the States this is acceptable behavior, hence all the carnage.

Which is absolutely untrue. I think that laws vary from state to state, but in the 2 that I have lived in - Maine and Arizona, a citizen cannot use lethal force to protect property. If a citizen uses lethal force, they have to demonstrate (convince a D.A, County Attorney, and/or jury) that their life was being threatened.

Shooting somone over a radio may be "acceptable behaviour" to some gang-banger, but it is not - in the eyes of the law...

Edited to add substantiation...

From http://tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Laws.htm

Quote
The United States Constitution and state laws permit people to protect themselves. Homeowners have legal measures that may be used to keep out intruders. The use of force by one person against another is illegal unless used in the line of duty, such as a police officer, or in reasonable self-defense. What is reasonable depends on the severity of the attack and the circumstance of the attack.

A person may use force, even deadly force, against another person if he/she reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting him/herself against the use of unlawful force by such other person. Such justifiable use of force is commonly called "self-defense." In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force or any seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or may be reasonably anticipated. The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater than, and must be proportionate to, the unlawful force threatened or used against the defender. For example:

Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the person's consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense. If the force used by the defender was not immediately necessary for his/her protection or if the force used was disproportionate in its intensity to that of the attacker, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self-defense claim in a criminal prosecution fails. For example:

If someone swings at you with a club and you knock her out with a punch, you have acted justifiably and legally to defend yourself. The force you used was not disproportionate to the force of the attack. It is immaterial that you were not actually hit by the club. 

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force, or the threat of force of nearly equally severity, and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. Serious bodily harm is an injury that creates substantial risk of death, causes serious permanent disfigurement, or causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of, or even an actual, minor attack. For example, a slap or an imminent threat of being pushed would not ordinarily justify the use of deadly force to defend against such unlawful conduct.

When you must defend yourself and the attacks claims injury, most people worry about their possible liability. There are two vastly different grounds for liability: criminal liability (law) and civil liability (law). There are two types of law: criminal and civil. Criminal law delineates rules of behavior that, when violated, may lead to punishment by incarceration or fine, or both. Civil law states which actions may lead to personal liability. Since these are two entirely different types of law with separate courts and procedures, a person found not guilty of a crime in a criminal court may be found liable in a civil court. The results of a criminal court have no effect a civil court, and vice versa. In a criminal court, the government tries and punishes a person for a criminal action against society. In a civil court, a person may be found personally liable for an action that injures another party.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 14:21:04
>> Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners

This is an extremely good point, IMO.  Some people have argued that since crimes are committed with unlicenced firearms, banning them will not reduce the number of these weapons in the hands of criminals. 
This, I beleive, is false. 
The more licenced weapons there are about, the easier it will be to obtain them without a licence.  There will simply be greater supply and availability (for theft) all over the place.  If the weapons cannot be imported to the country legally, then criminals are going to have to work harder to get them.  The most motivated criminals will get them anyway, but I would bet there are plenty of less ambitious criminals who wouldn't.  A would-be bank robber might rob a gun-store in Toronto if he could get what he wants, but maybe he would not have the resources, knowledge or connections to obtain such weapons if they were harder to find (i.e. not available for purchase in Canada).
No, I don't have any stats to back this claim up, but it seems like a reasonable thing to postulate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 14:40:16
Quote
Hunting rilfes, yes, their primary function is hunting.
Handguns and assault rifles, no, their primary function is as a weapon to be used against people.

   What are you deeming to be an assault rifle. By definiton assault rifles are full-auto. However the AR style rifles are restricted even though they are semi-auto.

 Here are 3 off the top of my head that are made for hunting. Still restricted in Canada though and cannot be used for hunting.

 Why?

 (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bushmaster.com%2Fshopping%2FCarbon15%2FImages%2FAZ-C1522LR-small.jpg&hash=66816554ac25ae8e7044dac47c53fdea)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bushmaster.com%2Fshopping%2Fweapons%2FImages%2Fpcwvms24-9ss-small.jpg&hash=ec5091969777ca4eb52937d2e1248e57)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bushmaster.com%2Fshopping%2Fweapons%2FImages%2Fpcwvms24fvar9-small.jpg&hash=deb43e7aaeacda4869465c751e41dac2)

 Here is one that is semi-auto, uses a magazine, ect. but is legal to hunt with in Canada, and it is chambered in 30-06, which is more powerfull than the ones shown above.

 (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.remington.com%2Fimages%2Ffirearms%2F7400wd.jpg&hash=05c5b4d9c70b5844edf115f0787d1c7c)

Quote
I worked in Law Enforcement in Toronto. Any my opinion comes from seeing guns in an urban environment in the hands of criminals.

   Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/RCMPStolenGuns2004-11-17.pdf

 Here is a list of guns stolen from the RCMP.

 http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns122.htm

 â Å“Police and military guns are already entered in government computers so these should be the easiest guns to include in the new gun registry.   Criminals steal guns from the police and the military too.   The Liberals' billion-dollar plus gun registry can trace the guns stolen from individuals who have registered their guns but not guns stolen from the police and the military.   It doesn't make any sense,â ? declared Breitkreuz.   In September 2003, the RCMP issued a report showing that 18 handguns and two shotguns had been stolen from or lost by the RCMP, and the whereabouts of another 88 firearms in their inventory were unknown.

The response to Breitkreuz's ATI request by the Canada Firearms Centre also stated: â Å“The Department of National Defence is exempt from registering firearms under the Firearms Act.â ?   In January of 2002, the RCMP revealed that the Department of Defence had reported 409 lost and stolen guns including: 218 Lee Enfield Rifles, 17 Browning 9mm pistols, an FN Browning .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun, an AK47, an FN Browning Canadian C9 Service Light Machine Gun 5.56mm, a Colt AR15A2 .223 calibre and many more.


 Here is more on where illegal guns are coming from

 http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/NFA/Senate.pre/s-xii.995

 
Quote
Membership lists of gun clubs or something like Ducks Unlimited can be sold to criminals for big dollars. If you own a gun keep it a secret. After cash and jewels guns fetch the most cash on the street. I think gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun. Gun registry sure would be convenient for criminals.


 So what you have just done is show another reason that the gun registry should be done away with.

 and I'm sure the crimminals are dying to get their hands on hunting shotguns that are used by members of DU, especially my 54" Berreta shotgun that holds 3 shots as opposed to a 6" handgun that holds 10 or more shots.

 "gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun"    ???????????

 are you serious????????????

 How about all the doctors that have mixed meds that caused a patients death?

 How about car makers be responsible if some one drinks and drives?

 How about sports equipement mfg. for all the broken bones and sports injuries?



 
Quote
A would-be bank robber might rob a gun-store in Toronto if he could get what he wants, but maybe he would not have the resources, knowledge or connections to obtain such weapons if they were harder to find (i.e. not available for purchase in Canada).
No, I don't have any stats to back this claim up, but it seems like a reasonable thing to postulate.

   Ok, think about what you just said, a would be bank robber (crimminal) wants to rob a bank, but, the weapon is not available for purchase in Canada.

 WHICH IT IS NOT FOR PURCHASE ANY WAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A FIREARMS LICENCE.

 

 

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 15:03:38
>>WHICH IT IS NOT FOR PURCHASE ANY WAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A FIREARMS LICENCE

Okay, think about what YOU just said.
If you read my post more carefully I was not suggesting the criminal was going to walk into the store and purchase the weapon... he would steal it.   If it's not available to be stolen, he can't steal it.

>> Criminals steal guns from the police and the military too

I don't have any direct experience with the difficulty associated with stealing guns, but I would think it is reasonable to say that it would be a darn sight harder to steal weapons from a police vault than from a store with a glass front on Younge street.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 15:12:22
Quote
Okay, think about what YOU just said.
If you read my post more carefully I was not suggesting the criminal was going to walk into the store and purchase the weapon... he would steal it.  If it's not available to be stolen, he can't steal it.

 Who would he steal it from? First he would need to find a house that has firearms that he knows he can break into, otherwise it's hit and miss.

 I would suggest to you though that if he is going to rob a bank, he might just ask a buddy who can get one for him or rent him one, yes, I said rent him one, somthing that is happening more and more often.

 
Quote
I don't have any direct experience with the difficulty associated with stealing guns, but I would think it is reasonable to say that it would be a darn sight harder to steal weapons from a police vault than from a store with a glass front on Younge street.

 Once again you have just posted your thoughts instead of a fact. Actually you will find that most LE firearms are kept in the trunk of their vehicle, not a vault. If you have been to a store that sells firearms you will find more than just glass protecting the firearms.

 For example:

 FBI Van Burglarized; SWAT Rifles, Ammo Taken


POSTED: 5:38 p.m. EST February 7, 2005
UPDATED: 10:46 p.m. EST February 7, 2005


Story by News4Jax

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Four sniper rifles, scopes and ammunition were stolen from an FBI SWAT van parked outside a Baymeadows Road hotel before dawn Sunday.

The FBI said the guns belonged to a team from Atlanta in Jacksonville to provide extra security for the Super Bowl.

A spokesman for the FBI said authorities are concerned these weapons are out on the street and are doing everything possible to try and find whoever took them.

Four high-powered rifles with scopes and 80 rounds of 308 ammunition were taken from the unmarked, locked van parked outside the Holiday Inn at Baymeadows and Interstate 95. An agent parked the van at 3:45 a.m. and discovered a few hours later the padlock cut and van burglarized.

An internal investigation is under way.

The FBI asks anyone with information that could help recover the rifles to call their Jacksonville office at (904) 721-1211.
__________________


  I would also ask you to respond to the hunting rifle/assault rifle disscusion.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: my72jeep on February 14, 2005, 15:25:58
Can the personal attacks guys - stick to the facts of the argument.

Well, your crowd certainly hasn't given any logical reason to doing so.   How is it that an FN is prohibited (IIRC - as it was a Canadian military rifle) while a M-14 isn't even restricted, although they are essentially the same rifle in terms of capability.   Seems like "evil looks" (the FN has a pistol grip) to me - or is there something I'm missing?



I don't know haw many of us older types(pre C-7) know this or did it, but the FNC1 could be made full auto with a paper match put in the safety sear and there was no way to fix this and still have a working semi auto so this as I understand was a consideration in the propitiatining of it.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 15:28:26
>> Who would he steal it from? First he would need to find a house that has firearms that he knows he can break into, otherwise it's hit and miss

The STORE!   You're missing the whole point of my argument.   I was arguing that if the weapons are legal to purchase with a license in Canada, then there will be stores that stock them.   These stores could be robbed by criminals who want to obtain the weapons without a license.

>> Once again you have just posted your thoughts instead of a fact

So?   Read the posts.   Everybody posts their opinions, and people often make educated guesses or speculate about things.   If I count the number of lines of posts that contain hard facts, vs the number of lines of posts that contain opinions, questions, speculation or postulations, or even insults, I think it's obvious which would come out higher.
Are you telling me if I read all your posts, I will find only cold hard facts in every line?

>> If you have been to a store that sells firearms you will find more than just glass protecting the firearms.

Of course.   But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!   I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.   The problem with stores is that not all of them will be equally security minded.   Some will be very good and very secure, but some will be less so, even in spite of the regulations regarding the security of weapons lockup.   Such regulations would be very hard to enforce continuously.

>> I would also ask you to respond to the hunting rifle/assault rifle disscusion.

I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general).   There were some good questions raised as to why certain weapons are banned and why others aren't, and I honestly have no answer.   It sounds like gun control regulations are not very consistent... I agree that is something that should definitely be examined and fixed!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 14, 2005, 16:03:19
Where I grew up in the '70s I did not think it unusual to see a rifle in a rack over the back seat of a pickup truck.  There was no evidence of bloodshed in the streets.

I doubt it has gotten any easier since then to steal firearms.  If the use of firearms during commission of crimes is an issue, punish such use severely.  A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension would at least keep the felons out of circulation.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 16:06:39
>> A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension

Absolutely.  I fully endorse more severe penalties for all sorts of crimes, and crimes involving firearms definitely.
BUT... I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.  Does anybody have any cold facts on this?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 16:29:01
 
  Ok, ok ok,  let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem.

 First, the stats in UK prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

 Second the stats in Switzerland prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

 Third, if the supply of guns in Canada drys up you are now looking at the supply and demand factor. Less guns bring higher prices.

 If a gun went from costing $1000 on the street to $5000, the risk of smuggling these into the country would be more worth it, for example the problem we had with cigarettes being smuggled across the lake into Ontario by the indians.

 And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime.

 
Quote
Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!  I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.

  So it would be easier for them to break into my gun safe than a cops trunk, or even the front windshield for the shotgun stored there.

 The weapons in the CF vaults do not stay there all the time, they, along with mags go out into the field quite often. Was there not a thread on this board a while back discussing the "Assault rifle"(full-auto) that was lost at SG04.

 
Quote
I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general). 

 Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws.




 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 14, 2005, 16:32:34
Quote
Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police! [/quite]

Except, you know, when the police ask people to turn their guns in to be destroyed "To make the streets safer" then turn around and sell those firearms back to people.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 16:54:04
>> let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem

??? READ my posts... I acknowledged that of course the gun control laws will not SOLVE the problems.   But maybe they will do some good...

>> And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime

That's a good point.

>> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws

Absolutely.   But I'm not forming laws here... I'm merely contributing to a discussion to increase my own knowledge, and to hopefully provide new angles of looking at things for other people to consider.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on February 14, 2005, 17:14:24
Commonly a young criminal finds a house with something he wants to steal. Phones and then recce's the house to see that no one is home and then robs it. No need for a gun store. Just your phone number and address. That info is easy to get. I could tell you all the methods but that would be unwise. (Don't worry after your first month in juvi you will know all of them.)

Rifle with pistol grip + hacksaw = concealable firearm.
Pistol grip = CQB
These modded weapons are most often found on teenagers, not hardened criminals. They are often IMO borderline retarded. And I can tell you taking down someone too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions takes all the fun out of catching the bad guy.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 14, 2005, 17:33:23
I'm going to respond to the initial comments by PKaye because it is what touched off the debate again:

1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid.   It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon.   These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people.   Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much different than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon.   Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.

That is based merely on your interpretation of what a firearm is.   Look at the Laws of Canada concerning a "weapon" - if you're concealing a knife, an asp, or a stick that all appear to have the intent of being used as a weapon, then it is a weapon; the intent is the important part (legal experts can correct me).   If a firearm is designed primarily to kill people, why is this?   Because it projects rounds at a lethal velocity.   Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.   Almost every legal gun-owner is capable of safely and responsibly owning a firearm as a private citizen, regardless of what you are worried about what they might do with it, and I don't think this will change if you suddenly give them something that holds more rounds or looks mean.

Quote
2)   The other arguments that I don't find to be valid are the ones about personal property rights, and that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot do.   One of th cornerstones of civilization is LAWS.   Every law is, by definition, the government (by extension, society) telling you something that you can or cannot do.   Societies need laws (if anybody starts advocating anarcy, I don't even know how to respond).

Government laws (at least here) are based upon consent and grounded upon certain inviolable concepts that are grounded in Common Law (or at least should be).   Habeas Corpus is something that, in domestic laws, cannot be abrogated by the government unless under extreme circumstances (the War Measures Act).   Private property is another one of these.   The Constitution Act of 1982, with its attached Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the "bedrock" of ensuring that LAWS are consistent with our liberal democratic concepts of what is and isn't appropriate to regulate.

Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.   As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable.

Quote
nother type of comparison could be made... if you object to the banning of firearms, what do you think about the banning of cocaine and other narcotics?   What business is it of the government what people do in their spare time after all?   If someone wants to mainline in their living room, what right does the government have to say they can't??   To me, the answer is that we as a society ban such things because we don't think they serve society any useful purpose, and they can indeed to damage to society.

Well, if 90% of people who bought guns walked outside, stuck them up there nose and pulled the trigger then I could see the issue in prohibiting them.   Narcotics are, for the most part, highly addictive and destructive substances which harm (often fatally) the user and inflict harm on the society when the user needs to resort crime in order to sustain his habit.   There is an obvious social cost here and it is a strong factor in why we can impede on a person's personal sphere (see the 100KMH to 200KMH analogy).   The only exception is Marijuana, which seems to be for the most part as innocuous as alcohol, which is not very innocuous but not destructive enough to warrant an outright ban (ie: it is probably 150KMH, so we're confused) - but that is the topic for another dead-horse.

Quote
3)   The other argument I don't buy is the "you should focus on society's real problems" argument.   On this thread we are arguing about gun control.   Just because I want higher gun control doesn't mean I don't care about any of the other problems.... of course I would love to see a more agressive justice system, bigger and better equipped police forces, etc, etc.   But the issue we are debating here is gun control, not these other things.

The main argument seems to focus on gun control as a measure for curbing crime.   Obviously as the statistics point out, there is no factual basis for correlating low crime and no guns, so the result is that you need to focus on other problems.   Telling you "to focus on societies real problems" is pointing out the absurdity in believing that taking guns away will do away with a good portion of violent crime and homicide.

Quote
4)   The final type of argument that I think has no content and is not even worthy of consideration is the "P Kaye, you have your head in the sand", or "wake up".   Make your arguments, provide your evidence, and try to remain civil.   You don't add anything to your arguments with comments like these... some of you have valid points to make, but making childish remarks like this aren't adding any force to your ARGUMENTS.

So I don't buy the arguments based on comparisons between banning guns and banning baseball bats, and I don't buy the anarchist argument that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do.   I also don't buy the arguments that say gun control won't solve crime problems (of course it won't solve them).   I also don't have any patience for the "get your head out of the sand" type comments.

That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again from people who have no knowledge of the subject, you tend to get frustrated.   If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

People should not assume that they can come here and say anything and it will automatically be regarded as well-thought out and considered opinion.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 17:42:21
>> Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

Sure.

>> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 17:47:46
>> That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again

Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.

>>  If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

Give me a break.  If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that.  I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions.  I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them.  I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people... I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you.  If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"! 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 18:09:01
Quote
>> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.

 Wrong. The 5.62 or .223 in the civy world, was designed as a varmint round, not a people killer. The military went to this because of less recoil and ability to carry more ammo for the same wieght.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 14, 2005, 18:26:30
I'm not.   I'm defining them by the objective of their design.   My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.

Ok, I'll disagree by saying that putting gas-operated weapons on the market obviously means that the objective of the firearm is not to kill people, but rather to allow people who enjoy sport-shooting or collecting.

Again, the argument of design is irrelevant without the intent.  It wouldn't matter if it was designed as a military weapon first or not - which all firearms can be said to have been, dating back to the arquebus - because people are capable of safely and responsibly enjoying its use on their own time.

Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.

We've tried that before - the only result is that the board gets the reputation for being a haven for people to run at the mouth.

Quote
Give me a break. If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that. I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions. I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them. I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people...


Again, if you're taking ridicule of your arguments (remember, attack the argument) as some sort of personal attack, then that's your problem.  I never called you an idiot or a moron or told you to shut up, I said that your comments were unfounded and silly when held up to the facts (in colourful terms, because the obvious ones were used 15 pages ago).  We've had alot of "Barracks-Room Lawyer" types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.

Quote
I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you. If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"!

I'll take that into consideration.  Thanks for the advice....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 18:52:44
>> Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.   As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable

I think your argument here about the purpose and limit of laws in society is a good one.   The balance between laws to protect our security and laws to grant us basic freedom of choice is a very interesting and complex issue.

I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".   I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".   Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:

1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.   So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.   Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.   But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.

>> types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.

Sure, sprited rivarly and passionate disagreement is great.   I still say we can all speak to each other like gentlemen and accomplish the same thing.   Manners are under-rated, IMO.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: my72jeep on February 14, 2005, 19:20:15

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

.
Quote

now this goes against what you have said. You want high powered sniper rifles stored at a range not your neighbours house, ranges have less security then a gun store and are normally located off the beaten path out in the country were nabobnot even the cops are at night. this to me sounds like a smorgsborg for gun thieves.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 14, 2005, 19:29:33
>I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.

Sure they do.  The longer the criminal is in confinement, the fewer crimes he can commit.

"High-powered sniper rifles".  A hunting rifle is "high-powered".  Most hunters use a scope.  Presto: one high-powered sniper rifle.

As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.  Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 14, 2005, 19:35:37
I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".   I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".   Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:

Remember, you have to balance what your comfort is with what other people may decide they want to do.   I may feel uncomfortable with people having crap-porn, S&M, and other really explicit stuff in their closet, but it is not up to me to place my comfort levels on someone else's hobbies if those hobbies are harmless and don't present an extremely high degree of risk to others.   
Owning a rifle or handgun, like having explicit pornography, may be something that others don't like,   but neither meet the above criteria that child porn (which is exploitive and harmful and risk our children's health) or high-explosive munitions (which are extremely dangerous if they should fall into the wrong hands, unlike most firearms, which are just as dangerous as a multitude of other implements which are used in violent crime) fall into.

Quote
1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.   As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).

That being said, I've seen some interesting statistics (the Ghiglieri book makes an interesting case) concerning the decision of some US states to allow Concealed Carry Permits to be issued to private citizens.   They seem to indicate that crime goes down in these areas.   A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.   I'll post this when I get the chance.

Back to the Canadian context, I'm not sure I'm going to buy into "concealment" as a good indicator for restriction.   I could always put on a trench-coat and conceal much more firepower then a pistol, a la Keanu Reeves in the Matrix.   My thoughts on the matter from what I've read is that if someone wants to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it with what they have at hand; gun or no gun, small gun or big gun (the gaggle of murders with firearms in my community have all been with hunting rifles - the availability of handguns was irrelevant).

Quote
2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).

Automatic weapons are prohibited, so the government has got you beat on that one.

Although I'm willing to bet that this is a irrational decision based on fear and emotion as well.   Any soldier worth his salt knows that fully automatic fire is largely ineffective unless it comes from a stable platform like a General Purpose Machine Gun (which I believe fits into the "200KMH" category, so you won't get an argument from me on prohibiting a C-6).   Obviously, since anyone can throw a bipod and a high-capacity ammo drum on almost anything, the ability to convert a automatic rifle into a good Machine Gun is easy, so I can see a good argument in keeping full-auto in the prohibited category.   However, keeping them prohibited definitely doesn't make me feel any "safer", because someone with a bit of skill would be far more deadly with a semi-automatic or leaver action rifle.

Quote
3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Again, a belief predicated largely on fear and emotion.   Headlines on snipers aside, what are the qualifying factors for a "high powered sniper rifle"?   Something with a large-calibre round and a scope?   Well, in that case, you are going to have to take almost every hunting rifle on the market.   One doesn't need a scope to be deadly from a distance, an iron site will do.

Quote
Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.   So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.   Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.   But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.

You're going to have to make clear and consistent approaches when you make the case to prohibit or control the actions of others.   Case 1 and 3 really don't maintain any consistency and seem to be triggered by irrational fear.   Case 2 has a good claim (which is why they are prohibited) as the risk of allowing someone to set up a C-6 in a busy downtown street is just like allowing people to drive 200KMH through a school-zone - simply too risky and thus done in true public interest (and not for someone's own agenda).   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 19:48:24
Quote
) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

 Now you have really bought into the media hype on this one and hit a real passion of mine.   :threat:

1) There is no such thing as a "High powered" rifle. There are some "rounds" that are bigger than others, but on a graduated scale.

   There is only the .50 and .408 that I have not heard of being used for hunting, however there are alot of competitions that involve these calibers. (I used calibers here because some rifles are cambered for different calibers)

 BUT when was the last time you heard of a crimminal robbing a bank, having a shoot out, or any crime for that matter with a .50 rifle.
   
   IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

2) Define "sniper" rifle.   Go for it I dare you.   :o

 Is this one of mine a sniper, or a hunting rifle??
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv217%2FFarmboy%2F09d48f97.jpg&hash=0a218a8ac3b0a56d66d53b9edf0ee167)

3) By leaving my "sniper" rifle at a club you are now making it easier for the crimminals who want to do a one stop shopping.

4) Your going to limit when I can access my own property, and who is going to pay for for the storage/security?


Quote
Quote
1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.  As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).

That being said, I've seen some interesting statistics (the Ghiglieri book makes an interesting case) concerning the decision of some US states to allow Concealed Carry Permits to be issued to private citizens.  They seem to indicate that crime goes down in these areas.  A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.  I'll post this when I get the chance.

 This is quite interesting because there are stats out there that back this up. I"ll look for them as well.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on February 14, 2005, 19:54:35
A minor technical point: the .223 Rem cart was designed by Robert Hutton and Eugene Stoner to meet the US Govt specs that the .222 Rem could not.    The   variant - a lengthened .222 Rem -   was at first called .222 Special,   I think.    Stoner, Fremont, and Sullivan scaled down the 7.62mm AR-10 (designed by Stoner) to make the AR-15.    No existing cartridge woulld provide the performance needed (velocity in excess of the speed of sound at 500 yards).    Possibly dictated by wound ballistics?    I don't know.    In any case, Stoner, an arms designer, not a cartridge designer, had to have a new cartridge made.    He died in 1997.

Suicide, by the way, is means independant.

I recommend the Canadian Firearms Digest. An archived one is at   http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v03n700-799/v03-n765.txt      You can join the list (FREE!) and get all the info you need there, just by asking.   References galore.

Tom   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on February 14, 2005, 20:03:22
Give the people in an Urban environment a break. Guns are a real problem here. Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece ;D Can we say Jim Bean! PLEASE lock up your guns properly and keep them secret. I couldn't care less if you register them. Remember that police don't want to shoot some borderline moron with a sawed off shotgun or 22.


>As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.   Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.

Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can't defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it's much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
That's why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they'll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.

TO Marauder and Brad Sallows
If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.   Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels?   Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. I am not going to some parents house to say that their kid was murdered over a home entertainment system. I feel embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 20:13:01
   No I will not keep my guns a secret like some bad habit. I want people to know that is everyone in every walk of like that enjoys firearms whether hunting or shooting sports.

 
Quote
Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece   Can we say Jim Bean!

 This is another media biased view. Hunting and shooting in Canada is the safest sport bar none, and allowing full-auto and 30 round mags will not change this.

Quote
If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.

 You think if someone breaks into my house when I am sleeping I really want to take the time to figure out whether they want to kill me or take my DVD. Then what? call 911 (government sponsored dial-a-prayer)

 PS a bit of CCW info   http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi//nra.html

                              http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi/success.html



 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Horse_Soldier on February 14, 2005, 20:17:44
If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.  Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels?  Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. I am not going to some parents house to say that their kid was murdered over a home entertainment system. I feel embarrassed for you.
The punishment should fit the crime - hmm, gotta love Gilbert & Sullivan.  The Mikado was probably the best of their repertoire.  The problem I have is that the punishment in this country rarely fits the crime.  Granted, blowing some dumb frig away with a 12 guage because he wanted to steal & sell your stereo instead of earning money the honest way is a bit over the top.  But considering the resources police put into home robberies nowadays (almost nil, from the anecdotal evidence I've gathered following a break-in into my home and those of friends/acquaintances), the dumb teenagers who do the break-ins have little if any deterrent from acting the way they do.  So permit me to be a bit cynical about the homilies I hear from the "Law & Order" side.  The YOA is a joke.  I think a 17 year old trying to feed a video game habit with the proceeds of selling his neighbours CDs & DVDs would get a much more salutary lesson from a good, old-fashioned beating with a baseball bat than anything our justice system can throw at him.  Somehow, I have a really hard time figuring why I should give a fig over an individual (teenager or not) who gets hurt, maimed or killed while committing a crime.  Break the law, suffer the consequences.  And if they're still living with their parents, then the parents deserve their share of the blame.  Say what you like.  Someone breaks into my home while I am there, I will take any and all means to defend my family, and if that means some mommy's precious  little young offender gets the thrashing he deserves, so be it.  Charge me.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 14, 2005, 20:28:05
As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here. Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.

This is something that I believe as correct.   I remember once reading a commentary that posed the question of whether the two mass-murderers at Columbine would have wrecked as much damage as they did if their had been someone in the school who was armed and prepared to use the weapon.   Human beings have always armed themselves against the depredations of their fellow man - even without weapons, things like Martial Arts turned farming implements into weapon for protection of one's life and property.   I don't see how living in a modern, industrial society suddenly revokes this requirement.

Anyways, here is the excerpt on Concealed-Carry permits I was referring to, read it and make your own assumptions:

Quote
"Economist John R Lott Jr., surveyed the data on guns and murder from several recent years.   He focused on the thirty-one states that have nondiscretionary (also known as "shall-issue") concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws.   These states issue to any nonfelon who passes their safety and legal tests a license to carry a concealed handgun.   Hundreds of thousands of Americans now legally carry concealed weapons on this basis.   Lott examined the records of fifty-four thousand such licences from 1977 to 1994 and analyzed dozens of variables relating to violent crime.   He intended his research to answer the question,"Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime?   Or dies it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?"   The title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime. may seem to provide the answer, but that would oversimplify the issue.

Lott found that, contrary to popular notions, even after more than a decade, no CCW permit holder had been convicted of having used her or his gun to murder anyone.   Instead, many permit-holding women escaped being murdered (or raped) because of the use of their guns.   For example, women who did not resist violent aggressors were injured 2.5 times more than women who used guns to resist them.   Further, resistance with a gun led to women being seriously injured only one-quarter as often as did resistance without a gun.   Polls reveal that Americans defend themselves with guns between 760,000 and 3.6 million times yearly!   These figures coincide with a much broader study by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology who also spent several years researching the effects of guns on enhancing versus preventing violence.

In his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Kleck reports that private citizens in America use guns 783,000 times (handguns 645,000 times) yearly to protect themselves from felonious assaults.   That breaks down to once every 48 seconds.   Meanwhile, criminals use guns against victims 660,000 times yearly.   One-third of randomly polled Americans considered citizens armed with guns to be the best defense against criminals.   Roughly half of all gun owners said that their firearms were primarily for protection.   Indeed, the FBI reports between 1992 and 1996, private citizens shot and killed 1,382 violent offenders, a total close to (68 percent of) the 2,035 felons shot by police, to protect themselves.   What do police think of this?   Lott cites two major polls showing that more than 93 percent of responding police officers consider private ownership of firearms necessary for the average citizen to protect himself or herself.

Surprisingly, there exists a huge difference in risk to bystanders depending on whether a police officer or a private citzen discharges his or her firearm in self-defense against a felonious assault.   Carol Ruth Silver and Donald B Kates Jr., found that police shooting at suspects were 5.5 times MORE likely than private citizens to shoot an innocent bystander.   By contrast, only about 28 mistaken intruders are shot per year.   Many of these shootings result when a gun owner keeps a firearm net to the bed and fires before waking up fully.

Lot explains what the ability to protect oneself means in regard to murder:
"Violent crimes are 81 percent higher in states without nondiscretionary laws.   For murder, states that ban the concealed carrying of guns have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with the most liberal concealed carry laws.
Overall, my conclusion is that criminals as a group tend to behave rationally - when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed....
Guns also appear to be the great equalizer among the sexes.   Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women.   One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men."


Lott reports that studies showing that guns kept in the home lead to more homicides than would otherwise occur were flawed (or fudged).   Instead, Lott concludes, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent drop in violent crime.   He notes that "the passage of nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws in states that did not have them in 1992 would have reduced murder in that year by 1,839; rapes by 3,727; aggravated assaults by 10,900; robberies by 61,064....The total value of this reduction in crime in 1992 dollars would have been $7.6 billion." (Lott also notes that this decline would have been at the cost of perhaps nine additional accidental deaths in all concealed handgun states.)   Ultimately, Lott was able to answer - and to successfully defend his answer scientifically against critics - the question his research originally asked.   "Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives?   The answer is yes, it will."

Michael Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence: pp 121-123.


There you have it - remember the author, when he set out on researching his book, was a strong proponent of gun control.   Pick it apart if you wish, but is appears to be quite solid to me.

If you rationalize it, it makes perfect sense.   The job of the police is not to protect us through preventing crime, it is to serve us in ensuring the laws of the country are upheld.   Policing is a reactive institution in that police cannot lock criminals up on the assumption that they will re-offend unless under certain extreme circumstances (Dangerous Offender status is declared by medical professionals).

When it comes down to it, you and you alone are responsible for the safety of your person and your property.   Just as it is silly for Canadians to say that we do not need a military to uphold our sovereignty because "the Americans will do it", it is silly for individuals to abrogate their own responsibilities by saying "it is not my job to protect myself, the police will come".   Obviously, the police cannot be around to protect every individual.   I think that many of the problems with home-invasion and violent gangs of youths beating people in the parks that are taking the headlines in BC would be avoided if these people knew there was a good chance of the person defending themselves capably with a firearm.   How am I supposed to know if the home invader or the group of toughs merely wants my wallet or is intent on harming me as well?   Are you willing to take that chance with your own life?

Some may choose not to own a firearm for protection.   Some will take other measures to ensure personal safety (alarm system, self-defence courses, pepper-spray, etc) but I firmly believe that carrying a firearm, responsibly and according to rational legal guidelines, and being prepared to use it if necessary is the most decisive way of ensuring ones personal safety.

Just as state sovereignty is upheld by the will to arms, the only real free citizen is an armed one, as your "freedom" amounts to nothing when a criminal invades your home or assaults you in the street and imposes his will over you.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 14, 2005, 20:35:17
>> A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.

This is a very interesting point... would be very interesting to see further research on this.

>>  Hunting and shooting in Canada is the safest sport bar none

I think Curling or lawn bowling might be competitors
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 14, 2005, 20:37:51
You probably posted that as I was putting up the except.

Ask and ye shall receive....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 20:45:19
Infanteer see the two links on my last post.

 
Quote
I remember once reading a commentary that posed the question of whether the two mass-murderers at Columbine would have wrecked as much damage as they did if their had been someone in the school who was armed and prepared to use the weapon.

 Not to mention.............

 BORN : October 26, 1964

DIED : December 6, 1989

VICTIMS : 14 (all female)

Marc Lepine was a bit of a loony. He was obsessed with war and violence, neighbours complained about the volume of his TV as he watched non-stop war films. He also hated women. The reason for this one was quite simple - they didn't like him, or they didn't find him attractive. This hatred of women grew into an absolute loathing. Lepine ended up labelling all women who didn't want him 'feminist.' He particularly hated feminists.
Eventually Lepine found a woman who liked him a little, and she became pregnant. For Lepine this was a solution, she couldn't get away if they had a child together, and he would have a son. Unfortunately for Lepine his girlfriend decided she didn't want a kid, and told him she was getting an abortion. For Lepine this was too much, and he decided to take the ultimate revenge on all the feminists he could.
December 6, 1989. The last day of term before the Christmas break - and the day Lepine would be revenged. He stormed an engineering class at the University of Montreal.

"Okay, everybody stop what their doing."
Lepine's opening line.

As Lepine spoke the line he pulled out an automatic rifle. He was wearing blue jeans, an anorak and a red baseball cap. The students all thought it was a practical joke, until Lepine put a bullet into the ceiling.

"Move! Split into two - the girls on the left, the guys on the right."

Their were only nine girls in the class of sixty, and once gathered Lepine ordered the males to leave. They did, still thinking that it must be a prank.

"Do any of you know why I'm here?....
I'm here to fight feminism!"

Lepine then opened fire on the girls - killing six, wounding the other three. Lepine then left the room firing indiscriminately at the males still outside the room. He was heard yelling -

"I want the women"

Lepine reloaded the rifle. He then proceeded to walk through the building, killing four more women along the way. He then went into room 311 where he killed three more women, and wounded others. He then walked up to one of the wounded, drew out a hunting knife and ended her suffering with three stabs. The classroom was still full of students, all scattered under desks, but Lepine seemed not to notice as he took off his anorak, wrapped it around the rifle, and blew his baseball cap off (with the assistance of the top of his skull).

INTERESTING BITS

The police were not called until 5.17pm. Lepine's brains were on the ground at 5.20pm.
He could have kept going for at least 5 more minutes before they could have stopped him.

Lepine was another shorty - He was only 5' 6"

He was born Gamil Gharbi and he later changed it to Marc Lepine.



   What would have happened here had someone been armed?


 
Quote
I think Curling or lawn bowling might be competitors

 The study I saw took into account all injuries including broken fingers, torn ligiments, ect.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 14, 2005, 20:53:23
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/gunbenefits.html

Quote
Because gun owners are the safest citizens in Canada, insurance companies make money granting them $5 million of primary liability insurance for only $3.35.

http://www.gunowners.org/op0302.htm

Quote
According to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999 and a 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study:

You are 100 times more likely to be injured in a swimming pool than by a gun.
You are 31 times more likely to be injured riding in a car than by a gun.
You are 1,900 times more likely to be injured by an "iatrogenic" error than by a gun ("iatrogenic" error is medical speak for a doctor or hospital injuring you accidentally).


 Oh yeah and if you could reply to my post at the top of the page.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 14, 2005, 21:10:03
>If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. I wrote about a scenario in which someone posed a manifest threat with a firearm of his own.  You may feel embarrassed for yourself if you wish.

>only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence

Why?  Because no-one is home during the robbery?  Because in the absence of armament and clear-cut powers of self- and property defence and/or understanding thereof no-one dares to lift a finger and simply permits the property to walk away?  Because addicts and other thieves are notoriously gentle people who put down the property and back away effusively begging forgiveness when confronted in the act?

Out of curiosity, what do you think a person should be permitted to do to restrain a burglar?  Assume the burglar will at least attempt to brain you with your DVD player if he is otherwise unarmed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 14, 2005, 21:24:32
Quote
A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.

That's why I said that, in many neighborhoods, anti-gun people are protected (somewhat) by the potential presence of firearms. Thus - the suggestion that the real serious anti-gun folks should post a sign in their front yard stating that there are no firearms on their property  ;D


"Concealed Carry Permits/States"  is a bit misleading also. In Arizona, I can carry a pistol for example almost anywhere, as long as it is in plain sight. I have seen, literally, people in home depot with a holstered pistol strapped to their side (not sure why). The Concelaed Carry permit is required for just that - if the Home Depot guy wanted to carry in a shoulder rig, under his coat, he'd need a CCW Permit. Another example - I can carry a pistol in plain view on the seat of my truck. If I want to put it in the glove compartment  - I need a CCW Permit.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Gunnerlove on February 14, 2005, 22:09:16
It is funny how the public can live in fear of home invasions yet be unwilling to accept the fact that a dead home invader is not a loss to our society.

I am sick of the bleeding heart "but he was only a kid" lines in the news. If a house is broken into and the criminal is killed or injured we must not forget that the victim of crime is still and will always be the home owner.

Pay for play, if you choose to break into houses or to commit crimes you choose to accept the increased risk of getting dead.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 14, 2005, 22:26:16
I don't know haw many of us older types(pre C-7) know this or did it, but the FNC1 could be made full auto with a paper match put in the safety sear and there was no way to fix this and still have a working semi auto so this as I understand was a consideration in the propitiatining of it.



The L1A1/ C1A1 and FAL type rifles were restricted because of the large influx into Canada of the Australian L1A1 SLR 1983, where $550 got you a rifle, 4 mags, bayonet and cleaning kit, plus   'investor packs of 4 were also sold. Suprislingly a vast qty of these rifles were sold to CF and former CF members, including myself. These SLR Aussie rifles were Singapore and Mayalsian contracts, many marked SPF (Singapore Police Force) on the lower receiver. The Canadian government simply did not want large quantities of these rilfes to be owned freely, unrestricted in the hands of it's own citizens. I had inquired through my local MP who had provided me this info in writing, so I am not bull-shyting here.


As for the lifting of the trigger sear by a ball of foil, or matchead, sure this worked, but not always reliable, and you could get a uncontrolable slam fire situation too (fires once the action goes forward like an open bolt weapon emptying an entire 20rd mag). Plus if you were caught (by any decent MCPL or SNCO you were in a heap of trouble (as you should be too).

For commercial purposes, many importers removed the safety sear from the rifle, and ground off the 'notch' on the underside of the breech bloock carrier. Safety seards and triger sears are too different things, and the safety sears primary function was to ensure the rilfe would NOT fire out of battery, hence the name safety sear, so in removing such, a serious safety delema was crearted, where then the rifle could fire with the action not fully forward, causing a explosion in the breech, and possibly injuring the shooter or someone standing nearby.

There was never a ruling on the removal by our aresehole Ottawa polititians, so in todays privatly owned L1A1s, C1A1s and military FAL rilfes rifles will be encountered with and without safety sears, and with an without ground carriers. Commercial FN FALs which wre deemed imported into the USA or USA manufactured upper housings have no provision for a safety sear or no 'notch' on the carriers to comply with BATF regualtion, which mean nothing in Canada.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: recceguy on February 15, 2005, 00:49:32
I know it doesn't add much to the debate, but i just found this little gem on the internet:

"Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling mistakes"

Kinda sums it up for me ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 15, 2005, 01:00:27
[quote author=Torlyn

I'll have to ask where you got that particular tidbit...  The references that I have (Stats Can, Juristat, etc) say different.  Cheers.

T

Quote

Hi all...

Sorry I just hopped on and saw this answer to my post...

To be honest I have seen stats like the ones I mentioned above and will hunt them down in a spare moment. However I can point to the latest gun seizure by the Toronto Police Service. A friend of mine who is a serving police officer told me (and I have seen on the news) that the latest haul of illigal firearms in T.O. included a MAC 10 SMG...which is deffinetly a prohibited weapon here in Canada, but not in the U.S.

The average gun owner here would not have this item sitting in their basement for the baddies to steal...

Cheers

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 15, 2005, 01:07:34


Interesting thread.

There is no proof that gun control in its current incarnation works. In fact, all proof points to the contrary.

1-   Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1960's. Handgun crime has gone continuously up. The same has happened in European countries like England where personal firearms ownership is all but banned.
2-   Rifles, automatic weapons, .50 caliber rifles, etc are not used in crimes; the statistics are negligible and certainly do not warrant a 2 billion dollars investment to try and control them. The percentage of crime with legally owned rifles is even lower.
3-   High capacity magazines do nothing to reduce crime.
4-   CCW and open carry laws do not cause the â Å“bloodbathsâ ? that their opponents claim they do. In fact all proof points to the contrary.

Because something makes you â Å“comfortableâ ?, does not mean that it has any real effect. Not only that, but where does one person get off on enforcing what makes them comfortable on another person without any reason or proof beyond a feeling. There is no real reason I should not be able to own am automatic rifle or a .50 cal rifle.

Firearms laws in their current incarnation are nothing more then feel good measures. They stem from the overall trend in our population to eschew personal responsibility; personal safety is perhaps the ultimate responsibly, and the also the scariest. Feel good gun laws make people feel safer, but they do nothing to reduce violent crime. The only thing that will reduce violent crime is for people to stand up and stop being victims.

Where shooting an intruder in concerned, if a guy breaks into my house, and I challenge him with a gun in my hand, the ball is in his court; if he gets shot then it's his own fault. I'm not advocating shooting unarmed people here, if the guy runs, all the better, but he attacks me then I'll shoot him.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 15, 2005, 01:11:39
Quote
that the latest haul of illigal firearms in T.O. included a MAC 10 SMG...which is deffinetly a prohibited weapon here in Canada, but not in the U.S.
Yes, actually it is. Or at least it the US equivalent of "prohibited". Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted in the US since the 1930's. Only people with special licenses can own them. The same is true in Canada.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 15, 2005, 01:14:41
Yes, actually it is. Or at least it the US equivalent of "prohibited". Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted in the US since the 1930's. Only people with special licenses can own them. The same is true in Canada.

Hey Bro

I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...

Cheers

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 15, 2005, 01:37:39
Quote
I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...
And if it was, then it's no different then a pistol. In fact, it's less effective for a criminal then a pistol due to its larger size.

The only people made safer by firearms registration and prohibition are criminals.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 15, 2005, 10:40:47
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/violentcrimesfirearms.htm

FIREARMS FACTS - UPDATE

 

STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS ON THE NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED WITH FIREARMS

 

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO BREITKREUZ'S HOUSE OF COMMONS ORDER PAPER QUESTION Q-149 â “ JUNE 3, 2002

 

(k) In what percentage of all violent crimes are firearms actually used in the commission of the offence?

STATISTICS CANADA RESPONSE: (k)

In 2000, 3% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms.
In 1999, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms.
In 1998, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms.
In 1997, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms.
 

Note: Excludes â Å“other firearm-like weaponsâ ? (e.g. pellet gun, nail gun).

 

BREITKREUZ'S OBSERVATIONS: (k) When Statistics Canada released their Crime Statistics for 1999, they reported on page two: "Police reported just over 291,000 incidents of violent crime in 1999."  The last paragraph on the same page stated: "In 1999, 4.1% of violent crimes involved a firearm."  Unfortunately, this 4.1% statistic was overstated because Statistics Canada defines â Å“involvedâ ? not as â Å“usedâ ? in the commission of the offence but only as â Å“presentâ ? at the scene of the crime.  That's why the RCMP statistics on firearms involved in violent crime are dramatically lower. 

 

In July 1997, the Commissioner of the RCMP wrote the Deputy Minister of Justice to complain about the department's misrepresentation of RCMP statistics.  The Commissioner set the record straight: â Å“Furthermore, the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms.â ?   

   

The Library of Parliament Research Branch examined two different reports published by Statistics Canada on violent crime in 1999.  They determined that the â Å“Presence of a Firearm in Violent Incidentsâ ? was 4.1%, but the â Å“Use of a Firearm in Violent Incidentsâ ? was only 1.4% - three times lower than the figure normally reported by Statistics Canada and accepted and repeated by the media without any explanation.  If the government hopes to reduce violent crime, law abiding firearms owners are clearly the wrong targets!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Farmboy on February 15, 2005, 10:42:36
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/firearmsquickfacts.htm
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 15, 2005, 11:47:41
I wonder how many crimes are associated with alcohol use? Maybe prohibition is a more practical solution....   (yes, I drink)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 15, 2005, 15:46:56
I wonder how many crimes are associated with alcohol use? Maybe prohibition is a more practical solution....     (yes, I drink)
Maybe not prohibition, but think of the lives that could be saved if we took that 2 billion dollars and spent it equipping every vehicle with a Breathalyzer switch. Now that would actually make a difference.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 15, 2005, 18:07:57
Hey Bro

I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...

Cheers

Slim

MAC 10s were in .45ACP and 9 x 19mm. MAC 11s were in .380 Auto , AKA 9mmK. Cobray's original were semi and full auto, and later semi versions firing from an open bolt, then later versions friing from a closed bolt. Due to wierd US laws, the semi versions had no retracting butt, and were classed as pistols, as semi carbines but have a mininum barrel length of 16 inches.

Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.

As for MAC 10s and 11s in Canada, I know of a few legally owned in Saskatchewan. They are full autos, owned by people who had them registered prior to 01 Jan 78. Presently those people who own such can still buy and trade amoung themselves.

There is also semi auto MAC in Canada, with the original retracting butts due to our different laws. A friend of mine in Moose Jaw used to have one, a M11 in 9mmK. All happily registered.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 15, 2005, 18:55:10
Quote
Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.
Legal to own if you get a special license (Class 3 FLL I believe) - the same as in Canada (think industrial firearms license and the like).

My problem with the news article is that it makes it sounds like you can easily just go over the border and legally acquire automatic weapons, and then smuggle them back into Canada. The following describes the required federal process to own automatic weapons in the US. Some states impose additional restrictions (if they don't ban them alltogether).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Quote
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on February 16, 2005, 18:44:38
While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?


Who is that comedian? The one who said "raise the cost of bullets"? If a bullet cost 10 thousand dollars, alot of criminals would think twice before useing a gun. Laughed my *** off.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 16, 2005, 18:55:55
While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?

It is something deeper.  Although you'll have to go back to page 15 or so of this thread to get a more detailed answer, why is it that Switzerland (which is armed to the teeth) and Japan (which has no guns at all) have roughly the same rates of homicide and violent crime while the most violent societies on Earth are the primitive hunter/gatherer ones in New Guinea and South America in which the weapon of choice is a spear?

Obviously, it is something deeper.  "Guns" is merely a boogyman for many activists.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on February 16, 2005, 19:30:17
For all who believe that criminals are using theguns stolen from responsible firearms owners...

Wed, February 16, 2005


Pot trade a big bang



By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN



POLICE AND Customs officers say Canadian pot is being traded by gangs for weapons in the U.S. and then smuggled into the country for resale or to settle feuds. Customs officials said they seized 1,100 weapons being smuggled into the country last year. Of those, more than 200 were seized at southern Ontario border crossings.

"There are cases from time to time that involve the smuggling of weapons by organized crime," Dan Yen of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said yesterday.

Yen said most guns are seized from U.S. citizens entering Canada by car.

"There is an ongoing battle to combat and keep weapons off the streets," he said. "Our officers are vigilant and always on the alert."

Ron Moran of the Customs Excise Union said the seizures are only the tip of the iceberg.

"Police intelligence shows gangs are trading Canadian marijuana for weapons," Moran said yesterday. "Every time this happens the weapons are smuggled into Canada."

Moran said his unarmed officers routinely seize high-calibre weapons from criminals and U.S. gun owners. Customs officials seized 5,000 firearms being snuck into the country in the last five years.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/02/16/932486-sun.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 16, 2005, 19:34:30
That's the general trend I was referring to.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on February 17, 2005, 00:10:58
Those who want to ban firearms will continue to advocate it regardless of the statistical or anecdotal evidence being raised. But since people apparently cannot be trusted to own one type of tool with a particular property, where is the line drawn?

As a student of Aikido, I own a Bokken; a wooden replica of a Samuri Katana, and by using Samuri sword techniques, can deliver devastating blows to an opponent. Should the Bokken be banned? Should the study of Aikido be banned? Dedicated Internet surfers, or people willing to take the time to comb libraries can discover how to make explosives (including nuclear weapons; I was very surprised to find a book in my personal library has an easy to follow recipie) out of relatively common items. Do we shut down the Internet? Close Libraries? Close Canadian Tire stores since many of the ingredients and suplies can come from there?

After attempting to deconstruct the arguments raised on this thread, it is quite clear the main issue is one of personal responsibility. IF we accept that a person has to prove his fitness to own and use firearms (an FAC), and is responsible for the safe storage and use of his firearms (as laid out in countless, existing, laws and statutes), then that is the end of the story.

The people who won't accept that an individual has the capacity to responsibly own and use a firearm are really advocating that individuals are not responsible, and therefore should be subjected to invasive and intrusive checks on their liberty. After all, having care and control over an infant child is also a huge responsibility, far better that children be raised according to a government formula in state sponsored day cares and public schools......you get the idea.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 17, 2005, 09:38:44
>>including nuclear weapons... out of relatively common items

Probably the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is obtaining the high-grade plutonium.  Plutonium is not a relatively common item, and is in fact VERY difficult and expensive to produce, which is why entire countries have difficulty obtaining nuclear weapons.

Of course, for "dirty" bombs (which are radiological, but not really "nuclear" in the sense that they don't generate a chain reaction) you don't need high-grade plutonium.  A bunch of radioactive material of any time, like uranium, would do.  But again, this is not all that easy to obtain.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 17, 2005, 12:22:09
Building a nuclear weapon shouldn't be hard.  The first, and most primitive, nuclear weapons were "gun type" weapons that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together.  The sudden crash of a critical mass of radioactive substance leads to the nuclear fission and the "boom".  One could almost "McGyver" up a system that simply crashes two pieces of fuel together.  The trick is to not let the two fuel sources be exposed to eachother at a close enough range to allow for a criticality.

As P Kaye said, acquiring the fuel is the tricky part - not for the science, which is available in a Grade 12 physics textbook, but rather for the technical processes required.

Infanteer (who took a nuclear weapons course in school....)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 17, 2005, 12:34:01
>> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together

To get a proper chain reaction started,  I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.  You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.  This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.

I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.  Does this sound right, Infanteer?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 17, 2005, 12:54:27
Maybe we should lobby to get personal ownership of nuclear weapons banned, just in case  ::)

This is all about personal responsibility

- You're fat, blame McDonalds
- You have a car accident, blame the manufacturer
- Your kids misbehave, blame television
- You don't feel safe, blame guns

Some people buy into a larger conspiracy theory when it comes to gun control, but I don't give the anti-gun people that much credit. I think they really are that shortsighted in their efforts.

If they do succeed in banning all private ownership of firearms, then it's only a question of time before knives and other weapons are restricted, and things like the practice of martial arts are targeted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on February 17, 2005, 13:24:37
>> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together

To get a proper chain reaction started,   I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.   You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.   This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.

I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.   Does this sound right, Infanteer?

No, what you are describing is an "implosion"-type bomb which works by compressing Plutonium (as opposed to Uranium) into a criticality.   It is alot more technical as it requires the explosives be composed, manufactured, and set-up to very exacting specifications.

The "gun-type" bomb is simple and involve two pieces hitting eachother in a manner to form a criticality.   There were stories, during the Manhatten Project, of crazy scientists in Alamgoro who would try and see how close they could hold two pieces of Uranium together (the two pieces would start to get very hot as the proximity closed and fission began to occur on the surface - there wasn't enough fissile reactions to start a chain-reaction, but the possibility was there).

When the Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombs were named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy".   Fat Man was an implosion-type bomb using Plutonium fuel while Little Boy was a gun-type using Uranium fuel.   I'm willing to bet that two bombs were dropped so that the US could get a good measure of the destructive powers of each type.

Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: P Kaye on February 17, 2005, 13:30:11
>> Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....

Which seems to be becoming a seriously over-flogged, quite dead, horse.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on February 17, 2005, 13:43:27
The scariest part of the book was it had reasonable suggestions of where to find Uranium Hexaflouride ("Yellowcake") or Plutonium Nitrate, as well as the chemical reactions to rend the substances down to the pure U 235 or Pu 238 needed to make the bomb.

As for high precision, the Plutonium implosion bomb requires the high precision devices to ensure a symmetrical implosion, but the Uranium "gun" can be quite crude. I could potentially build a very lightweight device and boost the explosive power by immersing it in a pool of water, with the saftey being a crossbar stuck in the "gun barrel", and the timing device being a wind up alarm clock....

Since I havn't taken a major city hostage, it should be safe to assume I am competent to deal with this knowledge. Since the book has been around for several decades, I would even say it is reasonable that the vast majorety of people are competent to deal with this knowledge. rw4th has it right, we either take personal responsibility for our actions, or give our responsibility to someone else.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 17, 2005, 18:32:31
While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?






Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on February 18, 2005, 00:25:45
Maj Baker - The gun thing isn't too big a deal. I deal with it fairly frequently in my booking agent sideline. You fill out a form ahead of time, and pay $50 when you cross. It's almost as big a deal to borrow a rifle (if you do it by the book)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on February 18, 2005, 00:45:28
Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Wes

Good question.

Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada.

I was there for one of them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on February 18, 2005, 11:17:00
"Gun related incidents" covers a lot of ground, from someone claiming to have a gun to Columbine. It would be far more useful if these stats can be broken down.

Earlier in this thread, we saw an interesting example of how undifferentiated statistics were manipulated in Canada; proponents of the Gun Registry used a similar data set to inflate the percentage of criminal acts involving fire arms, but once it was deconstructed and the "actual use" of firearms was counted (as opposed to discovering there was a gun stored in the house where the crime was comitted), then the numbers fell quite sharply.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on February 18, 2005, 11:29:10
Quote
Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada.

I agree with a_majoor, the statistics you quote are vague and purposefully pejorative; please cite your sources. If we consider â Å“gun incidentsâ ? to mean anything involving a gun, then 4 for Canada is way to low a figure. I can think of 4 just incidents â Å“involving gunsâ ? just in Montreal in the past few years.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on February 18, 2005, 12:10:23
it's cultural.  IF you remove the statistics from the ten largest urban cores, you eliminate the innr city drug crime.   Then their rates fall below ours.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on February 19, 2005, 02:23:26
it's cultural. IF you remove the statistics from the ten largest urban cores, you eliminate the inner city drug crime. Then their rates fall below ours.

darn those 10 cities eh!? Although would Columbine be considered a town unto itself? Or a suburb?

I agree with a_majoor, the statistics you quote are vague and purposefully pejorative; please cite your sources. If we consider â Å“gun incidentsâ ? to mean anything involving a gun, then 4 for Canada is way to low a figure. I can think of 4 just incidents â Å“involving gunsâ ? just in Montreal in the past few years.

I believe it was incidents involving charges (or discharges as the case may be). I would agree with you on 4 being to small in many ways. My highschool had many people packing various hardware, although the use of such things was either never done (except the once) and was also never "bragged" about.

I'll find the stat in question tomorrow at work though.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on March 23, 2005, 12:59:14
The article speaks for itself

Quote
Disarming Facts
The road to bad laws is paved with good intentions.

By John R. Lott Jr.

The last ten days have seen three horrific multiple-victim public shootings: the Atlanta courthouse attack that left four murdered; the Wisconsin church shooting, where seven were murdered, and Monday's high-school shooting in Minnesota, where nine were murdered. What can be learned from these attacks? Some take the attacks as confirmation that guns should be completely banned from even courthouses, let alone schools and churches.

The lessons from the courthouse shooting are likely to be different from the other two attacks in that there were armed sheriff's deputies present. Even if civilian gun possession were banned at the courthouse, the officers still had guns. Not only did they fail to stop the attack, they even facilitated it, because the 200-pound former football linebacker who was facing trial for rape was able to take the gun.

Guns are most useful in stopping criminals at a distance. The threat of using the gun against a criminal can allow one to capture him, or at least can cause the criminal to break off his attack. Police have a much more difficult job than civilians. While civilians can use a gun to maximize the distance between themselves and criminals, police cannot be satisfied with simply brandishing a gun and watching the criminal run away. Their job requires physical contact, and when that happens, things can go badly wrong.

My own published research on criminals assaulting police shows that the more likely that an assault will be successful, the more likely criminals will be to make it. The major factor determining success is the relative strengths and sizes of the criminal and officer. In particular, when officer strength and size requirements are reduced because of affirmative action, each one-percent increase in the number of female officers increases the number of assaults on police by 15 to 19 percent. The Atlanta-courthouse shooting simply arose from such a case.

There is a broader lesson to learn from these attacks. All three attacks took place in areas where gun possession by those who did the attack as well as civilians generally was already banned â ” so-called "gun-free safe zones." Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone"?

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

A three-year prison term for violating a gun-free zone represents a real penalty for a law-abiding citizen. Adding three years to a criminal's sentence when he is probably already going to face multiple death penalties or life sentences for a murderous rampage is probably not going to be the penalty that stops the criminal from committing his crime.

Many Americans have learned this lesson the hard way. In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws â ” laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 37 states. Bill Landes and I have examined all the multiple-victim public shootings with two or more victims in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

No other gun-control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.

To the extent attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason. Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect themselves, increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone will is very high.

Unfortunately, the restrictive concealed-handgun law now in effect in Minnesota bans concealed handguns around schools and Wisconsin is one of four states that completely ban concealed handguns, let alone not allowing them in churches. (There was a guard at the Minnesota school and he was apparently the first person killed, but he was also apparently unarmed.) While permitted concealed handguns by civilians are banned in Georgia courthouses, it is not clear that the benefit is anywhere near as large as other places simply because you usually have armed law enforcement nearby. One possibility is to encourage prosecutors and others to carry concealed guns around courthouses.

These restrictions on guns in schools weren't always in place. Prior to the end of 1995 when the Safe School Zone Act was enacted, virtually all the states that allowed citizens, whether they be teacher or principles or parents, to carry concealed handguns let them carry them on school grounds. Even Minnesota used to allow this.

Some have expressed fears over letting concealed permit holders carry guns on school campuses, but over all the years that permitted guns were allowed on school property there is no evidence that these guns were used improperly or caused any accidents.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed â ” even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years. Seldom do cases make the news where public shootings are stopped or mothers use guns to prevent their children from being kidnapped. Few would know that a quarter of the public-school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns before uniformed police could arrive.

In an analysis that I did during 2001 of media coverage of guns, the morning and evening national-news broadcasts on the three main television networks carried almost 200,000 words on contemporaneous gun-crime stories. By comparison, not one segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Newspapers are not much better.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in the United States continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun. Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so can the fact that victims can defend themselves.

Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore that the nations with the highest homicide rates have gun bans. Studies, such as one conducted recently by Jeff Miron at Boston University, which examined 44 countries, find that stricter gun-control laws tend to lead to higher homicide rates. Russia, which has banned guns since the Communist revolution, has had murder rates several times higher than that of the United States; even under the Communists, the Soviet Union's rate was much higher.

Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

â ” John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime.   
     
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200503230744.asp
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 23, 2005, 13:51:16
That was the author's whos work I quoted a few pages back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 24, 2005, 01:15:33
http://www.defianttribe.ca/index2.htm

Check out this website, then start practising showing people how tall the corn grows (the straight armed salute).

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Le Gars on March 24, 2005, 01:54:55
regarding your link TCBF,
This guy went about resolving the situation poorly. If he had followed the instructions given to him and the same thing happened, he would have a stronger argument. I'm also fairly sure that legal documents need to be in black pen, nothing in pencil (or anything that can be changed) holds up in a courtroom that well. Despite his intentions he hid a handgun, a very strictly controlled weapon in Canada already. That makes his life harder because it looks very bad.

edit to address proper person
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 24, 2005, 03:06:26
I'm sceptical of some of these statistics guns, crime, and injury.   It has been "proven" in the US that legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.   This is because criminals avoid using firearms because anybody around them could be armed and ready to shoot back.   However, this has been by comparing results in US states.   With no controlled boarders between states, weapons flow freely and easily between them and this means that a ban in one state does not reduce the availability of firearms to the lower class criminal.   However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.   This has been seen is various countries despite the contrary results seen between US states.

The article refers to some countries with weapons bans having higher incidents of homicide.   Are there statistics to show which countries have effective means to curb illegal trafficking?   How have greater restrictions had an effect in the UK?

I'm not interested in a firearms ban, and I think firearms should be available for sport and as tools.   But I've got a few questions.   Is it possible to restrict the flow of weapons to criminals (to the point that the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) in a society that allows firearms?   I think it is, but it means the law abiding citizens have to put up with things like registering firearms, being licensed for firearms, and meeting certain security criteria.   It also means a few growing pains to get to the end state.  

Another question; can we sufficiently secure our boarder so as to retard the supply of firearms that may be more freely available in the US?   I think we can, but we cannot do it effectively enough to make those firearms unattainable to criminals in Canada.   The Edmonton Journal reported that Roszko smuggled his assault rifle from the US.

So, whatever the end state is, we probably need a continental solution.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 11:39:06
Quote
However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.

Can a country (like Canada) control the flow of anything across its borders? We can't control drugs, we can't control people, and we can't control firearms.

Quote
The article refers to some countries with weapons bans having higher incidents of homicide.   Are there statistics to show which countries have effective means to curb illegal trafficking?

China, North Korea, and Cuba have effective means of curbing trafficking, but do you really want to live there? My point here being that any â Å“openâ ? society, like Canada considers itself, will not be able to curb the trafficking of anything to any significant degree.

Quote
Is it possible to restrict the flow of weapons to criminals (to the point that the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) in a society that allows firearms?

It is possible to limit the flow of LEGAL firearms to criminals, we are doing that already, and we have been for 60 years.

Quote
Another question; can we sufficiently secure our boarder so as to retard the supply of firearms that may be more freely available in the US?   I think we can, but we cannot do it effectively enough to make those firearms unattainable to criminals in Canada.   The Edmonton Journal reported that Roszko smuggled his assault rifle from the US.

Canadians seem to have to have this misguided notion you can just go to Walmart and pick up automatic weapons in the US.   BTW â Å“Assault Rifleâ ? denotes a fully automatic weapon, is that really what he had? Terminology is most important when talking firearms legislation lest fall into the â Å“assault weaponâ ? and â Å“assault pistolâ ? trap.

Quote
So, whatever the end state is, we probably need a continental solution.

The solution is to empower citizens with the means and tools to defend themselves. No amount of banning and registration will reduce violent crime, it hasn't and it won't. The government needs to stop micromanaging our â Å“safetyâ ? and let people take responsibility for their selves. It's that simple, and that complex all at once.

You need to stop looking for that magic solution that will make you safer: it doesn't exist. The danger of violent crime is there and will always be there unless you start implanting emotional control chips in people's heads. All the bans, the registration, and the laws limit only those who are inclined to obey them and therefore provide nothing more then an illusion of safety. The people who don't realize this are the ones who wind up in the newspaper, as victims, with a caption that reads something like â Å“I didn't think it could happen to meâ ?, if they are still alive to tell the tale.

The only real safety you can achieve is self-reliance.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 12:01:35
The solution is to empower citizens with the means and tools to defend themselves.

You need to stop looking for that magic solution that will make you safer: it doesn't exist.

You do see the inherent hypocracy in thse two statements, right?  You espouse that in order to "solve" the problem, you offer the easy "empowering" the citizens, and then say there is no magical solution, while offering said empowerment as a magic solution...

That aside, how on earth can you contend that the American system functions better than our own, given the diversity in usage of firearms in crimes?  The american system just doesn't work.  Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.  (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.  It doesn't count.)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 12:14:26
Quote
You do see the inherent hypocracy in thse two statements, right?   You espouse that in order to "solve" the problem, you offer the easy "empowering" the citizens, and then say there is no magical solution, while offering said empowerment as a magic solution

Did you read my post at all? A â Å“magic solutionâ ? would be some magical law that immediately makes people safer and removes violent crime from society. That's what the anti-gun crowd is looking for and it doesn't exist. The effect of their actions is in fact the reverse of what they want to achieve: it makes us less safe, all the while giving us an illusion of more safety.

Empowering citizens is far from being a magical solution, in fact it would probably be the most difficult solution in our â Å“not my responsilityâ ? society, but at least is logically the only that's a step in the direction we actually wish to travel in.

Quote
That aside, how on earth can you contend that the American system functions better than our own, given the diversity in usage of firearms in crimes?   The american system just doesn't work.   Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.   (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.   It doesn't count.)

What exactly do you mean by â Å“The American Systemâ ?? The one where CCW reduces violent crime? Or maybe how every area and city that bans firearms has a high violent crime rate?

To be honest I don't think our system is that bad either, the only problem I have with it is that it's ultimate goal is to ban all private firearms ownership in Canada; that is the only logical conclusion one can have when analyzing the stupid, harassment measures it imposes on lawful gun-owners.

Give me a program a reduces violent crime and I'll be behind it, I will not support a program who's only goal is to disarm all civilians.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on March 24, 2005, 12:17:09
  
Quote
The american system just doesn't work.   Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.   (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.   It doesn't count.)

Our system was better than theirs well before the gun registry came into play.The National gun registry achieved two goals for the Liberals.It helped secured votes from the radical feminist minority,and it served as a tax grab to fill the Liberal coffers.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 12:31:03

Empowering citizens is far from being a magical solution, in fact it would probably be the most difficult solution in our â Å“not my responsilityâ ? society, but at least is logically the only that's a step in the direction we actually wish to travel in.


Perhaps I misunderstood...  By empowering the citizens, I assumed you were leaning towards the right to bear arms, as per US Constitution, and an increase of legal firearms in Canada.  I get the idea that we're both arguing the same side of the coin regardless.  ;)

I do agree that the gun registry isn't the way to go, but I don't believe that increasing the amount of legal weapons would do any good towards reducing gun crimes.

I may have to re-read the legislation regarding the NGR, but I don't recall its ultimate goal being the removal of all privately owned firearms...  Do you believe this is where it's headed?

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 12:43:11
Quote
Perhaps I misunderstood...  By empowering the citizens, I assumed you were leaning towards the right to bear arms, as per US Constitution, and an increase of legal firearms in Canada.


What I'm arguing for is that I should be able to purchase a firearm for self defense purposes. I'm also arguing for CCW in Canada. As for an increase in firearms ownership, well that's up to people to decide now isn't it?

Quote
I do agree that the gun registry isn't the way to go, but I don't believe that increasing the amount of legal weapons would do any good towards reducing gun crimes.

Please support that belief with facts. I think enough proof of the reverse has already been posted here. Remember, it's not about increasing the number of guns, it's about empowering those who wish to do so to use them for self-defense. You do realize that self-defense is essentially illegal in Canada right? You also realize that the problem is "violent crime", not "gun crime" right?

Here's an exercise for you: right down all your beliefs about guns and gun laws and then try to find evidence for and against them, then post you findings here. I think you will find the facts go against what the liberals have indoctrinated the population to believe is â Å“common senseâ ? about guns and gun ownership.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on March 24, 2005, 12:50:39

Quote
I may have to re-read the legislation regarding the NGR, but I don't recall its ultimate goal being the removal of all privately owned firearms...   Do you believe this is where it's headed?

Absolutely!A logical step forward in a Socialist Dictatorship would be to remove any means for dissent,so as to establish Authoritarian control over the population.
Incidents like the Mayorthorpe shootings provide plenty of ammo for vocal anti-gun groups and the Liberal media to call for even tighter gun control.in reality incidents such as the RCMP shootings provide evidence that the NGR has accomplised squat,but Left wing activists have a knack for manipulation of the truth to suit their own agenda.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 24, 2005, 13:12:31
Criminal Code: Part 1 Section 34 (1)
Self-defence against unprovoked assault   34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification   (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

     I'm remaining neutral on the debate. I enjoy reading the various opinions and will provide some clarity when appropriate. For instance, I have been training civillians in Canada to carry handguns for "the protection of life" for 15 years. My certification gets them a permit from their CPFO to do so, under very specific conditions of-course and directly related to their occupations, bank guards etc. Numbers? Over 2500 personally, 13,000 within my previous organization alone. ( Including annual refresher training)

     The mechanisms within the law for CCW's already exist, in fact are in use, again under very limited circumstances. The various regulatory bodies have the power to decide where they are applicable. The only way to challenge this status quo would be through the court system. No political will exists to change where we are at now.

Stay Safe
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 13:16:34
What I'm arguing for is that I should be able to purchase a firearm for self defense purposes.

While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.

I'm also arguing for CCW in Canada.

Again, for you, maybe, but not the average wacko gun-nut in Canada, like the clowny in the link earlier.

Please support that belief with facts. I think enough proof of the reverse has already been posted here.

I agree, but common sense supercedes data, in this case. If you allow most Canadians to arm themselves for SD purposes, including CCW, some of the people you arm will be dangerously irresponsible or just plain nuts.

You also realize that the problem is "violent crime", not "gun crime" right?

I completely agree. Although it's a cliche, it's accurate: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't want to make it legal for those 'people' to arm themselves with concealed handguns or assault rifles.
in reality incidents such as the RCMP shootings provide evidence that the NGR has accomplised squat,but Left wing activists have a knack for manipulation of the truth to suit their own agenda.

No argument here. I don't have a objection to a registry in general, but I have huge problems with the current one.





Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Highland Lad on March 24, 2005, 13:29:25
No argument here. I don't have a objection to a registry in general, but I have huge problems with the current one.

I couldn't agree more - and I was involved in setting up the current system. (before you all flay me alive, note that I did NOT say that I set it up... I was a consultant, and our advice was tossed...)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 13:42:47
The problem with these uber-threads that we create is that the threads themselves are so long that nobody goes back to read the previous pages, when an issue may have been dealt with or excellent source material may have been presented.  Anyways, I dredged up my previous information from 6 or so pages ago - which I hope addresses two lines of arguement that I've seen on this thread (that guns are responsible for crime and that arming people means more risk to society):

Quote
"Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.  Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....

But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.  The National Academy of Sciences concluded, "Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries".  Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.  To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.

More data separating guns from murder rates come from Robert J Mundt's study of homicide rates in twenty-five U.S. cities versus twenty-five similar-size Canadian cities.  It revealed that among non-Hispanic Caucasians, murder rates were the same, despite the availability of handguns in the United States versus their longtime ban in Canada.

A classic demonstration that ready availability of guns does not, in itself, raise murder rates is a comparison of Switzerland, Japan, and England.  Every able-bodied Swiss man is required to keep at home, for life, a fully automatic rifle or pistol plus ammunition.  Yet among 6 million people privately owning 600,000 assault rifles, half a million pistols, and thousands of other guns, murders are extremely rare.  Even gun suicides are low.  Japan, with no guns, and Switzerland, which is heavily armed, have identical murder rates, 1.20 and 1.23 homicides per 100,000, respectively (less than half of the Swiss murders were shootings).  England's homicide rate, also with most guns banned, was 1.35 per 100,000.  In short, both in America and internationally, the presence of guns does not correlate with the murder rates....

When I started work on this book, I held the opinion that laws restricting handgun ownership were vital to curbing murder in America.  It only makes sense, doesn't it?  Not when one knows how men who decide to murder think."

Michael P. Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence; pp 119-121.

The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?  The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.  And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles [or concealed handguns], right?

Quote
"Economist John R Lott Jr., surveyed the data on guns and murder from several recent years.  He focused on the thirty-one states that have nondiscretionary (also known as "shall-issue") concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws.  These states issue to any nonfelon who passes their safety and legal tests a license to carry a concealed handgun.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans now legally carry concealed weapons on this basis.  Lott examined the records of fifty-four thousand such licences from 1977 to 1994 and analyzed dozens of variables relating to violent crime.  He intended his research to answer the question,"Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime?  Or dies it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?"  The title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime. may seem to provide the answer, but that would oversimplify the issue.

Lott found that, contrary to popular notions, even after more than a decade, no CCW permit holder had been convicted of having used her or his gun to murder anyone.  Instead, many permit-holding women escaped being murdered (or raped) because of the use of their guns.  For example, women who did not resist violent aggressors were injured 2.5 times more than women who used guns to resist them.  Further, resistance with a gun led to women being seriously injured only one-quarter as often as did resistance without a gun.  Polls reveal that Americans defend themselves with guns between 760,000 and 3.6 million times yearly!  These figures coincide with a much broader study by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology who also spent several years researching the effects of guns on enhancing versus preventing violence.

In his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Kleck reports that private citizens in America use guns 783,000 times (handguns 645,000 times) yearly to protect themselves from felonious assaults.  That breaks down to once every 48 seconds.  Meanwhile, criminals use guns against victims 660,000 times yearly.  One-third of randomly polled Americans considered citizens armed with guns to be the best defense against criminals.  Roughly half of all gun owners said that their firearms were primarily for protection.  Indeed, the FBI reports between 1992 and 1996, private citizens shot and killed 1,382 violent offenders, a total close to (68 percent of) the 2,035 felons shot by police, to protect themselves.  What do police think of this?  Lott cites two major polls showing that more than 93 percent of responding police officers consider private ownership of firearms necessary for the average citizen to protect himself or herself.

Surprisingly, there exists a huge difference in risk to bystanders depending on whether a police officer or a private citzen discharges his or her firearm in self-defense against a felonious assault.  Carol Ruth Silver and Donald B Kates Jr., found that police shooting at suspects were 5.5 times MORE likely than private citizens to shoot an innocent bystander.  By contrast, only about 28 mistaken intruders are shot per year.  Many of these shootings result when a gun owner keeps a firearm net to the bed and fires before waking up fully.

Lot explains what the ability to protect oneself means in regard to murder:
"Violent crimes are 81 percent higher in states without nondiscretionary laws.  For murder, states that ban the concealed carrying of guns have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with the most liberal concealed carry laws.
Overall, my conclusion is that criminals as a group tend to behave rationally - when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed....
Guns also appear to be the great equalizer among the sexes.  Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women.  One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men."


Lott reports that studies showing that guns kept in the home lead to more homicides than would otherwise occur were flawed (or fudged).  Instead, Lott concludes, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent drop in violent crime.  He notes that "the passage of nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws in states that did not have them in 1992 would have reduced murder in that year by 1,839; rapes by 3,727; aggravated assaults by 10,900; robberies by 61,064....The total value of this reduction in crime in 1992 dollars would have been $7.6 billion." (Lott also notes that this decline would have been at the cost of perhaps nine additional accidental deaths in all concealed handgun states.)  Ultimately, Lott was able to answer - and to successfully defend his answer scientifically against critics - the question his research originally asked.  "Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives?  The answer is yes, it will."

Michael Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence: pp 121-123.

Read the above and come to your own conclusions....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 14:06:03
While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.

Well, geez Caesar - who gets defined as a Yahoo in your books.   When we start applying and denying rights in the country based on your perception of a "yahoo", things should turn out alright, I guess....

Your setting up a strawman argument if you think that Carry-permits are given to anyone off the street in the States.   As far as I can tell, they have to go through a vetting process, just as we do in Canada to acquire a ownership and acquisition certificate (and which nobody is arguing against).

Quote
I agree, but common sense supercedes data, in this case. If you allow most Canadians to arm themselves for SD purposes, including CCW, some of the people you arm will be dangerously irresponsible or just plain nuts.

What are you talking about?   Common sense supercedes data?   Give your head a shake.   If law-abiding Canadians, who've proven through a vetting process that they can responsibly carry a firearm, are given access to such a permit, then dangerous criminals will get guns this way as well?   If you haven't realized it, Rosko in Mayerthorpe (or the countless other criminals who've used firearms) didn't exactly get them through legal means.

Quote
I completely agree. Although it's a cliche, it's accurate: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't want to make it legal for those 'people' to arm themselves with concealed handguns or assault rifles.

See the data I've provided above - Switzerland arms every male with a handgun and an assault rifle and they have lower levels of violent crime then us or the US.   If "those people" (I am assuming you mean criminals) want to arm themselves to commit a crime, taking a gun off of an armed citizen is probably the last place they'd look - they can easily go to the black market or get them through other illegal means.

I'll come down on rw4th side and agree that it is up to the individual to secure himself against the acts of others - the police are only a reactionary element (they arrest people after they've committed a crime) and their limited numbers (combined with a weak Justice system) reduces their value as a general deterrence.   When it comes to defending yourself, your family, or your property, you have only yourself to rely on.

Caesar, you're from BC - I guarantee you that the home-invasion problem that was rampant a while back would have been much less of a problem if the thieves knew there was a good chance of getting two to the center-of-mass.   Criminals, for the most part, are rational; they don't commit crimes unless they are confident that they can get away with them.   The data I posted above clearly backs this claim up.

As for the loonies, they are going to get their weapons regardless of the legislation we enact.   Perhaps if law-abiding citizens are in a better position to defend themselves, the violence of these people will be limited - how to you think Columbine, the school shooting in Australia, or the latest shooting in Minnesota would have turned out if someone in the school was armed and prepared to defend the children against a psycho hellbent on going out causing the most carnage possible.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Le Gars on March 24, 2005, 14:12:08
Infanteer, good posts. Is there some Canadian data you could direct me towards? And this is not indicative of my personal thoughts, but do you feel it necessary to have a CCW in Canada?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 24, 2005, 14:21:25
www.guncontrol.ca

www.nfa.ca

two sides of the coin, a lot of info

Stay Safe
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 24, 2005, 14:29:01
While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.

It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 14:36:31
The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.   That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.   If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?

As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.

The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"??? ;) ) is fine.   Murder rate.   Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.   This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?

I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.

T

P.S. I hate posting from work...   Never have time to google the stats.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 14:44:11
Dig through the last 5-10 pages of this thread and you'll find tons of data that pertains to Canada - it's all been dredged up.

As for a CCW, as I've said before, I'm not a sport shooter or a enthusiast.   I have a PAL that I got by knowing a Sergeant who let us challenge the test and I own four rifles that I inherited (and have never shot).   My interest in this is minimal.

However, my reading of the whole matter, in part spurred by some of the claims I've seen here, has led me to conclude that allowing citizens, after proper vetting and licensing, to carry a sidearm would be an overall beneficial thing for Canada.   The only people who have to lose by such a policy are criminals who know that almost every Canadian is an easy target.

Case in point: I was strolling through Vancouver the other day (downtown, not the skids) and, while waiting at an intersection I witnessed two drug-dealers get into an altercation over who was able to sell crack on that corner (exact words).   These guys just pounded on eachother and moved onto a foot pursuit when one ran away.   Now, witnessing this, I came to the uneasy conclusion that I would be unable to defend myself or others very effectively if:

1) One of the drug dealers got violent with myself or another citizen instead.
2) The altercation involved weapons and was an extreme danger to innocent bystanders.

Canada is a fairly tame and decent society and a CCW (or using a firearm or anything else to defend oneself) isn't going to be necessary for 99.99% of the time - but it's like insurance; it's useless until you need it.   I can think of countless stories I've read in the paper about home-invasions, swarmings in the streets, random assaults, etc, etc where the victim having the means to defend themselves would have probably prevented the crime.   I feel that teaching citizens to defend themselves, of which the ability to carry a weapon is just a part of, would go far in empowering people to take responsibility for their own well-being instead of assuming that someone else will do it for them when crunch-time comes and you're in a dangerous situation.

It is said that guns don't kill people, people kill people - and the evidence clearly supports the idea that violence in society is a social phenomenon that is unrelated to what people are armed with (the most violent societies do it with spears and clubs).   The notion that allowing a CCW would lead to more criminals with guns is stupid - any citizen, with the proper vetting, can go out and buy a gun if they wish; I fail to see the link between legal gun-ownership and illegal gun-ownership.   Rather then leading to more criminals with gun access (which is just silly), allowing Canadians to arm themselves will, I believe, help to introduce a reasonable deterrent value in Canadian society to those who would rob or assault others.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 24, 2005, 14:49:18
Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.   It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.   How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?   Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?

National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.   Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?   It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.

I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.
I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.   Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 14:55:34
My view that self-defense is in effect illegal is based on the fact that the tools for effective self-defense are themselves denied to me. So if someone attacks me using a gun or a knife and I'm a law-abiding citizen, I might be armed with my keys or a flashlight, or in the extreme a pocketknife (and even that is risking jail time in a lot of places). Neither scenario paints a pretty picture for my survival. It's like putting you in the ring with a pro-boxer, telling you're allowed to defend yourself against him, but can't use your arms or hands.

And yes, I am aware of the existing CCW legislation. Outside of the permits for armored car guy, the personal protection permits, what few there are, are issued to people who's lives have already threatened or who have been assaulted (and are presumably not dead). The requirements for them involve proving that â Å“your life is in jeopardy and the police cannot protect youâ ?. Something which should be simple to do by quoting crime statistics, but apparently the government doesn't like admitting it can't protect people until after they have been attacked.

Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 14:59:19
Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.

How so?  I agree with the second sentence, but not the first...

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 15:05:11
And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.   That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.   If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?

You're right - and I fully articulated (some pages back) that the level of gun-ownership is irrelevant in the amount of violent crime.   As the data also shows, crime is based on social probelms, not functional ones (what kinds of armaments are in society).   The whole notion that arming a populace .

I guess the ultimate argument is whether one believes that, as a society, Canada is responsible enough to allow its citizens access to firearms.   Are we a Japan or a Switzerland, which are, as Dare points out, those "that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them", or are we a Somalia or a Pakistan, surviving by some law of the jungle, that need intervention to prevent society from tearing itself apart?

Quote
As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.

No, but for some reason, people seem to assume that more guns = more acts of violence with guns.   This is the myth I'm trying to dispel.   What difference does it make on the crime rate if people are aloud to have guns in their home or if they are able to carry one on their belt?

Quote
The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"??? ;) ) is fine.   Murder rate.   Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.   This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?

I posted all the stats a few pages back, have a look-see.

-   Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

-   In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.   How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)


As well, the stats that Ghiglieri uses go beyond murder - for example, women who defend themselves (usually with a firearm) are far less likely to be raped by an attacker.   

I'm wondering if using stats of guns used in the commission of a crime is a bit of a tangent - unless the gun is used to kill someone (or attempt to) then what is the point of using the stat as a basis for gun control.   People will respond the same to a robbery whether the criminal has a gun or a knife or a paper that says "I have a bomb in my jacket" - the weapon used seems rather irrelevant, as the end result is the same.

My overall aim with all of this is to show that regardless of whether Canadians have firearms or not, regardless of whether they are allow to carry a pistol around or not, crimes will still be committed in Canada.   But, going under the notion that criminals are (for the most part) rational actors who will commit a crime knowing they can get away with it, I believe that giving law-abiding citizens more liberal access to firearms (with a CCW) will have an impact in the attitude of criminals.

I could care less what criminals use - a crime is a crime and, if targeted, I am affected adversely regardless or how it is commissioned.   If I, as a citzen, am given access and the ability to defend myself, then perhaps it can make a difference.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 15:12:13
Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.   It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.   How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?   Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?

National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.   Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?   It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.

I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:

1)   That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.

2)   That increased access to firearms for law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in a society.

Which one are we arguing for/against here?

Quote
I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.   Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.

Unless we plan on getting the US to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, we may have to find our own solution.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 15:21:19
Ok, I tried to reply to Infanteer's post (the one where he told me to give my head a shake), but my reply crashed and burned once I hit 'post'. Here are the Cole's Notes from that:

As far as I can tell, they have to go through a vetting process, just as we do in Canada to acquire a ownership and acquisition certificate (and which nobody is arguing against).  

Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?

What are you talking about?   Common sense supercedes data?

I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.

If you haven't realized it, Rosko in Mayerthorpe (or the countless other criminals who've used firearms) didn't exactly get them through legal means.

Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in   Alberta either.

I guarantee you that the home-invasion problem that was rampant a while back would have been much less of a problem if the thieves knew there was a good chance of getting two to the center-of-mass.  

According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.

Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 15:30:20
Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.

They must have access to different studies...  ;)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 15:38:21
It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.

I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on March 24, 2005, 15:58:05
Quote
Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in  Alberta either.

Probably not...

The NRA Magazine though (I am not a member) has a section every month dedicated to examples where armed citizens successfully defended themselves, stopped a crime, etc., so it does happen...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 24, 2005, 15:59:17
Here's an EMAIL I read at work. Pretty interesting read with what seems to be some pretty stupid mistakes on the governments behalf.


Gun Registration- Canadian Tax Dollars At Work

[Canada's billion-dollar gun registry employs 1'800 bureaucrats, who spend their days tracking down duck hunters and farmers. By comparison, Canada hired only 130 additional customs officers to protect our borders after sept 11, 2001. Here are a few more eye-rolling facts about the gun registry, mostly unearthed by MP Garry Breitkreuz from Saskatchewan...]

Internal audits show that government bureaucrats have a 71% error rate in licensing gun owners and a 91% error rate in registering the guns themselves.

The government admits it registered 718.414 guns without serial numbers. That means either the bureaucrats forgot to write them down, or the guns didn't have serial numbers in the first place. That's as useless as registering a vehicle simply as "a blue ford explorer"
To these gun owners, the government has sent little stickers with made-up serial numbers ont hem, that gun owners are suposed to stick on their guns. And everybody at the gun registry is praying that crimals who steal those guns won't peel off the stickers.
Some 222'911 guns were registered with the same make and serial numbers as other guns. That's not just useless thats dangerous. If someone else with "a blue ford explorer" is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP.

Out of 4,114,624 gun registeration certificates, 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries-but the bureaucrats issued them anyways.

In the beginning, the governments firearms licences had photographs on them- just like drivers licences do. But after hundreds of gun owners were sent licences with someone else's photo on them, the government decided to scrap the photos on the licences all together, rather than fix the problem.

Private details about every gun owner in the country are put on one computer database, calleed CPIC. That's valuable information to a peeping tom, or a criminal.   The CPIC computer has been breached 221 times since the mid-1990s, according to the RCMP.

In August of 2002, the   gun registry sen t a letter to Hulbert Orser, demanding he register his guns, and warning himt hat it is a crime not to do so. Orser died in 1981.

Garth Rizzuto is not dead, but he is getting older- he applied for a gun licence 21/2 years ago. He hasn't been rejected. They're still "processing" his application.

Some 304,375 people were allowed to register guns even though they didn't have a licence permitting them to own a gun.

On march 1, 2002, bureaucrats registered Richard Buckley's soldering "gun" - thats right, a "heat gun" used for soldering tin and lead. No word yet on Buckley's staple guns or glue guns.

Some 15,381 gun owners were licenced with no indication of having taken the gun saftey courses - one of the main arguments for licensing.

the government has spent $29 million on advertising for the gun registry - including $4.5 million to Group-Action, the Liberal ad firm now under RCMP investigation.

end


Regardless if you think registering firearms is a good idea or not, those are some pretty big   frig ups by the government.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 16:05:08
Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?

What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?   Nothing at all.   "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.   Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.

Quote
I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.

Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument  ::).   If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?

Quote
Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in   Alberta either.

No.   But you seem to be arguing that prohibiting a CCW will save us from "Wackos" - clearly, they can get all the firepower they want.

Quote
According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.

Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.

Mind you, the town I'm from up North had a case where a senior citzen who blasted a home invader (1 of 4 youth) who broke into his house with a 12-gauge.   Age doesn't seem to be a determining factor in who will use a firearm (among other things) to defend themselves.   Remember the senior in the Lower Mainland (Langley, IIRC) who bludgeoned a crack-head who broke into his home with a pistol - he could have turned the thing around if he wanted, couldn't he have?

Quote
Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.

Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.   I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.

Ultimately, the facts must be relied on.   Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?   I don't get how you see a CCW as a way of increasing the crime rate.   Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 17:05:33
What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?   Nothing at all.   "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.   Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.

ok, I'll go step by step:

1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?

2- If you concede #1, then by allowing concealed weapons, you allow some people to carry weapons who really shouldn't. Those people now have the means to inflict great harm on the general population. Yes, one could beat someone to death with a chair, and I don't propose we all stand, but firearms are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

3- I don't see that there is a great need to allow concealed weapons. If we had an epidemic of violent crime in Canada, then I could see the argument, but we don't. You might be able to convince me that allowing concealed weapons wouldn't be terrible, but you won't be able to convince me that it would be beneficial. That's the difference.

Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument ::).   If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that data can be misconstrued. The fact is we don't have data that illustrates what impact allowing concealed weapons will have on Canadaian society, because we have no data that relates exactly to that. Stats and data measure what has happended, not what will happen. Extrapolating what will happen in Canada based on data from other countries takes a leap of faith. I feel that Canada's society is unique, and that allowing CCW et all would be detrimental at worst or a 'push' at best.

Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.

The threat of armed invasion into your home is extremely low. Besides, firearms are legal, I'm refering to concealed weapons, not legally obtained firearms. If you shoot an intruder, the law may come down on you, but I won't.

Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.   I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.

I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?

Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?  

No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.

Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?

Sure they were, but how is allowing you to carry a firearm going to protect us from a gun wielding criminal? Are we to now rely on Joe Citizen to gun down criminals? I thought we had a police force here in Canada? If you feel so threatened by roving bands of armed criminals to necessitate arming yourself, then that's another issue. I don't see how arming ourselves will improve things. We have a pretty low violent crime rate, and in most cases, unless you involve yourself in criminal activity, you are not likely to fall victim to violent crime. Again, you might be able to convince me that we would not be drastically worse off by allowing concealed weapons, but I fail to see how it will improve things.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 24, 2005, 17:23:36
Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.

If a right not to be deprived of life without due process and compelling reason is to have any meaning, the right must be inseparable from the right of self-defence.

I frankly do not care what the opinions of police are regarding ownership of firearms.  I pay taxes toward police forces to contribute toward safeguarding my rights, but I do not (pragmatism compels that I should not) yield unto them exclusive powers to safeguard my rights.  If one wishes to be a police officer, one accepts the risks.  If one desires to be a soldier, one accepts the risks.  No private or government agency can or will guarantee to have Johnny-on-the-spot at the exact moment my rights are threatened.

I also do not care whether anyone fears an armed populace.  If someone fears excitable boys, it is his responsibility to arm himself or not.  To assume the power to deny me a reasonable tool of self-defence because of vague worries is both arrogant, and immoral from the perspective of respect of the cornerstone human right.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 17:38:12
Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.

I own a pistol and a rifle, and regardless of the law there is nothing stopping me from going out, getting a case of ammo, and going on rampage. According to you any government designed vetting process would be flawed. So I might be wacko then, and while we're at it why not just take away all my legally owned guns to make you feel safer.

You do see where this has a major flaw don't you? The only people that you can prevent from owning and carrying firearms are the people who would be inclined to respect the law in the first place. To feel safer you are essentially punishing your allies in your quest for the illusion of safety.

You need to get your head out of the sand and realize that the bad people who want to do you harm, do not care about laws. If they want a gun they will get one, it will NOT be registered and they will NOT go out and get a license to carry it. No amount of restricting my right to self-defense to make you fell safer will change that.

As for the opinion of police officers, it's sad to say but police officers are just as misinformed as the average citizens when it comes to legal gun ownership facts. They want to feel safer in their jobs, and they have the same misguided notion that banning private firearms ownership somehow reduces criminal firearms use. They get their information from the same liberal media outlets you do, and are fed the â Å“party lineâ ? by their politically inclined leadership.

Does the though of people with guns make you feel uncomfortable? If it does then I think that there is a deeper issue you need to deal with. You have to come to terms with the fact that the world you live in is NOT safe and that people DO want to hurt you and take your things. The first step is to let go of the illusion that you are safe, the second is to understand how you can actually achieve some measure of personal safety. There is major difference between the society in which we do live and the one in which we wished we lived in.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 17:45:05
Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.

This is the basis of your argument, and the rest of your post merely expands on this basic point, so I will respond to this....

I agree. We differ, it seems, only on what is a reasonable threat, and what is a reasonable response to that threat. I contend that, although you have the right to defend your life with as much force as necessary (a belief not necessaritly held by our Government), you do not have the right carry a handgun in public 'just in case'. Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine. As well, if you want to put a double-tap into the centre of mass on some shitrat that threatens you and your family in your home, you'll get no argument from me.

I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do :P)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 17:53:12
Getting better, Caesar - at least I can see where you are coming from now - but still:

1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?

Your argument is unfounded due to the fact that you are basing it on the assumption on government vetting capabilities.   This is like saying "The government, based upon its track record, can not properly decide who should be a soldier and be given access to military weapons - by letting the government select soldiers, they are letting wacko's into the military and putting me at risk."

As well, I don't think the argument that the government would prove to be inadequate at vetting CCW applicants is a particularly good one.   As the Lott study pointed to, in 25 years of studying CCW holders in the United States, not once was one charged with using a concealed weapon to kill someone.   Unless you feel Canadians will be more prone to committing crime, then your assertion above seems to be proven as groundless.

Quote
I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?

I think I do remember it - but I've seen other Law Enforcement studies that point the other way.   They are quoted in the Ghiglieri excerpt I've posted above:

What do police think of this?   Lott cites two major polls showing that more than 93 percent of responding police officers consider private ownership of firearms necessary for the average citizen to protect himself or herself.

  Anyways, as Brad says, who cares what the Police think; we're not discussing criminals here.   We're discussing the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly carry their firearms.

Quote
No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.

Again, your basing your assumption on "an increased likelihood of people carrying concealed firearms" which has been shown to be unfounded and groundless.

1)   How does a legal right to carry a weapon (concealed or not) affect those who are doing it illegally anyways?

2)   How does a responsible citzen carrying a firearm decrease YOUR security?   As Ghiglieri has shown, a CCW holder has never been charged (over the 25 years of the study) with using his or her weapon to kill someone and that you are 5 times likely to get shot by a Cop using his pistol in the line of duty then you are by a citzen using one to defend themselves.

Brad has shown that, in a philosophical approach, your argument is invalid.   The facts on CCW ownership seem to indicate that statistically, your argument is invalid as well.   I think you're mistaken by linking legal CCW with criminals - they are two separate issues.

Quote
I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do )
Is this for me - I feel I've responded to every response you've posted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 18:11:51
Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.
Actually, I would sum up my position like this:

1-The current Gun Registry is utter shyte and does nothing to increase protection for Canadians.

2- I fully support private gun ownership as it has existed for decades.

3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so. Again, if I felt there was a need for good people to carry handguns due to a high probablity of violent crime being committed against them, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as my dillusions, you are mistaken. I am fully aware that bad guys don't follow the law, and that I am vulnerable to their attacks. But you know what? That's life. I would rather live in a society where people don't have to grab their Glock as their heading out the door to get some milk.....actually I do live in that society. If anyone here is delusional, it's those that feel that they are under such threat that they feel the need to pack heat in public. You want guns in your home? Go ahead - I fully support you. Again, if you shoot some meth freak as he slips into your bedroom at 4 am with a butcher knife, fire away pal. No problem here. Just keep you guns off the street.

No Infanteer, that wasn't directed at you. It was an off the cuff remark at people only reading the last page of a 45 page thread.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 24, 2005, 18:19:10
>Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine.

The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable.  I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 18:25:07
The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable. I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.

Would you have us all armed to prevent the violation of this basic right, regardless of the threat level? What would be considered reasonable deterence? A handgun? An SMG? GPMG? Tactical Nuke? Ridiculous, I know, but where do you draw the line? Who decides what is reasonable and for whom? What is reasonable in Vancouver or Toronto may not be reasonable in Grand Priarie.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 18:25:53
It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.   If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 18:33:41
Quote
3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so.

And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.

As for the rest of your post, almost every day I read the newspaper or listen to the news and hear of an incident that could have been prevented had a conscientious citizen been able to defend him or her self. Maybe we just don't read the same news.

How about this, pick statement 1 or 2

1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 18:38:38
It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.   If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?

I said you MIGHT be able to convince me, not that I was convinced that allowing it would not be adverse.

Anyway, if the problem is the threat of violent crime and the attempted denial of the right to life, I don't see how allowing CWs effectively address' that problem.

We have definite differences of opinion here, and we're not going anywhere. Why don't we discuss how we would determine who is allowed to carry a CW, or how you would change the current gun registry.....

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 24, 2005, 18:42:21
I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.
You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 18:48:00
And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.

Agreed, we aren't doing that now, but 'addressing' the issue with ineffective means is not a solution either. Just as the Gun Registry is not effective at addressing the 'problem' it was desigened to address.

How about this, pick statement 1 or 2

1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.


Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 18:58:43
Quote
Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.

Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 19:06:28
You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?


Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:

Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.   You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.

rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 19:12:15
Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?

Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 19:34:06
Quote
Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?

I didn't say it was a right, what I'm saying is that if I want to carry a firearm to defend myself, what right do YOU have to prevent me.

The state does not confer freedom onto us, as people we are all equal and willfully choose to give up some of our freedom to live in a â Å“civilizedâ ? society. We create laws to limit out freedom in various ways that we deem beneficial to this civilized society (you can't kill people, you can't take their stuff, etc...). Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so.

Do we need to have laws governing use and ownership of firearms? Yeah, probably, but whenever we want to prevent someone from doing something we need to be able to justify it.

You want to prevent me from carrying firearm, as opposed to imposing a milder restriction (law) that would require me to be certified to do so. The onus should therefore be on you to prove that my freedom should be limited. It should not be on me to prove that I deserve my freedom.

So how would society be improved by preventing concealed carry of handguns by certified civilians?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 24, 2005, 19:35:33
Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:

Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.  You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.

rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.


*Negatory*. The civilians choose everything. The laws that govern the military are written and chosen by civilians. They can rewrite laws. They can send you anywhere they damn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS. The military generally "decides how to do it", because the civilians give them that level of autonomy but don't think that's always the case. You've proved my point once you said "The civies tell us what to do". The point is the comparative scope proportionally to the level of responsibility required in life or death situations. Which do you believe requires the greatest responsibility? Carrying a gun or directing a nation to attack another nation militarily? If it is proper training, I can understand, but it does not seem as though that is the case. It -seems- as though you do not trust the moral inclinations of the Canadian population as a whole or individually. If you do not trust the people you work for, why do you work for them? I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 19:56:38
Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so.

The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response.

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.

They can send you anywhere they darn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS.  

Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.

I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.

Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 20:05:54
Quote
We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.

The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

Quote
The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way.

Show me the proof that indicates that a legally carried handgun poses a significant threat of being used in an illegal way? It seems we already established that empirical evidence points to the contrary. Do you dispute this?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 24, 2005, 20:20:40
The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 20:21:04
The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.


Isn't freedom itself a philosophical belief?  How does not allowing you to carry a concealed firearm infringe upon your rights?

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 24, 2005, 20:32:47
The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response.

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.
The problem with your points are as follows:
1) All current firearms that are used illegally were once legally owned firearms. Even in the most strict gun control societies, you can get guns. Do we ban all tools that can be used in an illegal way?
2) If a person (who is not law abiding)  is trying to kill you with a gun, and another (who happens to be law abiding) is not permitted one... The issue is not overkill, it is underkill.

Quote
Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.
As I said. The civilians wrote the laws that ultimately birthed Or Bat. They don't need to go there to have their order followed. They created the Canadian Forces and write the rules for which it is run by. Tasks are delegated. They give the orders, you follow them and your commander follows them. The Prime Minister can give orders anywhere he is.  You don't have to argue this point. It's a fact. Wether you choose to acknowledge it as fact is an entirely seperate issue.
Quote
Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).
Who are the elected leaders elected by?  I think perhaps this arguement here comes down to who you, personally, think is a "Wacko"? Then, of course, it filters upstream to a common sanctified definition of what a "Wacko" is. Who chooses this communal definition of who can or can not have a gun? What's to say your definition of a "Wacko" is better than my definition? So far, what I have read, leads me to believe your view of what this definition is, seems to be quite encompassing. You even seem to have more than one version of a "Wacko". A little clarity might be helpful.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 24, 2005, 20:33:28
The argument is going to lose its value if its based on philosophical beliefs - people have argued for racial purity, segregation, or economic equality based upon philosophical beliefs.   I think the litmus test is to apply your philosophical beliefs to a set of principles that exist within a Liberal Democracy.   Obviously, gun ownership does not exist specifically within these principles, but there are other, more broader principles (which Brad Sallows has touched upon on multiple occasions).

Caesar has stated that he could care less about owning a firearm or using it to defend oneself in ones home - fair enough; something we agree on.   However, what are you grounding this on?   I have my own ideas, but I'm curious about yours (and Torlyn's).

Is there really a difference between allowing this in the home and allowing it in the public?   Is public/private a legitimate divide for this right/responsibility.   Obviously, it is in some instances (putting up pornographic pictures is suitable in private, but not in public; playing loud music isn't suitable in either if it bothers everybody) but I'm unsure if carrying a weapon in public falls into this category.

If I carried a big sword on my back, would you be equally disturbed (ie: is this issue only about firearms)?

Since this contention is basically is an issue of philosophy, I'm trying to see what the philosophy is and if it is consistent with a general principle of liberal democratic freedom (ie: you tell me what I can and can't do).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 24, 2005, 20:38:33
The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

Sure you do. Philosophy means the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy is logic and reality. The question is, what is wise, logical and real? Facts, definitely are a major componant in all three.

EDIT: Typo
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 24, 2005, 20:49:48
You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.

Ceasar, now you're avoiding the question, please answer it.

You cannot create laws based on what you think others should and should not do, you need to have some kind of real justification. If you impose laws based on beliefs without any supporting evidence, then legally and morally you are on the same level as those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.

I should not be prevented from doing something because it goes against your philosophy, just like you should not be stopped from doing something because I disagree with it.

I don't need you to agree with concealed carry legislation, hell as human beings we do not need to agree on everything to get along. You just need to recognize that you have no right to restrict my freedom in any area without just cause.

Please show cause on more then a philosophical level.

We made homosexuality illegal because we believed it was better for society. When we realized it was a mistake, we removed/adjusted laws. We passed draconian gun laws thinking it would make us safer. They don't, so why do we still cling to them?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 24, 2005, 21:07:05
So the compelling argument against carrying handguns is "Because I say it's unnecessary".  I always feel better knowing my freedoms are limited for such important reasons.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 21:28:05
Infanteer, Caesar, rw4th, et al:

We seem to be having a few running debates here, and we're starting to go in circles.  Now, in order to have a proper debate, we must first define the terms, as it were.  It seems fairly obvious that Infanteer and rw4th believe that the law should be changed to allow for the carrying of concealed weapons, whereas Caesar and I do not.

rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been.  You are not understanding.  You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.  When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.  If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.  It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.  As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.  It DOES NOT reduce crime.  MErely relocates it.

In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.  We all agree on that.  rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.  You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?  If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?  By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.

As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.  Do I have house insurance?  Yes.  Car insurance?  Ditto.  Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?  No.  Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?  Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.  AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.  Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance  might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.

I agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.  During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.  In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.  Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?  An unloaded weapon will never go off.  A loaded one always has that potential.

I think that the difference is that with a weapon in the house, used in the defence of the house (home invasion, what have you) would be acceptable.  IF someone's invaded it, they have commited the actus reas required to warrant the discharge of said firearm in their vicinity.  There is a small likelihood that you will hit anyone else.  Houses have walls.  :)  A caveat to this though, how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)  In public it is another matter.  Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm.  Immediately, the situation has been escalated.  Now, say the druggie has a firearm.  He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to.

So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.  Think someone's gonna die?  I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.  You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.  The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.  I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.  For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies. 

Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.  It just changes the location.  It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.  Are there still hookers?  Yup.  Just in a different place.  IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.  That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.  Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime?  Let's say everyone was so armed.  Would criminals then go "oh hell.  Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?

T

P.S. Infanteer, if I saw you tromping down the street with a broadsword strapped to your back, I think I'd be calling the boys with the padded rooms...  ;)

EDIT: Had to fix the spelling of "Caesar".   :-[
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 24, 2005, 22:35:45
On a related note, I would like to see much more stringent driver's exams and frequent requalifications.  I suppose it might mean some people no longer would have the privilege to drive.  But I don't think we'll really go there because too many people would realize they're not particularly attentive or competent on the road, what with their radios and cell-phones and inexplicable need to look face-to-face at the passengers to whom they are speaking and inability to judge traffic flow or use a turn signal and so forth.  So they'll revert to their usual moral reasoning - NIMBY - and fight any move in the direction of tightening up driving privileges.

Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 24, 2005, 23:35:48
Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.

Hehe...  Calculated risk, I suppose...  :)  We could start a whole new thread on driving and licensing, but I'd imagine we'd spend too much time agreeing with each other.  ;)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 25, 2005, 00:10:16
Well I think we all know where I stand...

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.ar15.com%2FImageGallery%2FAttachments%2FDownloadAttach.asp%3FiImageUnq%3D36941&hash=74b322b34e011483d88e4af4e40627e3)

Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.

I am going to toss the BS flag on the "training" issue, I have intimate knowledge of shooting training in MIL and LE fields - lets just say I'd feel just as comfotable with an armed civilian. In fact having run troops thru CQB scenarios this week...  I have taken Concealed carry training in several places - Canada, and US States and have the prerequisite training for a concealed carry permit in several states. 

The problem is mindset - 99.9% of Canadian are bleeting helpless sheep, who are spoonfed at birth the evils of firearms.  Criminals prey upon this, for they don't give a rats *** about law and will use whatever they can to dominate.


Now for storage -- If the firearm is under your care and control sotrage laws do not apply - IF I want to sleep with my Kimber TLE/RLII under the pillow cocked and locked guess what (I dont - not to worry folks - I have a bedside immediate access readisafe  ;D )

The one big thing I notice about naysayers in firearms issues - Is they have a very week understanding of the ROE for Armed Civilians  - the do's and don't, why is that you ask - they don't care, they "know" its bad and won't educate themselves.


http://www.packing.org/

Molôn Labé








Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 25, 2005, 00:18:28
Ok, just out of curiosity?

Why the hell do you (anyone) need to carry a firearm for "protection"?

And why do you feel so threatened as to have a weapon at your bedside (quick access safe or not)?

Are you in some kind of line of work that has people coming after you?

Is there something in your house that is of such value? You can answer that one or not...          ...don't want to make you a target or anything. ::)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2005, 00:22:20
Zipper,
I don't even like guns[ in fact I dislike], but if you can honestly ask those questions, well you lead WAY too sheltered a life or wear BIG blinders.......
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: dutchie on March 25, 2005, 00:42:46
Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.

I'd also like to add this to that: firearms are weapons, and they are designed to either kill or improve one's efficiency at killing. They don't protect, they destroy. If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood. They are very useful in the hands of the right person, but unfortunately very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. As Kevin pointed out, most Canadians are sheep...those would be the wrong people to give firearms to.

Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country. Someone asked earlier what's the difference between having firearms at home and using them for personal protection, and doing the same on the streets. The difference is that if I wish to avoid the risk of being shot by you, I can just not tresspass on your property. I can't do that if you carry them in public. Your home is your castle, and I EXPECT you to defend it (within reason). The same goes for you on civie street, but it does not include carrying weapons - something I consider outside of reason.



(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.ar15.com%2FImageGallery%2FAttachments%2FDownloadAttach.asp%3FiImageUnq%3D36941&hash=74b322b34e011483d88e4af4e40627e3)


BTW, nice pistol Kevin.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 25, 2005, 00:55:57
Zipper - Fine who needs guns - Cops? obviously not, nor soliders with your line of reasoning.   Life is beautiful and no one if ever harmed by anyone.

 1) Why not - I have carried weapons in 6 countries and 7 Canadian provinces for the Crown - why can't I do it on Kevin time?

 2) Because I can.   

 3) Better to have and not need.


Personally I think a pistol is something you use to fight your way to a rifle - that you foolishly left somewhere you should not have.   You never need a gun - Till you NEED one.   I have been burglarized twice, once while I was home, anyone that would try to harm my family I'll kill.




The last point I'll leave you with is - the illegal gun is going to be there anyway, for the criminal does not care.   I'm betting if there was a school/restraunt/threatre whatever shooting that started up and you or your family was there - you'd much rather me take the shot so you could keep bleeting.



Caesar (okay I lied one or two more thoughts - but you posted while I was typing). 

 By your logic my hands would be weapons

 The typical soccer mom won't get a gun, however the criminal can't be sure, and it might just save a few lives that way.  I am not in favour of "shall issue systems" I want people to take mandatory firearms safety (and not the bozo gov't mandated crap with the FAC/PAL) - I would require Use of Force Trg , and sufficient LE style marksmanship.  But it would be THEIR choice, if they wanted to take on that responsibility.

 I shoot way over 20,000rds a year on my own - plus works little allotment.  If I where King we would VERY stringent training for any and all armed pers (probably half the LE and 75% of CF people would be desk bound)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2005, 00:56:58
Again, I will state that I am not a gun fan whatsoever, but,
Quote,
If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood.

.....yea nobody from "bad" ::) neighbourhoods would ever think of using a car.......
 Quote,
Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country

...as has been discussed anyone can be armed, 100 bucks and there ya go, that easy........feeling diminished?

What I believe the gun "advocates" are trying to say is that they don't want to walk around armed all the time but want the "bad" people to wonder if they are armed or not. Like I said, as someone who has no love for guns, this makes sence to me.[ of course I get the added bonus of working with the criminal mind everyday :rage:]

Kevin B, saw you posted but went anyway...hope we are not saying the same thing. ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 25, 2005, 01:17:18
Bruce, 100%

 And FWIW - I'd arm (optional-but at least 25%/school) Teacher and (mandatory) Pilots.  They make decisions that involved huge life and death decisions everyday (and yes I am including teachers there).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 25, 2005, 02:55:42
Quote
rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been. You are not understanding.   You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.

When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.

The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).

If you have actual proof to refute what has been posted here, again please show me where it is. I used to believe as you do. I used to think that guns belonged in the hands of professional (police and military) and that's it. It wasn't until I started examining the actual facts that I changed my mind.

Quote
When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.   If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.   It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.   As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.   It DOES NOT reduce crime.   MErely relocates it.

First of all the police are not involved in making gun legislation, the politicians and the special interest groups the fuel them are. The police had very little to do with drafting of the latest set of gun laws.

That said, I â Å“poopooâ ? on the police's opinion for the following reasons

1- As I recall a lot of police forces still stand by the current gun laws and long-gun registry as a factor in reducing crime. We've already debunked it enough so I won't go there now, but suffice it to say we all agreed it's bullshit. So if it's obvious it does nothing to increase personal or police safety, why are they still behind it? Might the motives of police chiefs be political?
2- All crime statistics published by police forces fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons. In the only study I ever read that even tried, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).
3- I know several police officers in both Montreal and Ottawa. Most of them are woefully misinformed when it comes to gun legislation and facts surrounding criminal gun use in both Canada and the US. In fact most thought that the lifting of the â Å“assault weaponsâ ? ban in the US meant that fully automatic weapons were now going to be readily accessible there. They were convinced this constituted a serious risk to their safety since these automatic weapons could be easily smuggled into Canada. Where did they get this information? They were told this by their superiors at work. Where did their superiors get it?
4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.

Quote
In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.   We all agree on that.   rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.  

I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.

Quote
You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?   If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?   By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.

Ok, do you know anything about CCW and the people who actually choose to exercise this right in the US? While a lot of people support it, very few actually choose to exercise it simply because they are intrinsically aware of the information you posted above. Someone who carries a firearm cannot indulge in road rage, cannot get drunk in bar, and has to avoid and de-escalate any and all confrontations. The people on this site constantly rip at Americans for being a â Å“belligerentâ ? people, yet CCW has been around for quite a while and their have not been any incidents of fist fights turning into shootings. So if Americans can be trusted to walk around armed, why can't Canadians?

Quote
As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.   Do I have house insurance?   Yes.   Car insurance?   Ditto.   Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?   No.   Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?   Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.   AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.   Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance   might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.

That is YOUR risk assessment, not mine. I should have the right to make my own risk assessment and act accordingly. Again, I don't think we listen to same news or read the same newspaper. Your sheltered belief does not dictate my reality.

Quote
I agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.   During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.   In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.   Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?   An unloaded weapon will never go off.   A loaded one always has that potential.

Well that's a major flaw right there isn't it? This clearly supports my thesis that self-defense has in fact been made illegal.

Quote
how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)

Very rarely, in fact I can't remember the last time I read about a case like this.

Quote
In public it is another matter.   Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm. Immediately, the situation has been escalated.   Now, say the druggie has a firearm.   He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to. So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.   Think someone's gonna die?   I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.   You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.   The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.   I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.   For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies.

Your description is flawed. CCW does not make you an auxiliary police officer. If you see bad people doing bad things, you call the police and stay out of it. This is the mentality every American I know who carries a gun has, and this is the attitude all â Å“self-defense mindedâ ? Canadian I know have. Again, those people in the US who choose carry are intimitlay aware of their responsibilities and the law. Why should we assume Canadians would be any less responsible?

Quote
Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.   It just changes the location.It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.   Are there still hookers?   Yup.   Just in a different place.   IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.  

That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.   Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime? Let's say everyone was so armed.   Would criminals then go "oh hell.   Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?

Remember, we are taking about violent crime here, not prostitution or pick-pocketing. Violent criminals pick targets based on likely hood of success. They look at their prey and make a risk-assessment. If you throw potential concealed weapons into the equation then you offset the risk assessment. Would they choose to just go straight? Doubtful, but I think they would most likely move on to indirect/technical forms of crimes, such as nighttime burglaries and computer crime, where direct human confrontation is unlikely, but where the risk of getting caught is also much higher.

Yes, you might only move the crime (I don't think you will ever get rid of crime altogether, it's impossible) but if you shift it from violent crime to indirect/non-violent crime by adding concealed weapons as a deterent, is that not a measure of success?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 25, 2005, 03:09:16
KevinB: nice piece.

I need a digital camera  :-[
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 25, 2005, 03:35:11
When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.

I went back through the threads, and couldn't actually find the question.  Please re-ask.


Quote
The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).

According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.  67% was committed through other means (beatings, stabbings, etc)  It states that 2% of all murders in this time people were done with handguns.  Now, before you jump up and down and say "I told you so" let's look at the ratio between us and the states.  1/3 of all firearms registered in the states are handguns.  2/3's long barrel.  So, .28 handguns per person in the states.  (Bureau of Justice Statistics)  In Canada?  0.04 handguns per capita, or 1/7 of the amerians.  Now, let's relate those stats to the murder rates, shall we?  In canada, death rate by handguns: (including accidental, murder, etc) .23 per 100,000.  US? 3.3 per 100,000.  Do the math.  We increase the number of handguns, we increase the likelihood of death resulting from handguns.  You wanted irrefutable proof, you got it.  There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.  Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.

Quote
4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.

You know, that's funny.  I've got my degree in Crim, and many of my class mates are now currently serving with CPS or the RCMP, and you know what?  They are MUCH better informed than the average Joe.  Don't paint all cops with the same brush as the ones you've come in contact with.

Quote
I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.

The numbers I've shown above should show you that the above statement is irrelevant now, as it proves that the law was created with meaning.

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on March 25, 2005, 04:15:59
Lets face it...No gun law is going to deter criminals who are growing pot up here and taking it to the states to trade for guns so that they can commit crimes with said guns up here.

Gun laws only effect the gun owners who are trying to be honest about their ownership of firearms.

Sorry...All statistics aside thats the way it is currently.

One other point. I watched anti-gun activist Wendy Culkier oin television the other day, going on about how guns are so evil...Sorry to say it folks but she is a politician with an agenda, just like the rest of them. I know her sister was killed by a gun (not a handgun I might add!) but Wendy has grabbed that and turned it into a campeign platform. I view her as very dishonest and very biased as she doesn't have the "greater good" in mind when she speaks, no matter what she wants us to think!

I'm not a gun-nut, nor do i own any firearms. To me the problem isn't the ineffectualness of the registry, or the myriad of laws surrounding who can own and who can't...The issue is putting harsher laws into service and getting rid of the wishy-washy criminal justice system that allows convicts to flourish in prisons across this country. The focus needs to shift from rehabilitation to confinement, so that the public at large don't suffer every time one of these clowns is releasded ony to kill someone else.

Torlyn...The absense of a firearm will not deter criminal intent.

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 25, 2005, 04:52:13
There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.   Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.

Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.

- You include suicide; so are we to assume that if Johnny Depression didn't have the Glock, he would have abstained from throwing himself onto a freeway?
- You include accidental deaths; so, are we to assume that idiots will blow themselves away (or let their children do it) with pistols but not with long-guns?
- Handguns are the most popular weapon for committing a homicide in the US, but as DJS statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) show, these are handgun crimes spike with young males (most likely being youth gang members).   Where does "gun ownership" factor in with this, considering that these guns are all illegal to start with (if in Canada, they are acquired from the State - as the article posted earlier pointed out)?   Like young Indo-Canadian males (who happen to be "known to police") in Canada - who are popping eachother off at alarming (and statistically higher) rates - illegal weapons when combined with social problems (drug trade) seem to lead to high-gun deaths.   Are these problems directly correlated with access to guns, or, like the Gebusi and the Yamamano, are these sub-groups particularly prone to violence regardless of the weapon used?

The only reason your statistical gymnastics would have any validity in this argument is if these statistics of handgun deaths (since your stats stuck strictly to deaths) would disappear with the absence of handguns (ie: Handguns is the prime motive for the act instead of the facilitator used).

If this is what you are arguing, then you dispute the claim being made for the last 15 pages or so (and backed with evidence - Ghiglieri, etc, etc) that guns and crime are unrelated?   My impression is to say "Who cares about an "increase in handgun related death" because people will commit the violent act with whatever they can get their hands on" - it is an increase in the violent crime rate (murder or otherwise) that we should be concerned about, isn't it?   Are you trying to claim (and validate) the statement that carrying handguns in Canada will DIRECTLY CORRELATE to an increase in violent crime?

If gun ownership = increase in violent crime/murder/accidental shootings (which seems to be the concern), then I think you should prove it, since the evidence put up on this thread seems to indicate otherwise (remember the Switzerland/Japan example).

As well, as for the higher US murder rate (since your stats look at murders), I believe that there is a bit of a skew by "outliers" which fail to allow the statistic to represent a general trend within an entire society.   I think America's murder rates (since your stats look at murders) have more more to do with the grievous social problems faced by inner-city (especially minority) groups who face rampant drug and violence issues in urban "ghettos".   I'll put up my previous quote for posterity (and because I like to hear myself talk....)

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles [or concealed handguns], right?

We don't have anything near the level of intercity problems that US cities face (I could walk down East Hastings tonight and not be too worried).   When you strip these obvious social problems away (they are issues that are unrelated to the availability of guns - like the Gebusi there is something deeper at work), mainstream Canada and mainstream U.S. are fairly similar in terms of Violent Crimes and Murders committed (again, what is used is irrelevant - it is the fact that a murder or an assault is carried out that counts); case in point:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that   "The sharp increase in homicides in the late 1980's and much of the subsequent decline is attributable to gun violence by juveniles and young adults" and that "The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increases with age up to age 17 and declines thereafter." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm); since most US murders are committed by handguns and the spike in handgun deaths is due to juvenile crime, then law-abiding adults who possess a CCW wouldn't really factor into your comparison, as they would fit into a statisical group where gun and non-gun homicides are almost equal.

Bottom line (for the one-millionth time) is that the levels of violent crime in society are related to socioeconomic problems rather then availability of weapons (I know that is a bit of a no-brainer, but think about it and how it pertains to Canada).   By linking "Crime" and "Guns" together you are covering up the real problems.

Finally, I suspect that your arguement of an increase in the instances of handgun deaths due to a CCW permit in Canada is built around some irrational assumptions:

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 1: CCW Will Mean More People Committing Crime

1)   Most people who would have a CCW would most likely be the people who already legally own handguns - why they would suddenly be prone to committing crime is a mystery to me.   Are you implying that gun-owners are prone to crime if they have a pistol (as opposed to anything else) on them?

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 2: CCW Will Be a Free For All

2)   As KevinB highlighted in his earlier post, a CCW would not simply be a right but a responsibility (just like a drivers license is) - of course proponents of a CCW argue for proper training and vetting.   For some reason, the "anti" crowd seems to suppose that allowing a CCW will all the sudden turn Yonge Street into the Wild West.   Clearly, the evidence from the States shows that this is not what happens.   Sounds like some of you are prone to over-excitement.

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 3: CCW Will Lead to a Dramatic Increase in Firearms Ownership

3)   People who use handguns in a crime aren't going to go and get a CCW before committing it.   Why do you folks constantly link CCW to increased crime?   The weapons that a CCW would allow for are, for the most part, already legally owned in Canada.   The only difference is that these citzens will now be able to legally take them out of their homes.   I'm not sure how CCW will suddenly create a gun-craze in Canadian society, prompting everybody to go by a nice Glock - are you going to try to prove that "CCW = increased gun ownership?".   If this is indeed true, would it be at any level significant enough to turn Canada into an "armed society"?   Where is the red herring of "increased amounts of guns in Canada" getting inspired from?

I simply see none of these 3 things (which you guys have argued would happen) playing out.   If you think that any of these would occur in Canada, then please prove it - even with some sort of theoretical argument.  

I'm interested to hear what you have to say - guys like myself, Slim and Brad Sallows have admitted to not having any sort of personal stake in this (we don't own pistols and interest in firearms is minimal) - but to date, all the arguments for gun control in general (less guns = less crime) and arguments against a CCW permit in Canada in specific (more CCW = more gun crime) have been unsatisfactory on both a moral level (just because you don't like it) and a factual level (obtuse, irrelevant, or non-existent data).

Fire away, gentlemen.
Infanteer
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 25, 2005, 11:02:21
There is some good information here http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/   look for the pdf of their concealed handgun laws. Also,
www.packing.org outlines the regs state by state.

One of the prominent people stateside involved in the training of LE is L/Col (Dr) Dave Grossman ex US Army Ranger, he says that most homocide based stats are flawed, we should be examining strictly " violent assault" rates. The advances in med tech over even the last couple decades has skewed them so badly. This shows a tremendous escalation in violent crime since the mid 60's, he blames it on media violence, video games, tv etc. In fact the number of legally owned firearms in Canada has remained fairly stable during that time period, the crime rate has soared. He addresses Canada in particular during his seminar entitled " The bulletproof mind"   www.killology.com

     The US has shown a drop in the aggravated assault rate since 1998 (2%) however there are more cops out there, better trained and more motivated, and unfortunately getting killed more often. Officer deaths are up about 21% over the last ten years.

Slim:   Good points, but I have it on good account that you may in fact have ACCESS to firearms.... :threat:     Clarify?

Infanteer:   Could you use another example, like Beretta or S&W?   I'm getting a complex   :crybaby:

"Anything outside of arm's reach, is well within rifle range"        

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 25, 2005, 12:35:47
I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:

1)  That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.

2)  That increased access to firearms for law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in a society.

Which one are we arguing for/against here?
I'm suggesting that it is more complex.  Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms.  While this leads to the potential for more firearms related deaths, it does not lead to more criminal deaths (by the statistics).  However, based on the US studies, an increased illegal access without a corresponding increase in legal access will result in more criminal activity.

. . . so, how does one reduce illegal access to firearms when there is higher legal access just across a rather porous boarder?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 25, 2005, 14:30:31
Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms?


WHY?  I am unsure of the context of this statement.  Are you correlating access to legal gun with access to illegal guns?  If you are am extremely worried with this line of rationale.  We already have legal firearms - NOTHING is removing that. 

Illegal guns come from many sources - theft, and importation - however the largest segment IMHO is the stupidity of the "deactivated" firearms laws.  In Canada anyone can simply fax the gov't with a form saying X gun is now deactivated and as such no longer a firearm, so please strike it off the registry.  The term paper dewatts comes to mind...

However all three methods are still criminal - unless there is a way to stop criminal activity, criminals will still have access to firearms.  So given you will have illegal guns (sorry as much as I'd like it not to be fact it is), what can you do about it?  (this is the line of rationale I hope MCG was pursuing).

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 25, 2005, 15:12:30
1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.

Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.

Looking at Col Grossman's work, there is an interesting set of statistics he gives (although a bit dated, I think the general trend is useful):

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

Murder (as per 100,000) in gun-happy USA is the same as in Sweden and is surpassed by places like Scotland and the Netherlands (are these places shooting galleries?).   The rate of increase (per 100,000) is higher in every other country in the study.   The U.S. has the lowest level of increase except for Canada, which has a decline.

However, violent crime in Canada is more then twice as high then anywhere else.   Violent crime in the United State is about on par with England and New Zealand.

Again, these stats are dated, but I think the general trend is obvious - perhaps we can update them with a little use of Google.   Here is a start:

http://142.206.72.67/04/04b/04b_002a_e.htm

Violent crime rates vary significantly across the country. Although Quebec reported an increase in violent crime in 2002, it still had the lowest incidence of violent crime in the countryâ ”719 per 100,000. Nova Scotia's violent crime rate was the highest east of Ontario, with 1,099 reported incidents per 100,000, although rates remained generally higher in the western provinces. Manitoba's and Saskatchewan's rates of violent crime were the highest among the provinces with over 1,600 and 1,800 incidents per 100,000 people, respectively.

Although the data sets used by Grossman and used in the stats above are probably pretty different, it seems we are still pretty high (over 1,000/100,000 in some provinces).   Would this be worthwhile in looking at your "risk assessment" claim - people stand a 1% chance of being the victim of a violent crime in Canada.   Looking at the odds for other things, that gives the "self-defence" claim fairly reasonable grounds, don't you think?

Grossman's stats don't show whether a gun was used or not in the commission of the offence because it is irrelevant - violence is something that is independent of the available means to commit it with (in this case firearms).   So again, who cares about firearms statistics; a look at the facts shows that Canada is not in the condition to thumb its nose at the US with regards to violent crime and murder.

I think that, rather then worrying to death on who legally owns a gun and what they do with them, that we should put our energy and our resources into reactive measures, as Kevin highlighted above, and proactive measures like getting a grip on children and what they do at school and home.   We probably need to take a tougher line on parents who abscond from their responsibilities rather then a gun-owner who hasn't.   As well, tightening up the border and refugee process would probably help - I just read in the news that a good proportion of the drug peddlers in Vancouver are Latin Americans claiming refugee status; since drugs and violent crime ARE linked, why aren't we getting these people out of Canada as soon as possible (since they are criminals and not refugees).

Again, I'm basically adopting the "who cares" approach to stats on gun violence because the evidence seems to show that their is no relationship of causality between guns and violence - if people wish to rob and murder, they will use what they can get their hands on (and this has been the premise derived from Ghiglieri's work that I've pounded on for 10 pages now).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 25, 2005, 15:29:59
"agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.   Storage is when your firearms must be secured.   A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.   So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.

Self defense: The public and police are grossly mis-informed about this.   You know the self defense rules we have on operations? They derive from the fact that you are a CITIZEN, not a soldier.   Life is not the WWF, there is no requirement for a fair fight in good vs evil in your home.   Contrary to what the Commie media feeds you us in Canada, self defense is not vigilante justice.   The police - acting in self defence - aim centre of visible/unprotected mass and fire until the threat is no more. So should you.   

We are the police, and the police are us: they defend society, we defend ourselves.   They have full time jobs doing it, we are very occaisional users.   They get nervous, because they feel you are breaking their rice bowls.

There is no requirement to engage an intruder hand to hand in your own home if you have a gun.   If he still keeps coming - fire.   If he is outside and walking away and the holes are in his back- that's murder.   Inside coming at you or those whom you are responsible for: self defense.

"   During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time."

Practice.   The one you let get away, may murder a ten year old girl next month, then how would you feel?


Tom

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 25, 2005, 16:03:48
Quote
According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.

I don't recall this study, got a link?

I will however bet that it groups homicides, suicides and accidents into one whole â Å“firearms deathsâ ? category. I have seen similar statistics from Toronto. Once broken down to exclude suicides and accidents, homicides only represented about 15% of the total firearms deaths listed, and this still did not factor out any case of self-defense.

Bottom line again: the â Å“proofâ ? isn't.

Quote
I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.   Storage is when your firearms must be secured.   A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.   So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.

Actually he'd fit right in, in Ontario; â Å“improper storageâ ? is the catch-all thing they charge you with whenever they don't like you.

I have repeatedly read through the arguments on site like guncontrol.ca. Their argument can be summed up as â Å“there are people who die from gunshots, so lets ban all gunsâ ?, or â Å“my brother was shot, let's ban all gunsâ ?. Cars and smoking are responsible for many, many more deaths then firearms, yet I see none of them lobbying for stricter driving or smoking laws. The anti-gun lobby consistently makes my point for me that they are fueled by emotion, fear as opposed to any real desire to preserve life.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 25, 2005, 16:46:19
Suicide is means independant.  Take away guns - the rate stays the same.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 25, 2005, 17:19:18
Suicide is means independant.   Take away guns - the rate stays the same.

From what many of the stats posted here say (Grossman, Ghiglieri, Lott), so is crime.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 25, 2005, 22:47:02
Sigh.

I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?

If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.

The argument that someone properly trained will not use it, but walk away and call the cops...                   ...maybe. I guess that guy who got shot dead outside the courthouse in the States when he tried to confront that assault rifle toting, bullet vest wearing psycho wasn't trained enough? Ah well. Maybe they should all wear bullet proof vest as well?

The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me.

I'll whistle my happy tune and just not worry...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 25, 2005, 23:06:10
I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?

Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?

Quote
The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me.

I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?

If people feel they need to wear a suit of chain-mail armour around then, just like acquiring a CCW, that is their prerogative.   The point is that, if it does not harm you and others feel they wish to do it, what's your legitimate complaint?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2005, 23:09:40
Quote,
If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

....this statement contradicts itself......
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 25, 2005, 23:44:34
An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: my72jeep on March 26, 2005, 00:13:38
[

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.

Quote

But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 01:40:53
Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?

Yep. They can do what they wish. I'm just saying I don't understand it myself.

Oh, and do I agree with the gun registry? No. Not the way they do it. Impractical and a waste of time and money.

I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?

Good for you. Used to do the same myself.

Quote,
If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

....this statement contradicts itself......

Simple. Cops own and use guns for work and are in a dangerous line of work. Most people are not.

An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.

Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?

But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?

Well you go right ahead and walk down that poorly lit alley at night, or through that unlit ravine. If all it takes is an extra hundred steps to go around to avoid trouble, then I wonder who the smarter is? In fact, you go in there and encourage your "self-defense" by instigating the whole thing. ::)

I think its a little something thats called "street smarts"?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 26, 2005, 02:23:24
"Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?"

Actually, our common law "right" to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of rights of 1689... Trouble is, we, unlike our friends to the south, neglected to put them on paper.  Also, a piece of paper need not exist to "give" you rights - some rights are God given, the paper merely codifies them.

Self defense is not - nor has it ever - been linked with the term "discourage".  And it is not interpreted by the courts (I assume that is who you have interpreting the laws for you) usually as lethal or non lethal, but of that reasonably necessary under the circumstances.  You have the right to use force up to and including lethal force.  The courts strongly support lethal force when necessary, especially in one's home.  "A man's home is his castle."  Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.  Continue to delude yourself if you wish, BUT STOP LEADING OTHERS ASTRAY.

We have lots of rights in Canada, people are too afraid to use them.

Remember, the self defense you practisce before going on tour is not provided to you because you are a soldier, but because you are a CITIZEN.   Any citizen in Canada has the same right to self defense as you do on tour,  including that of lethal force. 

Here is a test:  find the most anti-gun 'hood you know, and go around offering free "No Guns Are In This House" signs.  Think they will put them up to morally support Wendykins and her lot in the Coalition For Gun Control.  Think again.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 26, 2005, 03:18:35
Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.

Perhaps you should read it again, Tom.  IN cases of aggression, it's only valid if:

(a) he uses the force
   (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
   (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

Doesn't sound like you can up and shoot, does it?

As for provocation:

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Now, the fun one.  TOM!!  READ THIS!!!

Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

The caveat?  Every time self defence is necessary, it comes down to the objective test of "ordinary person".  Would an ordinary person, given the same set of stimuli, react in the same way?  Do you have the right to defend yourself?  Yes.  However, the defence can only be equal to the provocation.

When was the last time you sat in a courtroom and had sec. 34 used?  How did the judge react?  By carrying a firearm, you are, in effect, committing yourself to using that as a means of defence, which negates subsection 1 "of the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm".  A firearm isn't built to wound, it's built to kill.  Thus, if you have it, you intend to use said force.  You failed section one right there.  As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.  Follow? Semantics, yes, but semantics are the soul of the law.  Speaking of delusional...   ::)  However, I don't hear the sound of that closed mind opening even a crack, so I'm sure this was wasted.  :)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 26, 2005, 04:03:32
As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.

It's good to know what the book says, but that doesn't always pan out in real life.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a case in Northern BC where 4 youths broke into a store/residence out in a sparsely populated area.   What they were intent on doing is beyond me.   Anyways, they got the old fellow who lived their pretty scared, so he took his shotgun and blasted a kid.   The wound was to the back - the old guy didn't know what they were doing and shot in the dark and it seems that he got one while they were taking off.   I can't find the news story to link because Google doesn't seem to want to find the small town stuff. :-\

Anyways, the crown charged him with manslaughter and he was found not guilty - apparently it is not so easy to crack open the law book to ensure that someone who has already broken into your house is "specifically trying to hurt you" while in the middle of a home invasion.   Bottom line - apparently most people (12 jurors at least) don't buy the way the law is layed down, and perhaps it is time to change it into, as Kevin B alluded to, "a more robust ROE for defence of life and property" to ensure that there are stronger reactive measures to crime in our society.

It seems that the truism that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6 holds ground - common sense will prevail over section and sub-section when someone's home (and thus personal safety) has been violated.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):

Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.

Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.

...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones?   :P
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 26, 2005, 04:35:12
By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):

...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones?  :P

Frankly, I got tired of banging my head on a wall.  You've got your study, which you believe, and I have mine, which I believe.  We aren't going to find a common ground, I don't think.  I respect your arguments and what you've written, but nothing's convinced me.  One can only play devil's advocate for so long.  That being said, I think I'll go double-check the lock on my weapons locker.  DOn't want the .45 or .22 getting out on me...  :)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 26, 2005, 04:44:03
BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!

PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on March 26, 2005, 04:52:26
BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!

PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.

Grrr...  They aren't irrelevent.  You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.  If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.  You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...  Argg!  And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.  dammit, I'm going to sleep.   ^-^

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 26, 2005, 05:23:15
Grrr...   They aren't irrelevent.   You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.   If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.   You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...   Argg!   And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.   dammit, I'm going to sleep.     ^-^

I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.

That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.  

You state that I molded your data to conform to my beliefs - you assert (and I'm assuming that your opposition is grounded upon) that an "increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death."   You never made the attempt to prove to me that the presence of more handguns (assuming CCW will bring more into the country) will lead to an increase in the overall rate of violent crime in Canada.   Will people be inspired to commit offences that they normally wouldn't have now that they are packing heat, or would they simply use a pistol instead of a knife or a shotgun?  Sure handgun offenses will rise with more handguns - but will the overall rate of violent crime?

Did you ever consider that more Americans kill each other (which your stats pointed to) because American society - or at least a significant sub-culture within it - is more violent then that of Canada?   I think the evidence clearly points this out, and yet I've seen nothing to argue against it to date.  

I didn't come into this with any real bias - I have no personal stake in the issue - I'm only applying what the facts seem to support.   I've argued claims and shown (with data) how they fail to point to causality between handguns (or firearms in general) to crime.   All I see in response is obfuscating and claims that "I don't like it".

Ignore me if you want - I guess that is just conceding the match   ^-^.

Sure, it's just a stupid internet thread, but I feel that the basic point that I stated at the top is a valid one and if nobody is willing to dispute it then we can all admit that there is a serious hole in any claim for gun-control.   Get around it, and you can convince me that there is a flaw in my understanding of the issue.

Well, I'm going to unload the Sig under my pillow.

Goodnight   :-*
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 06:51:12
I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.

That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.  

You state that I molded your data to conform to my beliefs - you assert (and I'm assuming that your opposition is grounded upon) that an "increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death."   You never made the attempt to prove to me that the presence of more handguns (assuming CCW will bring more into the country) will lead to an increase in the overall rate of violent crime in Canada.   Will people be inspired to commit offences that they normally wouldn't have now that they are packing heat, or would they simply use a pistol instead of a knife or a shotgun?   Sure handgun offenses will rise with more handguns - but will the overall rate of violent crime?

Did you ever consider that more Americans kill each other (which your stats pointed to) because American society - or at least a significant sub-culture within it - is more violent then that of Canada?   I think the evidence clearly points this out, and yet I've seen nothing to argue against it to date.  

I think both of you hit something on the head there.

Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!

The Swiss have plenty of access to weapons because their whole society is based on everyone being part of their militia. So the chances of them being trained in said weapons is far higher then us over here or down south.

Also, the Swiss live in a social democratic state that has very little in the way of fear mongering, healthy social programs, etc. As well, the fact that their society has been "neutral" for God knows how long tends to ingrain itself into the Psyche of the people. In other words, they are not as an aggressive a people in general (I'd still hate to attack them though).

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people. The media loves to pump it up as much as possable. As well, being who they are as far as history is concerned and their "American dream", they are a far more aggressive people in general. They also have much less in the way of social programs (its not a void though) and thus those in need of such are not going to get the help they need and are more likely to go postal. So we can say that fear + aggressive nature + access to guns= not a good time.

We up here on the other hand do not have as much of any of those factors and thus are not gunning down whole classrooms.

Simple? Usually.

But it has a point or two.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on March 26, 2005, 10:14:58
Quote
On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people.

I'm really getting tired of comments like this   ::)   You live in a dream world
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 26, 2005, 10:30:56
I think both of you hit something on the head there.

Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!

The Swiss have plenty of access to weapons because their whole society is based on everyone being part of their militia. So the chances of them being trained in said weapons is far higher then us over here or down south.

Also, the Swiss live in a social democratic state that has very little in the way of fear mongering, healthy social programs, etc. As well, the fact that their society has been "neutral" for God knows how long tends to ingrain itself into the Psyche of the people. In other words, they are not as an aggressive a people in general (I'd still hate to attack them though).

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people. The media loves to pump it up as much as possable. As well, being who they are as far as history is concerned and their "American dream", they are a far more aggressive people in general. They also have much less in the way of social programs (its not a void though) and thus those in need of such are not going to get the help they need and are more likely to go postal. So we can say that fear + aggressive nature + access to guns= not a good time.

We up here on the other hand do not have as much of any of those factors and thus are not gunning down whole classrooms.

Simple? Usually.

But it has a point or two.
All of what you have just said does not prove your point, it proves our point. It is society and culture that creates gun violence. Not guns. I certainly disagree, as well, with the idea that Americans live in a constant state of fear or that they are significantly more aggressive than we are. In being the most prosperous country in the world, they have attracted far more organized criminals than we have and as a result have a much greater gang problem. Americans are more aware of the threats they face. While many other societies (that shall remain nameless) choose to slink their heads into the sand, others take action. Don't like that Swiss model? How about the Israeli model? They have plenty of guns, and a low homicide rate. Their teachers are armed even. There is no one gunning down whole classrooms. The point of this exchange is to recognize that guns are not causation for violence. Violent behavior will occur if law abiding citizens have access to guns or not. The criminals always will have this access.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Highland Lad on March 26, 2005, 11:42:13
Quote from: Torlyn on Mar 26 at 02:18:35

A firearm isn't built to wound, it's built to kill.   Thus, if you have it, you intend to use said force.


Umm - I believe a firearm is actually built to propel a projectile at high speeds in a directed manner.   ;D

It takes a brain to use a firearm, a mind to use one properly, and a conscience to use it morally. I confidently believe myself and most of those on this board to possess all 3 of these requirements.

As to whether an increase in legal firearms ownership will result in an increase in illegal use of firearms (whether by legal owners or not), this is really an impossible argument, like most reason vs emotion discussions. There are very good logical reasons why responsible ownership of firearms should be permitted in a society. There are also very good reasons why wide-scale firearms ownership is not the rule in this society, chief among them being that there is not enough education or impetus behind it. Face it, we are a 'citified' society, and the demands that lead to widespread ownership of firearms do not impact many Canadians.

WRT the arguments about widespread ownership of firearms being a deterrent to crime, I point to 2 examples proving and disproving the statement: Switzerland and many Inner-City US housing projects. Without training and civic conscience, widespread firearms ownership (legal or not) is dangerous to society. With them, it's a different story.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 26, 2005, 12:46:10
FWIW,

Last week myself and two buddies ran A Coy 1VP company thru CQB SHoot No Shoot scenarios (DVD 1and2 on the FATS - whoops  ::) SAT system).  The issues with use of force always come down to the individuals opinion and how well they can be articulated.  Going thru scenario we would debrief immediately afterwards and get them to prove to us their justificatiosn for action/inaction.

It is based on that immediate moment in time.  Hindsight has no place in a lethal force encounter, act based on the best information you have at that time, and articulate.  The articulation is key for you have to put others into understanding why you actions where one of a reasonable person.


The Use of Force continuim - in brief. the Minimum amount of force needed to conclude an event/accomplish the mission.

I URGE everyone here to go look at some of the US states laws on use of force for legally armed civilians - it is quite illuminating for those who feel it will become the wild west and you will be struck by stray fire.




P.S. I have a Swiss friend - she has shot two people with her concealed (legally) HK P7M8, both where trying to rape her!



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 15:59:33
Ok, I have to go back to this one...

Actually, our common law "right" to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of rights of 1689... Trouble is, we, unlike our friends to the south, neglected to put them on paper.   Also, a piece of paper need not exist to "give" you rights - some rights are God given, the paper merely codifies them.

You were a scary individual before, this just proves it. "God" given rights? What the hell is that? We have a religious fanatic. Great. Life is the only right that God gave you. After that, its the rules on those pieces of paper that allow you to go about your day to day life. Oh and you better read that piece of paper called the bible again. No mention of any God given right to take someone else's life, in defense or otherwise.

In fact, the Koran and all of the others don't seem to mention this either. But they all of their fanatics saying God told them so.

God given rights...                  ...Sheesh.

Again, real life example. The Bayshore area in Ottawa has had a rash of swarmings of old people and young (like 12 and under) children by gangs of youth. If the old folks had been packing, or someone walking by had, then these incidents would decrease and make our streets safe again.

Man, another scary person. The only result you have here is that someone(s) is(are) going to be dead. Thus you have escalated a situation. And there is no way of you saying that with 10 targets, your not going to have the gun taken away from you and you end up being shot, or that at least one of them is not packing, thus the same end. Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante.

It takes a brain to use a firearm, a mind to use one properly, and a conscience to use it morally. I confidently believe myself and most of those on this board to possess all 3 of these requirements.

There are very good logical reasons why responsible ownership of firearms should be permitted in a society.

The first part I'm beginning to wonder. ::)

But I agree with you on the second. One is if you do not live within 50km of a supermarket and need to hunt for your food. The 2nd being those who are involved in the "sport" of target shooting in whichever form that takes, and the 3rd being if you are in law enforcement. All of these are logical. Everything else is called "collecting", or "feeding the ego".

And for those of you who scream "It's my right to own a gun!!" Actually no it is not. Not in Canada, thank God! If that were the case, it could be my right to burn garbage in my backyard. Its my right to slap my child around the house for being bad. It is my right to say whatever I damn well please, and while your at it get the damn immigrants out of MY country. Its my right to collect human ears and display them for all to see. Its my right to build bombs in my basement, or grow that funny pointed plant.

Guess what...             ...NO it is not!

The point of all this is. Guns are out of pandora's box. It is next to impossible to put them back. Heck, it is bad enough to try and control them. So we can go back and forth saying guns kill and no they don't, people kill. Thus the chicken and the egg. However if you take away either, the problem either gets more complex, or it dissappears.

So do we take the guns away or the people?

Oh, and just to ask Kevin about his friend. Did they get confessions from those two that they were trying to rape her? I hope so. The legality of that one is WAY to messed up otherwise.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 26, 2005, 16:15:29
I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.

Guys, dispute this with facts or get off the thread - Nothing is accomplished with "tit-for-tat" discussions on "God-given rights" or "I don't want guns in Canada because I don't like them".   The figures are there, so use them instead of adding more "junk food" (zero content) posts.

Zipper, you're arguements make no sense.   Firearms ownership (and by extention, what they can do with them) is a property issue - you've yet to apply any of your opinions to principle.   I had to look back for Brad's quote, but I found it, and it seems to be fitting your attitude.

Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.   I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.   It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.   Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.   "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."   In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security.The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.....

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?   How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?   Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Dare on March 26, 2005, 16:16:52
Ok, I have to go back to this one...

You were a scary individual before, this just proves it. "God" given rights? What the heck is that? We have a religious fanatic. Great. Life is the only right that God gave you. After that, its the rules on those pieces of paper that allow you to go about your day to day life. Oh and you better read that piece of paper called the bible again. No mention of any God given right to take someone else's life, in defense or otherwise.

In fact, the Koran and all of the others don't seem to mention this either. But they all of their fanatics saying God told them so.

God given rights...                  ...Sheesh.
You should take some time to study the history of English common law. Or it might be easier to just read the Constitution Act.
First line: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
As for the Bible and the Quran, don't bring it up unless you are prepared to back up your claim.

EDIT for addendum: This is mostly a tangent issue (although somewhat related) to gun control. Let's stay on topic. I would like to see a gun control advocate refute Infanteers comparison, if it's even possible.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 16:55:22
Infanteer - Exactly how I see it. Good on you for finding that well worded post. Thanks

Dare - One, I am not going to start quoting scripture. Since that would be silly. (As is most of this debate...) And the rule of law is already set down. no arguments there.

 :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 26, 2005, 16:57:27
Infanteer - Exactly how I see it. Good on you for finding that well worded post. Thanks

So then you are agreeing with a CCW permit then?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: CH1 on March 26, 2005, 17:20:51
Sorry every body, I have to wade into this one. This is a very sore point for me.

Prior to the last couple of bouts, guns were a common commodity, albeit more so in the rural settings. Since Ecole Polytechnique, a small group has made guns & owners a dirty word. Not to say I agree with what happened there or any where a gun is used contrary to law of the time.

Having said that, something is very wrong when as a gun owner, some body breaks into my home, & the gun safe, steals a gun (generic), & kills some body. The owner faces stiffer penalties, than the criminal. Why is it that we have an immigration policy that allows known violent criminals into our country?

I know that a lot of intelligent views have been properly put forward, in this string. But we have a basic flaw in the fabric of our country. People bring their own form of justice (both good & bad) into this country, then super-impose it on the people born & raised here. We have almost completely lost our identities as Canadians. This has resulted in the skew of our legal & administrative systems.

The money spent on the farce of gun control, would look better spent on our military. As for the so called controls, it is not about crime control, it is population control. Take away the arms from the people, & government has a free hand to impose their will on the populace.

I personally spent too many years with 4 lbs under my arm pit, & lots of time with our southern neighbours. I really do not want to see almost everbody packing protection, especially the average person that has little expierence with arms. How ever I think that any one that can legally own a weapon, should have thorough trg on the particular type, & should have an endorsement system akin to 404's. As we know all too well, the scenario from silhoutte to combat, is a very radical shift in psyche & physiology, that not every one has to endure.   

The current system of qualification for possesion & owner ship is skewed to discourage all but the most persistent. Knowing the difference between a match lock & wheel lock is redundant to most except
 black powdwer enthusiasts. There is also the fact, that all (legally qualified) will not get the P&A license.

Although I have empathy for the various police forces & the particular problems they face, it is no where near what a soldier will face. I have friends & relates that have retired from the police forces & never drew their weapons except for trg.

As for the effectiveness of control, the stats speak for themselves. About 3 million registered out of an estimated 7 mill+ arms. Now if we could get all the voices together, the control would surely die.

I personally would favor a return to the old system, with some mods.   Also I would like to see penalties increased befitting the crime. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kids has a more severe penalty, than killing some one. Such a sad state of affairs!

guess I used up more than 25 cents worth.    cheers
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 26, 2005, 19:29:59
Quote
You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...   Argg!

How so, I don't see that, please explain your logic to me.

As for the people who think this has to do with â Å“right to keep and bear armsâ ?, it doesn't, not directly. It has to do with individual freedom and the mechanism through which we limit freedom for the good of society. If you want to justify limiting my freedom you need to put together some coherent facts, not emotional pleas.

Before passing laws, the government usually convenes experts to study the matter and make recommendations. This was never done for gun laws; instead the government has always pandered to the uninformed public opinion and put together feel good solution after feel good solution that limit people's freedom for no reason.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 20:12:51
Before passing laws, the government usually convenes experts to study the matter and make recommendations. This was never done for gun laws; instead the government has always pandered to the uninformed public opinion and put together feel good solution after feel good solution that limit people's freedom for no reason.

Because most of "joe" public would glaze over with a bunch of "facts" thrown at them. Public relations works best on a "feel" level, not on cold hard facts.

Unfortuntely I'm wondering what kind of facts would work? If it is down on paper a thousand times, it take just one piece of paper to the contrary to make those on the other (either) side cry "see, see! We have facts too".

Statistics can always be manipulated to prove one side or the other.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 26, 2005, 20:52:36
The case FOR gun control has always been light on hard facts and big on emotional pleas (i.e â Å“My brother was shot please help me ban all gunsâ ?). Once you actually break down the numbers in the statistics and look at them rationally you have to realize that if you applied the same threshold of tolerance that the anti-gun folks want us to use to something like drunk driving, or auto accidents in general, you would have conclude that we need to ban all personal ownership of motor vehicles.

Whether we agree or not on CCW, I think that anybody who agrees that the gun registry is bullshit can recognize that the numbers and logic that were used to convince people of its validity were less then adequate and did NOT pass the bar to justify limiting personal freedom any further. Even if at best you only agree that the facts are ambigous, then as a free society we should be erring on the side of personal freedom. To do otherwise on any issue leads us down the path to a dictatorship.

If you own guns and want to keep them you HAVE to start pushing in the opposite direction less you give in to the government taking over your life and micromanaging it for your own safety.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 26, 2005, 23:20:18
The case FOR gun control has always been light on hard facts and big on emotional pleas (i.e â Å“My brother was shot please help me ban all gunsâ ?). Once you actually break down the numbers in the statistics and look at them rationally you have to realize that if you applied the same threshold of tolerance that the anti-gun folks want us to use to something like drunk driving, or auto accidents in general, you would have conclude that we need to ban all personal ownership of motor vehicles.

Agreed there. Drunkenness has killed more people with auto's, guns, baseball bat, etc. then most other forms of crime. If you mix enough alcohol with someone, something bad usually happens. And usually it is a split second reaction. Do they ban alcohol. No. Why? Because it is easier to tax the hell out of it and make a ton of money, even with all the subsidised detoxes. Same with auto's. Lots of tax and insurance dollars there.

However guns are not in the same league. Its easier to pick on the fewer guys since it solves a smaller problem and "looks" like your dealing with a large problem. Can you tax the hell out of guns and ammo? Maybe, but not with the same kind of returns. So you find another way. Raise the taxes on guns and ammo, and add in more and more registry costs. Then maybe it pays. However, they are not finding that out.

Whats that mean. If the government can't make money off of the control. They just may try to ban it altogether.

If you own guns and want to keep them you HAVE to start pushing in the opposite direction less you give in to the government taking over your life and micromanaging it for your own safety.

Well your to late. Kids cannot leave their houses without parental supervision and a helmet. If they do, their video taped down at the nearest mall and corner store, as are you. If a kid gets into a fist fight at school, he's off to juvvie hall to have his life flushed down the toilet for him through association. Your only allowed to read certain things, since those things deemed as "hate" are baned while heavily taxed porn is not. I could go on, but its to long a list. Needless to say the micromanagement is here.

I wonder if some logic here would work?

If someone was subjected to enough negative stimuli, would they strike back suddenly (assault or 2nd degree attempted murder?)?

Probably.

If they had a pipe handy in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

If they had a knife in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

If they had a gun in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

Severity of injury and likely hood of death? Well its debateable between the pipe and the knife, but the gun wins hands down.

Most crime as far as violence is concerned is of the sudden, "I just lost it" variety. Even with a fist and one shot, sometimes someone dies. But the chance of that is far less.

So would you rather get angry at that bar, or at home with something not readily avaiavailablea lethal nature? Especially if you have kids of the teenage variety?

Hell, I would even think of removing the sharp knives from the kitchen if I had a teenager. ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: CH1 on March 27, 2005, 10:43:00
You have to leave emotion out of the debate, & look at the underlying rationale for control. The term "weapon" has been deliberately left as open ended terminology. Basically any item that can be used as a weapon. Register your "Nerf bats". Previously "weapon" was a well defined term in gun control legislation.  "Safe storage" was also a well defined term but is now as clear as mud.

When they first started looking for course instructors, they bypassed good, knowledgeable people, for people that had rudimentary knowledge, in a lot of cases. I do not have the stats for this statement, but have first hand knowledge. I do not think the administrators will ever let that stat out. From a personal stand point, being a master RSO, & weapons instructor, has caused me nothing but grief with this gun control. Even having support from RCMP, that I taught, did not help my position.

This leads into another personal observation, only supported unoffically by a small group of police officers.
The majority of police officers neither have sufficeint knowledge or technical skills to effectively control their weapons, should they have to use them. I have seen & heard of cases where police officers could barely clean their weapons once per year, let alone use them. Since most have to buy extra ammo over their allotments, to do range drills, proficiency has dropped. ( this sounds familiar) I also know several police officers that have wounded them selves. Their comment to me was a basic lack of proficiency caused the accidents.

Another item that is between the lines, is public liability and accountability. If one is not proficient, & kills, oh well. But if a person can call their shots with a reasonable certainty, the beaureucrats then become the subject of lawsuits, & become accountable. To me this is a double edged sword. Personally I would prefer to go against some body that can reasonably call their shots. At least you know that if they intend to wound, that is what will likely happen. As 1 RCMP reminded me, 1 shot to kill, 1 to wound & 3 or 4 in the walls & ceiling. The kill shot removes the threat, the others remove the liability.

1 also has to look at the judicial arm. The criminal is protected to a greater degree, than the victim. I guess I am not as well educated as I think, becuase I fail to understand how the neer do well, is at a disadvantage, in the justice system. I firmly beleive in "do the crime, do the time." (out dated I guess) The penalty phase has to be brought into line with the severity of the crime. Instead of the judiciary looking at how disadvantaged the criminal is, adjust the penalties to reflect severity of the crime.

As long as the political masters keep pandering to a relatively small group of bleeding hearts & special interest groups, the situation will only worsen.

Enuff said from me. I've used up about a billion dollars worth of forum!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 28, 2005, 00:36:38
You choose to trust the police. Fine, then don't carry. But some of us choose to trust ourselves. Why should YOUR not wanting to pack prevent us from doing so?

Now your treading on ground that can cross issues. You could say the same about smoking? I choose not to, so why should you? Because smoking can kill. Proven fact. Same diff. Different issue.

And I ask again? Whats wrong with YOU if you cannot feel safe without carrying a firearm? If you live in a city that has such problems, then if you do not develop the "street smarts" not to get into such a situation, there is a good chance you will. As someone who has personally escaped a few "gang bangs" just because I "looked" at some creep wrong in a mall and he and his buddies followed me still does not say to me that I should "pack heat" in order to protect myself.

If I had, I would either be dead right now or in jail because I had "defended" myself. Did I fall prey to fear and not go back to that mall? No. It was my mall as much as their's. I went back. I avoided those guys when possable, and eventually the little sh!ts were packed off by the police for other matters.

Basically it comes down to. Carry a handgun, and someone potentially dies. Either you or someone else. The fact that some of you seem to be able to cast aside so easily the idea of killing someone means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 01:18:46
"means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help."

The problem with discussing gun control is that the gun-grabbers invariably run out of facts and then respond by attacking the messenger - as above - and not the message.   They then show their true colours - as despots   -   and prove to us all.   Because they are too meek and weak to demand to be allowed to live among the same freedoms our fathers fought for, WE also must kow-tow to their sapply, cloying, flacid liberalism which destroys democratic life where ever it raises it's head.

Zipper, if democracy is too much for you to handle, hop the next flight to Cuba.   In a democracy, the right to defend youself with up to and including lethal force with firearms if and when necessary is the ONE and ONLY right that enables all other rights.   Remove that right, and democracy is two generations away from irrelevance.

"Man, another scary person. The only result you have here is that someone(s) is(are) going to be dead. Thus you have escalated a situation. And there is no way of you saying that with 10 targets, your not going to have the gun taken away from you and you end up being shot, or that at least one of them is not packing, thus the same end. Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante."

You raise a few points here, Zipper:

1. "Man, another scary person."   The pen is mightier than the sword Zipper.   Do guns scare you?   My guns have never hurt anyone.   My keyboard, however, has rocked the world.   I have, in my own small way, made a political difference.   And every day, I try, just a little, to help unite the 6,000,000 people in Canada who own 16,000,000 firearms to vote as ONE.   I look forward to the day that happens, as should you.     ;D

2. "Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante." Zipper, I will explain this AGAIN - the police exist to protect society, NOT the individuals in it.   If "Call 911 and die." does not work for you, don't try suing the cops for being no shows, it won't work.   If it takes the seven minutes to get to you, who is responsible for saving you in that first seven minutes? YOU are, pal.   You are responsible for your own defense.   Hopefully, the bad guy doing you in has a gun, that way, YOU CAN TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM AND USE IT ON HIM.   I'm sure Wendy Cukier will send flowers to your funeral.   Well, no, actually, she doesn't do that.


Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 28, 2005, 02:38:07
Basically it comes down to. Carry a handgun, and someone potentially dies. Either you or someone else. The fact that some of you seem to be able to cast aside so easily the idea of killing someone means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help.


This has to be the worst thoughtout comment I have ever read.

  You are a soldier - as such you has best be in a proper mental mindset that killing is part of you business.  If you can't get a grip on taking lives - get the f out you are of no use to us.   You have to understand that you have to literally be a lightswitch with killing, the fact that you are willing can sometimes de-escalate situations when the hostiles realise you'll do it and not look back.  Understanding there is nothing wrong with killing in the line of duty is key.



 

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 28, 2005, 03:54:46
Quote
Iraqi citizens fight back, kill murderous militants
(Edmonton Journal, 23 Mar 04)

BAGHDAD/ Shopkeepers and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets pulled out their own guns Tuesday and killed three insurgents when hooded men began shooting at passers by, giving a rare victory to civilians increasingly frustrated by the violence bleeding Iraq.

The clash in the capital's southern Doura neighbourhood erupted when militants in three cars sprayed bullets at shoppers. Three people â ”a man, a woman and a child â ”were wounded.

A forceful citizen response is rare, but not unheard of in a country where conflict has become commonplace and the law allows each home to have a weapon.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 28, 2005, 05:21:40
LOL!!

Jeez.

One - The job of a soldier is to kill. No problem. Get the government to point you at someone and have a blast. Literally.

The problem with discussing gun control is that the gun-grabbers invariably run out of facts and then respond by attacking the messenger - as above - and not the message.  They then show their true colours - as despots  -  and prove to us all.  Because they are too meek and weak to demand to be allowed to live among the same freedoms our fathers fought for, WE also must kow-tow to their sapply, cloying, flacid liberalism which destroys democratic life where ever it raises it's head.

Zipper, if democracy is too much for you to handle, hop the next flight to Cuba.  In a democracy, the right to defend youself with up to and including lethal force with firearms if and when necessary is the ONE and ONLY right that enables all other rights.  Remove that right, and democracy is two generations away from irrelevance.

Do you live in Canada? Or are you wishing you lived in the States? Guns and democracy have little to do with one another. And what the hell is this "fathers fought for crap"? If you mean the world wars? Yes, we sent "soldiers" to fight, not gun packing farmers. I think you have been reading to many NRA newletters. Our history is painted in as much blood as our friends to the south, and didn't have anything to do with our fathers living by the barrels of their guns.

The argument is not about whether we need guns period. We do. Thats what all those "official" type people are for (Police, soldiers, security, etc.).

Not is it about the gun registry, because I agree. Its a waste of paper.

Do guns scare me? If its sitting on the table, no. If it is in someones hands, you bet. Am I comfortable around them and capable of using them? Sure. This is for me, the fact that "I" do not see the sense in carrying a gun around. If you need a meal, go shoot one. If you are competing at target shooting. Go nuts.

But this lame idea that your "stronger" because you carry a gun is BS. Fine, fight back in the comforts of your own home. But don't be carrying the damn thing around with you for a night out at the movies. At that point it is nothing but an ego booster. If you a big guy with military training and street smarts, there should be very few situations that you should feel the need to even HAVE a gun on you. And that is here in OUR society. Not on deployment, not some person in Bagdad. Here.

Thus your message that handguns are needed for the purposes of carrying for "protection" are illogical. They are based on YOUR own fears and insecurities. I don't have such.

This is why there are no "stats" on either side to solidly prove or disprove this issue. You fear society and thus you carry. I do not and thus I don't.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 28, 2005, 09:57:38
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

Some interesting stats on the rate of homicide in the US.


Stay Safe
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 28, 2005, 10:20:50
From the pages of packing .org, an American's response to the question, "Why do you carry?"

"Guns are like fire extinguishers. 99.99% of the days I have one, I won't need it. But for that .01% of the time, it will mean the difference between life or death--my own life, or that of someone I love. Do you have a fire extinguisher?"

There are a few more here -     http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/37440/

Obviously we don't have any such commentaries available for Canada.........

Stay Safe
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 28, 2005, 11:36:34
Zipper,

 You are missing the point.  My point is you only NEED a handgun - when you need one.  Lets say you and your girlfriend are out watching a movie and some misguided unloved individual that society had neglected comes in a decided he wants to be on CNN with the gun he bouhgt down at the local crack house...

 Yes it is rare - but it happens.  Glock17's fire extinguisher analogy is 100% on target - MUCH better to have and not need - than not have and need.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 28, 2005, 11:40:56
As always happens in gun-control debates, facts were presented and ignored in favor of philosophical beliefs. Theirs is no more point in arguing since people's true colours have shone through. I had an entire post that went in to personal attacks. It was cathartic to write, but I decided to post this instead.

It's discussions like this that reminded me of why I'm trying to get out of this country. The gun control discussion is a microcosm of the bigger issue that concerns us; that of our eroding personal freedom and the even scarier trend that every generation seems more willing then the previous to give up freedom and personal responsibility for the illusion of safety and comfort provided by the all knowing and prescient state. All of you who so willingly argue that freedom should be limited â Å“just in caseâ ? or because â Å“I don't agree with itâ ? should be ashamed and do not deserve those freedoms which you still enjoy.

We are only a few generations away from a fascist socialist state in Canada, and especially here in Quebec. If you don't see it, then you're blind. If you do see it and don't care then I have no words for you. If I ever have any kids I certainly do not want them growing up here. I'll send postcards in a few years, and who knows, you might even get them if the government censors allow them through.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on March 28, 2005, 12:10:30

Quote
It's discussions like this that reminded me of why I'm trying to get out of this country. The gun control discussion is a microcosm of the bigger issue that concerns us; that of our eroding personal freedom and the even scarier trend that every generation seems more willing then the previous to give up freedom and personal responsibility for the illusion of safety and comfort provided by the all knowing and prescient state. All of you who so willingly argue that freedom should be limited â Å“just in caseâ ? or because â Å“I don't agree with itâ ? should be ashamed and do not deserve those freedoms which you still enjoy.


Bang on!It all comes down to personal freedom,and personal responsability.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 28, 2005, 12:53:27
What caused (or catalysed) the decline in Firearm crime trends through the 1990s?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 14:49:16
The crime stats are American, and may reflect:

1. Lower population in the "Homey with a Gat" demograph,
2. Concealed carry laws in some jurisdictions,
3. Longer sentences for career criminals,
4. Better trauma medicine will result in lower murder rates, but higher assaults.

Murder rates often include self-defence shootings, or even shootings by law officers, which will slant the stats.  Obviously, if every girl (or guy) being raped in the next year successfully resisted with lethal force, the stats would go up, but the quality of the surviving population would be higher.  Something to be said for that, as career rapists get more violent as they go on.  With some of them out of the pool, the stats would eventually improve.

The justice industry - and it is an industry -  deals with survivors.

One advantage of capital punishment: no repeat offenders. ;D

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 28, 2005, 15:01:47
I can speculate too.  However, the link I posted shows a drop in crimes involving guns (it does not show homicide anyting).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 15:10:11
Then I would prob go with demographics.  I am shy to look at that data apart from other forms of violent crime.  There is far less gun crime in England, but their violent crime is increasing, and will might pass the dropping US rates in a decade or so.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 28, 2005, 15:23:36
Zipper, I'm reading your posts and man, you make no sense - I haven't figured out where you are going for the last few pages now.   Perhaps it's time to suck back and reload?   Try to write your viewpoint on Firearms (and how they can be used - ie CCW) in a sentence or two so we can address your concerns; if you can't do this, it is probably too convoluted and you need to try again.

As always happens in gun-control debates, facts were presented and ignored in favor of philosophical beliefs. Theirs is no more point in arguing since people's true colours have shone through. I had an entire post that went in to personal attacks. It was cathartic to write, but I decided to post this instead.

Tell me about it - I think I'm at 20 pages without my fundamental issue never being addressed; I feel like I'm talking to myself (well, just to you and KevinB, I guess).

What caused (or catalysed) the decline in Firearm crime trends through the 1990s?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns

Well, it certainly wouldn't be any lack of access to firearms, as apparently The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, and rises by about 4.5 million per year. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120).   Now, this is from the NRA, which some may wish to dismiss out of hand (it was the first thing that came up when I googled gun numbers in the US - go figure, eh?) but the data that the NRA presents is extrapolated from a ATF document, so I think it can trusted as fairly reliable.

It seems that gun control advocates argue the same thing (that the gun market in the US is large and growing):
http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/gun_industry.asp

I can see that the most basic application of the statistics show that the correlation between gun ownership and and crime is very weak - and yet no one has bothered to dispute this in their efforts to argue for gun control.

I fully acknowledge that a rise in the level of guns in Canada means that more violent crime will be committed with firearms (its a "no crap" kind of statement when you think of it) but I have yet to see anything that would convince me that this is crime that would be over and above our current levels - I find it highly irrational to believe that violent offenders in Canadian society base their actions off of whether they have a firearm or not.   I assert that if the amount of guns in Canada were to increase, we would see a greater percentage of violent crime involve firearms, but that the base rate of violent offenses would largely remain unchanged - I am unsure of how one could assert this claim, but it just seems rather intuitive to me when you look at the arguements out there.

But on the topic of a CCW, we are not even talking about a rise in gun ownership here - most of the people in Canada who want to own a a handgun most likely already do and have not showed a propensity for violent crime (there would probably be a small spike in people interested in acquiring one if they knew they could carry it for personal safety reasons).

It seems that the only difference that CCW would make concerning gun owners is their ability to take it more places legally and thus increase its availability to a properly trained and aware citizen.   I believe that CCW and a robust ROE would have an impact on criminals though, as their rationality in finding a victim might take a new turn.   It probably won't be profound, but I think the benefits of having a society where the individual can (and is protected by the law) take steps to ensure personal safety far outweighs any negative affects (what those would be, I've yet to really find in searching through the stats).

I still think KevinB's proposal would be a solid approach for attacking crime at the social level:

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.


There it is folks - tell me how this would make your life in Canada miserable.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on March 28, 2005, 15:47:46
Quote
But on the topic of a CCW, we are not even talking about a rise in gun ownership here - most of the people in Canada who want to own a a handgun most likely already do and have not showed a propensity for violent crime (there would probably be a small spike in people interested in acquiring one if they knew they could carry it for personal safety reasons).

I for one don't really see a reason to need to carry a handgun in public,but i live in a rural area.I do however carry when i am backpacking or fishing,and i don't see why i shouldn't be able to do so.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 28, 2005, 15:52:50
I for one don't really see a reason to need to carry a handgun in public,but i live in a rural area.I do however carry when i am backpacking or fishing,and i don't see why i shouldn't be able to do so.

Your perception may be different the others - some may not see the reason for me to take my truck off the pavement, but is it up to that perception to be the grounding for restrictions on Canadians to do what they want?

If allowing for a CCW doesn't lead to any adverse affects (in real quantitative terms, not just hurting someones feelings) I don't see how we can justify not allowing Canadians, if properly certified and trained, to carry a firearm as private citizens.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 15:53:47
"There it is folks - tell me how this would make your life in Canada miserable."

That would make all of our lives less miserable.   Too bad we can't convince those who stand to benefit the most.   I think the justice industry is a very powerful lobby group that preys on the fears of your average hoplophobe and pumps sunshine up their butts regarding the wonderful new world order.   The ljustice industry needs the violent and pschopathic out on the street to keep the police in bigger budgets and the lawyers and judges in hookers and SUVs.   

As for the four dead Mounties, to most lawyers and judges, that was just another industrial accident.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 28, 2005, 16:03:58
I'm not sure its on some sort of conspiracy level like that Tom.

People won't take your arguements seriously if you relegate opposing viewpoints to some liberal conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 17:09:54
I should have been, I think, a little more specific, and a little less sarcastic.

We are all cogs in a giant wheel, and every form of progress has it's price.  Civilization is dangerous.  Through industrial accidents, sickness, procedural activities and bad luck - people die. In that sense, Big Oil kills people, Big Agro kills people, Big Auto kills people, Big Health kills people, and Big Justice kills people. 

No conspiracies are needed.  It is just all of us doing our jobs and things happen.  So whether we have four fishermen drowning, four steelworkers crushed, four farmers killed in a truck rollover, four 7/11 clerks bludgeoned or four Mounties shot, it is all the same.  It is the price we pay for operating our society the way we do.

By all accounts - the way people vote - the price is reasonable.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 28, 2005, 17:13:05
An interesting quote:

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:49:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Edward Hudson <edwardhudson@shaw.ca>
Subject: Sacrifices a Thousand Real Advantages

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take
fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it;
that has no remedy for ills, except destruction. The laws that forbid
the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be
supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred
laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the
less
important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and
impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal
liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and
subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone
ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not
preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous
impression
of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the
inconvenience and advantages of a universal decree."

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beccaria.htm
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 29, 2005, 01:43:24
For those interested in a little more reading:

Firearm Control - Assessing the Impact (Australia) - http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilasep98.html

Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand - http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/

An alternative Firearms Control proposal - http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article67.pdf

Gun Control Laws in Canada (ten positive results from new firearm legislation) - http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500b.htm

Gun Control Laws in Canada (Are Canada's Gun Laws Effective?) - http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm

U.S. Demographics Favor Firearms Control (this is the weakest link) - http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/93106/2001/oct22/firearms/firearms.html

Gender & Firearms Control (another weak link) - http://uk.geocities.com/faridesack/fegender.html

A Case for Gun Control (Infanteer, this guys got some beefs with the statistics you posted from Lott) - http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Gun Control: A Select Bibliography - http://criminology.utoronto.ca/library/gun.htm

The Case For Gun Control - http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

The Failure of British Gun Control - http://www.claytoncramer.com/Britain.pdf

Why Gun Control Is Not the Right Answer - http://www.sharongunclub.org/joly.html

It seems both sides are able to produce purely statistical or emotional arguments.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 29, 2005, 03:00:04
Zipper, I'm reading your posts and man, you make no sense - I haven't figured out where you are going for the last few pages now.   Perhaps it's time to suck back and reload?   Try to write your viewpoint on Firearms (and how they can be used - ie CCW) in a sentence or two so we can address your concerns; if you can't do this, it is probably too convoluted and you need to try again.

Point taken. I've spent to much time replying to certain messages and have not spelled out any clear message. I tried above, but I lost my message it seems? So lets try again.

Quote
I still think KevinB's proposal would be a solid approach for attacking crime at the social level:

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.


There it is folks - tell me how this would make your life in Canada miserable.

Ok. To start, I don't believe the gun registry is a good thing. It is nothing but a government attempt to grab money from gun owners. It does not solve a thing, and criminals are still able to get them (guns).

As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.

Now for above. I'm surprised you used social in there, as what you have posted is yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution. If anything is going to be solved as far as crime is concerned, you have to look at prevention.

1) Tougher sentances - Ok, but who is going to pay for it? You? I thought you guys wanted lower taxes? Putting more people in jail for longer means more prisioners and thus more prisions. Not to mention that stiffer penalties have been proven NOT to deter crime.

2) More security personal - Yet another who's going to pay for it? Expensive. As well it has a negative effect on society to have to many police running around. Unless you don't mind us coming closer to a police state?

3)Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death. Humans make mistakes. More humans make more mistakes. Humans with guns make bigger mistakes. How long before little Billy gets a hold of daddies gun and takes it to school? And blows away his class?

Also this argument still smacks of fear to me. People who have to carry weapons to "feel" safe are afraid. Do we need a lot more people walking around in fear for their lives? Especially when their not only afraid of criminals, but those people who carry guns may be criminals too. Whos to say who is and who isn't? Lets all be afraid of one another. Pretty miserable to me.

4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. But property? C'mon. Compared to yours or anyones life, what is a car? Or a TV? Or a necklace? Their just objects. In other words, they mean NOTHING. As for protection of life? You have to prove your life was in danger and you had no choice but to take the actions you did. Not easy.

I've been held up at knife point. Is my life worth my wallet? I don't think so. Whats the cost of life compared to a few dollars? Credit cards? I can cancel those as soon as the guy goes around the corner. Big deal. The guy was caught later that day trying to use my cards. Charged. What did I really lose? I was inconvieneced and my ego took a hit. So what.

The only thing about number 4 is ego. Get over it.

To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.

Considering I came from the butt end of North York, I got to see it all the time up close. Its not pretty and in some cases I can relate to some of these guys at the ends of their ropes wanting to take something from the "rich" guy over there. So before you throw the guy in jail and throw away the key, try living in his shoes for awhile.

Honestly, I would love to see all handguns banned outright. But that doesn't work because the criminals will just get them from the south.

So I'll leave you with two cliche's that work.

An once of prevention instead of a pound of cure.

And live in the other guys shoes for awhile and see if you can come up with better solutions.

Oh, and to head off the screaming of "liberal". I prefer to see myself as a small c conservative (red tory if you like).

As well, this is more logical then emotional.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 29, 2005, 04:26:51
Quote,
4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand.

...and there ya go, everything else you said was just silly,fluffy window dressing..........and I still dislike guns.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 29, 2005, 04:39:48
You cheated - that wasn't one or two sentences.

However, since you took the time (twice), and I enjoy deconstructing silly rantings and ravings (for the last 30 pages), I'll run through this.

Ok. To start, I don't believe the gun registry is a good thing. It is nothing but a government attempt to grab money from gun owners. It does not solve a thing, and criminals are still able to get them (guns).

Agreed.

Quote
As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.

Agreed - as a bit of a backpacker/camper I've done the same; sometimes you go without (especially if backpacking); usually the Parks and Trails systems are busy enough and have the right means (food hangers) to keep thing relatively safe.   Sometimes I throw the 20-gauge under the backseat of the truck (properly locked of course) if I'm heading of to Grizzly or Cat country (like alot of the miners in my hometown);   Never hurts to have around - I've got a friend who was terrorized by a cougar for hours once, so there might be a time for dealing with a threat.

Quote
Now for above. I'm surprised you used social in there, as what you have posted is yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution.

Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric.   As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).

Quote
If anything is going to be solved as far as crime is concerned, you have to look at prevention.

If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention".   If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?

Quote
1) Tougher sentences - Ok, but who is going to pay for it? You? I thought you guys wanted lower taxes? Putting more people in jail for longer means more prisioners and thus more prisions. Not to mention that stiffer penalties have been proven NOT to deter crime.

Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).

Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all.   I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend.   How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??

Quote
2) More security personal - Yet another who's going to pay for it? Expensive. As well it has a negative effect on society to have to many police running around. Unless you don't mind us coming closer to a police state?

The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry.   Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are.   That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.

As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts.   All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.

Quote
3)Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death. Humans make mistakes. More humans make more mistakes. Humans with guns make bigger mistakes. How long before little Billy gets a hold of daddies gun and takes it to school? And blows away his class?

Are you going to back that?   More "junk food" here.   How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?

As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada".   Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.

Quote
Also this argument still smacks of fear to me.

You're the one who states that "Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."

Quote
People who have to carry weapons to "feel" safe are afraid. Do we need a lot more people walking around in fear for their lives? Especially when their not only afraid of criminals, but those people who carry guns may be criminals too. Whos to say who is and who isn't? Lets all be afraid of one another. Pretty miserable to me.

Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it?   Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general?   Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".

Quote
4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. But property? C'mon. Compared to yours or anyones life, what is a car? Or a TV? Or a necklace? Their just objects. In other words, they mean NOTHING. As for protection of life? You have to prove your life was in danger and you had no choice but to take the actions you did. Not easy.

I've been held up at knife point. Is my life worth my wallet? I don't think so. Whats the cost of life compared to a few dollars? Credit cards? I can cancel those as soon as the guy goes around the corner. Big deal. The guy was caught later that day trying to use my cards. Charged. What did I really lose? I was inconvieneced and my ego took a hit. So what.

Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue.   A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.

Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring.   This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.

Quote
The only thing about number 4 is ego. Get over it.

If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves).   You should be mindful that others may not share such a laissez faire attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.

Quote
To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.

Okay - I'll just break out my copy of Das Kapital and do that tommorrow.   ::)

How are you going to do this?

As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences.   Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.

Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"?   I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.

Quote
Considering I came from the butt end of North York, I got to see it all the time up close. Its not pretty and in some cases I can relate to some of these guys at the ends of their ropes wanting to take something from the "rich" guy over there. So before you throw the guy in jail and throw away the key, try living in his shoes for awhile.

"Living in his shoes for a while"?   Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony?   It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".

Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line.   Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?

Quote
Honestly, I would love to see all handguns banned outright. But that doesn't work because the criminals will just get them from the south.

So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns.   I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:

"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."

I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").

Quote
So I'll leave you with two cliche's that work.

An once of prevention instead of a pound of cure.

Tell that to a victim of a violent crime.   If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here.   As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"

Quote
And live in the other guys shoes for awhile and see if you can come up with better solutions.

The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested.   Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".

Quote
Oh, and to head off the screaming of "liberal". I prefer to see myself as a small c conservative (red tory if you like).

As well, this is more logical then emotional.

I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as "yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution".   Good job painting with a broad brush though.

As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data.   All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments.   You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy.   Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 29, 2005, 05:01:49

.....can't believe I missed that, thanks Infanteer[eyes must be a bit fuzzy at 0300  from watching Zippers "poverty" people ::)]

Quote from Zipper,
To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.

.....hahahaha, oh if only, though I thank you for a good belly laugh at this time of night.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on March 29, 2005, 07:37:54


Quote
As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.

No not a rifle a 45 caliber handgun,Where i live it's not uncommon to have bears and cats come through my yard and 95 percent of the time they are harmless, but animals are unpredictable at times.If you were to accidentally stuble upon a mama bear and cubs you can use your head as much as you like,you're still gonna be in a world of hurt.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: glock17 on March 29, 2005, 10:48:29
As much as I hate to agree, even partially with the "counter" argument, I think fear may have a lot to do with it.

One theory is that the possibility of violent personal human aggression is what drives a lot of human behavior, such as... How can the spectre of one single serial killer, taking the lives of a small number ( 2-3 ) people paralyze an entire city of maybe a million people? When we face masses of death and destrucion daily on our roadways, with sickness and diseases such as cancer and heart attack. Why aren't we staying in our homes and running in fear every time we see an automobile? Why are people still smoking and eating burgers?

Evolution has ingrained in us a phobic response to even the remotest chance of violence in the form of attack from another human being.
Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur. That is why we train our soldiers and law enforcement officers through stimulus/ response conditioning ( Pavlov?) to overcome that inate phobic response that can turn the majority of us into victim's rather than warriors.

This theory is based on Dave Grossman's work, but I have as yet to finish the volume.......Hope I made some sense.

It'll have to wait though, I'm at the range today,

Stay Safe
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 29, 2005, 12:16:10
Quote
Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur.

I don't understand exactly what you (or Grossman) means here.

1- Being prepared makes aggression SEEM more likely
2- Or Being prepared MAKES aggression more likely
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on March 29, 2005, 12:32:31
Seems like some of you guys should move to Oregon....

From the StatesmanJournal.com

Career day photo of soldier with gun puts school district in a bind

CAROL MCALICE CURRIE



 
 
Special to the Statesman Journal

This picture of Marine Cpl. Bill Riecke of Salem  and two unidentified soldiers, while they were stationed in Iraq, has come under the scrutiny of the Salem-Keizer school district.
 
March 25, 2005

Unless they want to risk violating the school-district's zero-tolerance for weapons policy, Salem-Keizer student marksmen cannot have a pistol embroidered on their letterman jackets. Teen hunters are not allowed to wear silk-screened T-shirt images of themselves standing with rifles and bagged bulls.

And now, a high-school freshman who wants to hang a picture of her brother serving in the military is finding similar prohibitions because the image features a fully automatic rifle and a machine gun.

Last week, Shea Riecke, a freshman at McKay High School, tried to take a snapshot of her brother, Cpl. Bill Riecke, a Marine currently stationed in Twenty-nine Palms, Calif., to her social studies class.

She wanted to display the picture with those of other McKay grads' career choices. Riecke's teacher, Rick Costa, encourages the exhibits.

   
But Riecke's photo created a little controversy. Actually, it kicked up a sandstorm of grief for the family and school-district officials because of the photo's content. It pictures the Marine hefting a big gun while decked in military desert camies (camouflage). It was taken while he was stationed in Iraq; he will be redeployed there this summer.

The image of Shea's brother does not necessarily convey military service, said Simona Boucek, Salem-Keizer's communications coordinator, and the automatic weapons are the most prominent feature in the photo. The soldiers are pictured casually in a nondescript room.

School officials denied the photo on the grounds the guns in the picture violated district policy. Riecke's mother, Connie Riecke, appealed to district officials including Superintendent Kay Baker. Connie Riecke said she has not heard back from the district but was told that it probably could be displayed if she consented to having the weapons removed, via computer, from the photograph. Riecke said her son insists that it run as it is or not at all. She agrees with him.

"I don't think our school policies are meant to rewrite history. It doesn't make any sense to me," Connie Riecke said. "Are they going to go through every textbook and take out pictures of the Civil War that have soldiers carrying guns? Are they going to go through the library and take out all the Time magazines that feature soldiers with guns? I don't think so."

Connie Riecke said she understands the district's policy but thinks it should make an exception in this case.

"I want educators to be truthful," Riecke said. "This is a career choice, and children need to know that this is an important but dangerous job."

She believes that if the district allows military officers to recruit in high schools, it shouldn't conceal realistic images like the one of her son.

"It's a difficult issue for the district," Boucek said. "We'd be happy to honor her son and his service to our country, but it has to be a photo that's more appropriate for the classroom."

Boucek said an official portrait in dress uniform would work.

"We understand the girl's concerns, but our policy prohibits any display of weapons. This photo just isn't right for a classroom," Boucek said.

The district's caution is understandable, especially when earlier this week, a 16-year-old Minnesota student went on a shooting rampage at his high school, killing five students, a teacher and a security guard. He also killed his grandfather and the grandfather's companion before the attack at the high school, where he later killed himself.

This is a tough choice.

I don't believe that the minds of our high-school students are so malleable that they can be changed by the presence of a photograph, and sanitizing frightens me when government does it, so I wince if schools are doing the same.

But how do we know where to draw the line in this hot desert sand?

 ::)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 29, 2005, 17:03:16
I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.  I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.  If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.

The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.  How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.  I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.  The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.  I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.  I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.  Who here has?  Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?

Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 29, 2005, 18:00:33
I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.   I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.   If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.

The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.   How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.   I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.   The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.   I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.   I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.   Who here has?   Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?

Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.

Here, here!

Couldn't have said it better myself. :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 29, 2005, 22:06:23
Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric.   As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).

Ok, you got me there. A little underhanded shot to those of you out there that are. You know who you are.

Quote
If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention".   If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?

Unfortunatly this is to simplistic. Yes, I have done so as well, but reducing payoffs is not going to reduce your crime very much. Those people who still need to feed their habits are still going to risk it.And yes, it is a form of prevention, but not a particularly efficent one.

Quote
Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).


Agreed. But since we are not just talking about reducing crime here, but crime commited with guns. We are always going to have that core of hardtimers who will not be able to be rehabilitated and thus need the time to fit the crime. But as I have stated before, most violent crime is based on one time flashes of anger/bad judgement. Add a gun to this and you have a more likely chance of death. I'm sure Bruce can attest to the majority of those in his attendance to this fact? One time stupid or bad decisions with a weapon. Maybe because of drugs or alchohol, who knows.

Quote
Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all.   I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend.   How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??


No doubt. There are many that deserve to stay in. Especially if Bruce works at a Max. However, the greater portion of the prison population are not in max nor are they lost cases. The chance of reoffending is high. Granted. So should we not let these people have another chance at leading some kind of normal life? My wife works as a correctional officer as well, so I have a bit of an idea.

Quote
The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry.   Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are.   That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.

Granted. It was to simplistic. However the point still stands that more police often make people wonder what is going on and "is this a dangerous place". It does affect the pychie.


Quote
As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts.   All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.

Agreed. I do think there are some things that need to be toughened up, including gun related crimes. As well, there should be tougher standards on some criminals when they appear before their NPB hearings. However, prevention still is the word of the day when it comes to all of this.


Quote
Are you going to back that?   More "junk food" here.   How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?


Good for them. Who the hell are they? The fact remains that guns (in whoevers hands) have the potential to kill. Period. Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone. Unless you want to revert to that of an african tribal way of ripping each other apart, and/or bashing each other on the heads with whose concealed bats?


Quote
As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada".   Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.

Agreed. However if you increase the "gun" culture to that of the US, then your more likely to have Billy doing just that. Canadians just don't think along those lines. Its not part of our national way of thinking. Change that, and you risk it happening more often. Will it "never" happen? Of course not. No one can say that.

Quote
You're the one who states that "Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."


Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear. I don't intentionally put myself into harms way by walking down dark alley's, nor through that blacked out park. Common sense. If I did, you bet I would have fear.

Quote
Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it?   Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general?   Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".

I can throw the same back at you. I'm hardly a sole authority on this, not can I make/change how people think. I can just voice my opinion on what they hold in their hands, not their heads.

Quote
Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue.   A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.

Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring.   This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.

No doubt. If they do so, then they should be charged for the crime and sent to prision. But I think your priorities (and John's) are a little screwed up here. Is a car worth a life? Is your wallet? If you equate an inanimate object the same value as a persons life, then what can I say? I just shake my head.

Quote
If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves).   You should be mindful that others may not share such a laissez faire attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.

As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object.

As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them. We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?

Quote
Okay - I'll just break out my copy of Das Kapital and do that tommorrow.   ::)

How are you going to do this?

As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences.   Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.

Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"?   I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.

You go do that. Let me know what you find out. I never said it was a magic pill. No such thing. There will always be criminals no matter what. However, think of the drop in crime if we did get rid of poverty? No need to sell drugs or body or both to pay the bills/feed the kid. Not as much dispair and drinking/drug use to kill the pain.

Will it work? If we put our minds to it.

Is it easy and will it solve all our problems? No way and maybe by half. There will still be plenty of rich folk who need white stuff to stuff up their noses and who are depressed beyond functioning. There will still be hard core nut cases who just need to commit violence. There will be plenty of people (rich and poor)who still want to make a fast buck illegally by selling the crap.

Quote
"Living in his shoes for a while"?   Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony?   It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".

Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line.   Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?

Not at all. Just that we should look at the underlieing problems of society and try to solve those problems instead of quick "blow their heads off"/"throw em jail" fixes. And since when is it an obligation as a citizen to protect themselves by harming/taking a life of another human being?

Quote
So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns.   I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:

"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."

I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").

Actually I find them quite fun myself. I'm a very good marksman and I find a slight rush and ego boost when I'm at the range and do well. However if it comes right down to it, I don't NEED handguns. Nor do I see a particular sence in them beyond their usefulness as a military/para military weapon. Citizens do not NEED them for anything beyond the "feeling" that they want one. Its a rush/ego boost. I'll post a message later with a few ideas that more principal for you.

Quote
Tell that to a victim of a violent crime.   If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here.   As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"

You bet. I'll let them know that in order to prevent that crime, they have taken another persons life. That person is now dead. Even if they are informed that the person was just wanting to steal their DVD player to sell it for drugs. Thus revenge or justice is satisfied. We'll see how they feel about that after it sinks in a bit. They just killed someone. Boy I think they'll have a party now.

Its more likely they'll realize the horror of what they have done, and will need a lot of professional help. If not, then I just shake my head.

Quote
The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested.   Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".

Maybe not all of them. But then I say you are closed minded and if you cannot understand the cause and effect of what it means to live in poverty, then you will never be part of a solution.

Quote
I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as "yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution".   Good job painting with a broad brush though.

Thank you. I was aiming at those who have scream thus. You Inf are always very reasonable with your arguments and I love debating with you.

Quote
As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data.   All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments.   You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy.   Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?

Granted. I will post another message later with some logical break down for you. However as I have said before. There are NO figures or stats out there without counters. So to fall on them is useless. Its just spouting figures that people can either ignore or refute.

And I believe that the person who quoted Grossman is seeing some of my points as valid.

Thanks
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 29, 2005, 22:43:42
Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).  Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.  Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.  Get the picture?  If someone doesn't value his own life enough to take responsibility for it and avoid highly hazardous behaviours, why should I?

>Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone.

Sure.  Now prove the benefit is worth the cost.  How many people were killed and injured in the US last year during an exchange of gunfire between lawful carry permit holders over trivial matters, or no matter at all?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 29, 2005, 23:02:45
"As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object."

The life of my family is.  My life is.  Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?  Nope, his life isn't.
He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.  I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.  I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D

A man's home is his castle.

Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
Go ahead.  You won't will you?

No.  All Talk.

 When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.  Because it won't work.  It goes against human nature.

Now, level with us Zipper.  This isn't about the guns, is it?  You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?

You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?

Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: rw4th on March 30, 2005, 01:07:42
I wasn't going to post anymore but I can't help it.

Quote
Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear.

Either:

1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
2- You don't read the newspaper
3- You're willingly ignorant and/or dumb

Pick one (ok, 2 and 3 overlap).   If it's 1), please tell me where this is so I can find out if they need IT people there. Really, I mean it. I actually read the newspaper here. People get attacked, raped, and killed. It happens, it could happen to me or you, and I won't be the guy on page 6 saying â Å“I never thought it could happen to meâ ? making the HAF (Home Alone Face ;)).

I'm guessing you fit in to 3. You either choose to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or whenever you read them, you detach your reality from them in a clinical fashion.   I'll go with detaching yourself since you mentioned something about studying criminology. You actually live here to, and every time you read about a crime, remember that YOU or someone close to you could have been the victim. Boom, just like that; it can happen to anybody. If this doesn't get the wheels spinning in your head, you need to get it examined.

Quote
As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them.

You're argument that CCW would create an â Å“auxiliary police forceâ ? has already been debunked, please lay off it.

Quote
We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?

The only thing a person like me takes into his own hands is responsibility for himself, his actions, and his life. For example, if I get into a car accident, I blame myself; things can almost always be prevented if you pay attention. I would carry a gun for that 1% of times I can't prevent bad things from happening to me. It would seem you, on the other hand, would prefer to offset all of your major responsibilities to someone else; that is a piss poor way to live your life if you ask me, and is the major reason why our society is slowly breaking down.  

Wanting to arm myself with more then my car keys is not about machismo. If you ever choose to understand what it means to be responsible for yourself you'll start to realize that you're ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself alive. And once you actually start to â Å“play outâ ? the worst case scenarios (i.e. someone trying to kill you) you'll quickly realize that your odds of survival diminish greatly when you are unarmed. I don't like taking chances, I like stacking the odds in my favor, all the time, and for the likely as well as the unlikely possibilities. Spare tire? Check. Fire Extinguisher? Check. Backup of my hard drive? Check. Credit card number written down in case they get stolen? Check. Means of self-defense? ... uh well, if I have time to call 911, they might get there after I'm dead.

All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: I'm a pragmatist and a libertarian and you're a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.   Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.

I'm looking for a headhunter in the US that does IT jobs and tech visas. Anybody know a good one?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 01:16:28
Not yet.  Too bad they don't need fifty year old soon-to-be-retired-Crewmen.  ;D

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 30, 2005, 02:11:13
Ok, I cannot help but laugh.

Infanteer - Ok you haven't said anything. And I admit I threw out that shot about radical and all, but you have to admit these last few posts above about commie and facist are rather funny. ::)

Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).   Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.   Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.  

Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

The life of my family is.   My life is.   Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?   Nope, his life isn't.
He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.   I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.   I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D

A man's home is his castle.

No argument there. And I'm surprised you are able to show so much restraint. Good for you.

Quote
Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
Go ahead.   You won't will you?

No.   All Talk.

Actually if they had one, I would think about it. It could go right beside the neighboorhood watch and the "I use green power" signs.
 
Quote
When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.   Because it won't work.   It goes against human nature.

Human nature? LOL!! Is that right up there with God given rights? As Captain Kirk said, "I choose not to kill...              ...today." that is what separates us from our barbarian ancestors.

Quote
Now, level with us Zipper.   This isn't about the guns, is it?   You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?

You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?

Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?

LOL. You didn't read did you? I could have swore I posted that I considered myself a small c conservative. You know? Fiscal responsiblity, strong military, good government, healthy social programs?

Guess thats to far left for you and rw4th eh?

Either:

1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
2- You donâ ™t read the newspaper
3- Youâ ™re willingly ignorant and/or dumb

Pick one (ok, 2 and 3 overlap).    If itâ ™s 1), please tell me where this is so I can find out if they need IT people there. Really, I mean it. I actually read the newspaper here. People get attacked, raped, and killed. It happens, it could happen to me or you, and I wonâ ™t be the guy on page 6 saying "I never thought it could happen to meâ Â? making the HAF (Home Alone Face ;)).

Iâ ™m guessing you fit in to 3. You either choose to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or whenever you read them, you detach your reality from them in a clinical fashion.    Iâ ™ll go with detaching yourself since you mentioned something about studying criminology. You actually live here to, and every time you read about a crime, remember that YOU or someone close to you could have been the victim. Boom, just like that; it can happen to anybody. If this doesnâ ™t get the wheels spinning in your head, you need to get it examined.

Actually if you have read my posts, I was born and raised in T.O. Spent most of my life there and now I'm out west. Never lived in a small town, never want too. Read the paper every day and watch the news too. I find the BBC is usually the most objective, how bout you? I bet you watch CNN and Fox don't you?

Quote
All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: Iâ ™m a pragmatist and a libertarian and youâ ™re a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.    Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.

Thats obvious. And which fact does not support which law? As for my opinions. They are that. Opinions. Which is what this board and thread are all about. But I guess disagreement is not what you came here for? I have no problem with those who disagree. In fact I disagreed with lots of things when I first came here, but with good points and facts, I changed my mind on a number of issues. I think Infanteer could vouch for that. As for more people thinking like me. My god I hope not. Although being in the majority from time to time does feel good. ;D

Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.

Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.

Lets break it down shall we?

Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).

Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.

Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.

Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.

Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.

There you have it.

Why do I call these unnecassary? Because other then someone wanting, collecting (a form of want), one. There is no practical need for them at all. There up there with the need to smoke. There is no need and it can kill you or someone else who doesn't want to die.

They are simply there as a want. I want to protect myelf? Well, use your head and build a panic room if your that scared.

I want one because this is a free country and I may one day need it to defend myself against the government. Ok? Maybe 200 years ago this would have washed. But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.

Thanks

 ;)

For those who are looking to go south?

Bon Voyage!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: MCG on March 30, 2005, 02:14:38
This has gone stupid.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on March 30, 2005, 02:50:17
This has gone stupid.

Agreed.

I've said my peace. The agreement is to disagree (Although I would like to hear from Infanteer. ;D). Except on the original question. The registry should be shut down. Waste of money.

Thanks
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 02:59:25
Well, there you go.

Zipper:

1. Good work with the small c, neighbourhood watch, and the green outlook.   Keep it up.

2. I will not interfere with your right NOT to possess articles of property collectively known as firearms, if you do not interfere with my right TO possess such articles of property.

 There.

I realize that no data, history, studies or stories will ever change your mind, so that's that.   Good luck, and if you do ever come around to our way of thinking, I hope it is through calm reflection and not personal trauma.

I am taking a few of my FN rifles to the range this week, I'll let you know how much fun I had after I get back.

 :)

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 30, 2005, 03:38:56
Ok, I cannot help but laugh.

 Well don't feel bad where all laughing at you so you may as well join along.

Quote
Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

 Recoil?   I know it is a poor answer - but if someone was coming to cause myself or my family harm - tap tap.   My biggest concern is not allowing my son to see the body and finding a steam cleaner at that hour of the night.


Quote
Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.

Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.

Sports?   I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...

Quote
Lets break it down shall we?

Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).

This should be neat...   ::)

Quote

Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.

Well firstly most LE departments are putting Rifles INTO cars - why handguns are an ineffective tool - Rifles kill.

Quote
Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.

Firstly PLEASE show me where the Geneva Convention deals with this...     I woudl hazard a educated guess you actually meant the Hague Convention - in which the rules of Land Warfare are encompassed?   -- I figured you did - so I enclosed this link so you can read them -   http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art23 and please do try to find the issue on shotguns, HINT you won't.   We (yes the CF) use shotguns so get off your incorrectly assumed moral high horse.


Quote
Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.

 Other than they are concealable and a good secondary weapon, nothing you state above is true.   Mines kill many more non military deaths - Oh but they are banned   ::).   Olympic pistol events?   Service Pistol etc...     and LEGAL personal protection.

Quote

Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.

I am not even goign to comment on this - you sound like some half retarded reporter.

Quote
There you have it.

You are RTFO.   I really dont know if you truly beleive this, or just like to spout BS for the sake of making someone who has done a small semblance of research look like a honour student?

Quote
But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.


No it does not - what it means is I dont have to pay any attention to the fact that your an oxygen thief.   The only restriction on my freedoms are when they specifically interfer or endanger you.   I have a RIGHT to own guns - However I cannot discharge them AT you, my rights end at your nose...



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Britney Spears on March 30, 2005, 04:05:43
Quote
Sports?  I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...

Heh, I've always wondered why gunowners need to find justification for owning guns besides killing people. Isn't killing people good enough? Its the only reason I've ever needed,, so if an intruder breaks into my house with the intent of harming me or my family or even my property, I can KILL him. Why is that such a bad thing? It's certainly a more noble reason than punching holes in paper or the senseless slaughter of innocent, defenceless wildlife. Guess that's why gun haters  seem to think I'm from Mars.

Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 04:10:27
"Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol"

Variety is the spice of life.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 30, 2005, 04:17:07
Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.

I totally disagree - the discipline it takes to master those sports, makes for a very effective pupil for more military related shooting sports.

If the shooters have the fundamentals mastered it is much easier to have them step out of flash fire CQB drills - and when you tell them to take a 'tactical breath' and release the shot for more precise shooting, they fall into it way better than those who have not gotten a excellent grip on the fundamentals.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 30, 2005, 04:52:29
I was going to play the response game, but after trying to find a cohesive counter-argument from Zipper and failing to do so, I realized that it was not worth the energy to take the time to respond to someone who only argues my posts with "junk food" (lots of fluff with no value) posts like "More Guns = More Crime", "Handguns are made to kill people", "Most Crime is committed in the heat of the moment", or "Crime is due to poverty" or (my favorite) "Who the Hell are the Gebusi" (which indicates that you don't even want to consider that I might be correct about a weak correlation between firearms and crime).

All of this is said without the slightest inclination to prove that you aren't getting your information from watching Heat (to quote A Majoor).   I'm starting to suspect that your failure to provide a reasonable counterargument in about 15 pages is just trolling.   If it ain't trolling, then you're not listening or you don't want to give me anything to consider that can be grounded upon a realistic and cohesive premise (one that you're willing to back with evidence).

I can see there is no point in debating property rights (which is what the real issue of a CCW revolves around) and criminal statistics (which isn't really related at all, since Criminals can't have them) with someone who doesn't seem to have any grasp for debate at all.

I'll leave this with Art's post concerning the last spin-cycle of this thread, which seems to fit both gun ownership in general and (by extention) a CCW and robust self defence ROE for Canadian citizens.   If you don't think people in Canada can live with individual responsibility, then cover your eyes....

Skimming this thread it seems no one is willing to back down. The arguments for banning guns are the same lame ones we hear over and over, but assertions about property rights, comparative rates of crime in gun owning and gun free societies, the utility of various sorts of firearms, rocket launchers, artillery pieces(?) do not seem to be making any impact.

I will offer a few observations in the interest of venting (and pushing my posting count, but that is an altogether different matter   ;D)

1. People do own and use firearms recreational, even military weapons like HMGs. At the really big gun conventions, there are usually days set aside where the big iron is brought out, and owners either fire themselves or let you do it for a price. Some indoor ranges also have submachinegun rentals, and/or allow you to bring malfunctioning houshold appliances or obsolete computers to the range to use as targets. (Working in IT myself, I fully understand that impulse.) Other people go to Oshkosh every summer for the big airshow to see and maybe fly the latest in homebuilt aircraft, or Daytona Beach for motorcycle week, or Detroit for the auto show....people are interested in different things, and it is not up to you or I to decide what they should or should not do. I can suggest a few hobbies I find interesting, and you are free to partake or not.

2. Lots of activities are inherently dangerous. The more danger you potentially pose, the more you need to demonstrate your fitness. Driving an 18 wheeler requires a different licence than driving a car. A pilots licence needs even more rigorous testing (ever thought about the kinetic energy of an airplane moving at @ 300kph?)We currently have FACs to demonstrate suitability to own firearms.

3. There are bigger and better things than "recreational mortars" out there. "Pumpkin chucking" usually involves replicas of ancient and medieval catapults, Batista and trebuchets. Substitute a large rock or javelin, and you have a real war machine capable of smashing houses. Should we ban pumpkin chucking too?

4. Banning rifles to keep them out of the hands of criminals can only be a result of seeing the movie "Heat" too many times. Although the gunfight scene is spectacular, in the real world criminals do not pull AK-47s from under their sweater, because it is too hard to support (ammunition) and too hard to conceal. Pistols are much preferred, Knives are better because they are easier to get, and locally procured materials (a broken bottle, piece of lumber or a pair of Doc Martins) is best of all. I have been assaulted, always by bad guys using local materials, never with knives and certainly never with a gun.

Banning guns and the Gun Registry are solutions looking for a problem. They target law abiding citizens, yet do nothing at all to reduce criminal activity. Indeed, I believe there was an article in the National Post which pointed out the murder rate in Canada has risen since the passage of the Gun Registry bill. If I had to guess at the causal connection, it would be the diversion of one billion (or more) dollars from policing to go to a gesture.

In the end, if you cannot or will not take responsibility for your own actions, then you should not be entrusted with firearms, or a driver's licence or anything else. Property ownership is the practial expression of your political rights, so attempts to restrict property ownership are fundimentally attempts to restrict your rights.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 05:05:47
And of course this week, I received my SAP (Special Authority to Posess), that allows me to take my FN rifles to the range, only the SAP just goes to the end of MAY, because there are some "changes" coming, and in this business change is always BAD.  So that leaves me several weekends to burn out the barrels on my two C1s and three L1A1s.  I'll start Saturday.  Photos will follow.  Time to cash in the RRSPs for .308 hardball, I guess.

Bastards.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on March 30, 2005, 05:15:07
Hey, at least others feel better knowing you won't be out causing death and destruction in the streets of Canada....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 05:23:46
"Hey, at least others feel better knowing you won't be out causing death and destruction in the streets of Canada...."

Where I come from, that's what CARS are for.

 ;D

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 30, 2005, 14:26:42
>However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

Relief to not be a victim.

Conservative good government is government which respects the freedoms and rights of the individual.  To call oneself a conservative believing in good government while supporting arbitrary infringments of the freedoms of the individual is a contradiction.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Foxhound on March 30, 2005, 19:59:51
Tom:

After reading your post, I went to http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp and read the following:

Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show.

This is apparently supposed to take effect on Apr. 10.

This absolutely means that after April 10th I will no longer be able to fire my C1, doesn't it?

Bastards indeed!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on March 30, 2005, 22:29:52
Yes indeed - seems as the typical retarded leftleaning Liberal polical agenda - that they would simply change the law and give people another "feel good" change - now those evil HK91 rifles (well at least the legal ones that had been registered and where no illegally converted to automatic and paper dewatted..) cannot go to the range.


Somedays I just feel sick to be a Canadian - home of whimsical legal changes without any due process.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 23:27:37
I posted this on the "self Defence" thread, but it also applies here, so:




----- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.


 Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen


The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
 Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
 MAR 1 5 2005
 A.W. Parsons
 2307 - 85 Street
 Edmonton, Alberta T6K 3H1

 Dear A.W. Parsons:

 The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime   Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has   forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect   himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding.   The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a   person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in   lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable   force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house.   Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using   reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that property, or   to remove someone who is already trespassing.

 In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself, the   person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.
 In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the   Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence   allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault,
which   includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an   attempt or threat to apply force.

 Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond   to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these   defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal,   such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force   used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would therefore have to be considered on its own.

 I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours sincerely,
 A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
 Irwin Cotler
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 31, 2005, 00:30:32
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:21:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Calgary Herald

letter sent  unpublished

I read with interest  "Shielding youth from firearm"2005.03.24, Real Life,E3, Men's Health.

Professor Keenan  (Informational Systems Professional) used  studies done by the Medical Community  to make recommendations to the Firearms Community concerning shielding our youth from firearms.  They  include such things as: keeping a gun locked; storing a gun unloaded; locking up ammunition; storing
the gun and ammunition separately etc.  These things are covered by hunter and firearm safety courses in our provinces. I agree amd also feel we should have mandatory firearms safety courses at some level in our public schools making firearm safety concepts universal.

However, owning a gun, sport shooting, gun collecting and hunting are NOT risky activities as Keenan and the Medical folks suggest.. Actuaries and Insurance Companies who make their living by assessing risk, don't
even ask an applicant if he/she owns a firearm.  "The Insurance Bureau of Canada" confirms that the presence of firearms in a home would only be relevant to insurers if they were considered as valuable personal property.  The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said that "firearms ownership
was not a rated activity and was not considered for underwriting purposes."

 If we do want to find a risky business let's look at the Medical Community, the source of Keenan's article..  Some of these folks can't  even buy malpractice insurance. Here is what the media have to say about their
industry.  "Explosive' study: medical errors kill 24,000 a year: Human & financial costs: Rate of 'adverse events' is double that in U.S. hospitals. As many as 24,000 patients die in Canadian hospitals each year, while
tens of thousands more are crippled, injured or poisoned in association with medical errors that could have been prevented." (National Post)

"A new landmark study of 20 hospitals in five provinces found one in 13 patients suffers an adverse event, more than double the rate found in studies of U.S. hospitals."

"I think this is pretty explosive data," said Alan Forster, a health services researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The study, to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found 185,000
patients a year suffer adverse events. The US fairs a little better.  But "data that have been collected about fatalities caused by America's health care system suggest that the anti-gun fervor of some doctors is born
of a desire to shift the blame from their own shortcomings." (National Post)

"Deaths from guns are more highly publicized than are deaths from malpractice, hospital-induced infections, careless prescriptions and other health care system causes, and that makes guns a handy target for
diverting attention from medicine's own death toll. It is not good science to depict guns as the biggest threat to America's children, but it sure beats accepting responsibility for one's own shortcomings.

In an article by Dr. Gary Null, et. al., (read archived article) government statistics were gathered to present an overall picture of the extent of death-by-medical-system that afflicts the United States.

Here is a summary of the data supporting Dr. Null's conclusion that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

For comparison, in 2001, the heart disease annual death toll was 699,697, and the cancer death toll was 553,251. The medical system death toll was 783,936!"(NewsWithViews.com)

SO, if  Dr. Keenan (ISP) lives by a standard of conduct he would have written a more balanced. less misleading  presentation with better consultation   May I suggest to him that before his next visit to a
health care facility he closes his pores by washing himself in cold soapy water and while there consider wearing a respirator, although they do tend to detract from the humble image some patients are seeking. Remember, the Medical Community offers you a much higher risk of incurring health problems from contact with the byproducts and emissions from its discharges than does the Firearms Community. If in doubt ask the Insurance Community.

Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 31, 2005, 04:47:29
From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
Subject: My letter to the CFC

Should be self-explanatory.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Mills <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
To: <cfc-cafc@cfc-cafc.gc.ca>
Cc: Breitkreuz, G - Assistant 1 <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>; Russ Powers
<Powers.R@parl.gc.ca>; <Kathleen.Roussel@CFC-CAFC.GC.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:41 AM
Subject: Error on CFC Website


To whom it may concern:

On your web page regarding the changes to the Firearms Act made by Bill C-10A at:
http://www.cfc.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp
"Firearms Act Amendments Coming Into Force - Backgrounder"
Under the section "Transporting Firearms (Individuals)" you say: "Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for
specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show."

This is extremely misleading.  While non-12(6) prohibited firearms may not be transported under an Authorization To Transport for "shootingpurposes", they never could even under the old version of the Firearms Act.

The Firearms Act did and still allows non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be taken to shooting ranges on an "occasional" basis under the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, Registration: SOR/98-208, P.C.
1998-483, 24 March, 1998:

POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS

13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).

14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National
Defence Act; and
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under
section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.

(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.


As these Regulations did not seem to be repealed by the most recent spate of Amendments to the Regulations made on 29 November, 2004, it must still be possible to take such firearms to shooting ranges under FA s. 17, as amended by Bill C-10A s. 15:


17. Subject to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry, ***or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer***.


This is the same as it has always been, even under the former provisions of the Firearms Act:  Non-12(6) prohibited firearms were never "transported" under an Authorization to Transport - they were  always "possesed" at a place other than the dwelling-house of the registrant under a Special
Authority to Possess permit.

Unless you have repealed the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, or no longer intend to allow non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be "possessed" under its auspices, please change the erroneous information contained on your website.

Bruce N. Mills
Dundas, Ont.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 31, 2005, 05:04:44
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/oag-bvg.nsf/html/feedbk_e.html


EXCERPT FROM THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S DECEMBER 2002 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

The program became excessively regulatory
10.67 In February 2001, the Department told the Government it had
wanted
to focus on the minority of firearms owners that posed a high risk
while
minimizing the impact on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding
owners. However, the Department concluded that this did not happen.
Rather, it stated that the Program's focus had changed from high risk
firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls
over
all owners and their firearms. The Department concluded that, as a
result, the Program had become overly complex and very costly to
deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the
Program.
10.68 The Department said the excessive regulation had occurred because
some of its Program partners believed that
* the use of firearms is in itself a "questionable activity" that
required strong controls, and
* there should be a zero-tolerance attitude toward non-compliance with
the Firearms Act.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on March 31, 2005, 05:37:58
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:05:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: Gun laws won't protect you

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269


Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian

We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply
saddened at
the
senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School
in
Minnesota.

This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us
in
that we believe
they are largely preventable.

This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as
safe
because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places
take
little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone
allowing for
lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and
personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.

These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing
as
they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of
complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign
stating
"No Guns Allowed" will protect us.

I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding
firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to
maintaining the
ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as
one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched
carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these
environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since
1995 that
has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted
efforts that would have mitigated lawful
self-defense in schools and churches.

Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven
they
are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public. Such
debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups
which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and
untruths
which fuel and perpetuate
the public's misunderstanding of the facts. These groups had an ideal
situation at Red Lake High School:

No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and
tribal
law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law
enforcement officer.

What additional laws would have prevented this?

There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin,
Georgia and Minnesota:

They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not
allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no
return
fire.

Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and
enact
"rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that
segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not
influence compliance by someone bent on violence.

We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure
safety.
Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be
inhibited
by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an
employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed
firearm.
However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when
lawful
concealed carry was disallowed.

We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to
allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents
to
increasingly unsafe environments.

- ---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed
firearm
instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public
Safety/Bureau of
Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 01, 2005, 20:02:02
FIREARMS CONTROL

A gang that couldn't shoot straight

The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON

 


We now know that the government's gun-control policy is a fiscal and administrative debacle. Its costs rival those of core services like national defence. And it doesn't work. What is less well known is that the policy wasn't designed to control guns. It was designed to control Kim Campbell. When Ms. Campbell was enjoying a brief season of success in her re-election bid in the summer campaign of 1993, Mr. Chretien was kept busy reassuring what he called the "Nervous Nellies" in his caucus that Ms. Campbell's star would soon fall. To bring her down, the Liberals planned to discredit her key accomplishment as minister of justice, an ambitious gun-control package.

Those measures -- enacted in the wake of the Montreal Massacre -- included new requirements for the training and certification of target shooters and hunters. We got new laws requiring: the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, which essentially brought every gun in the country under lock and key; screening of applicants for firearms licences; courts to actively seek information about firearms in spousal assault cases; the prohibition of firearms that had no place in Canada's field-and-stream tradition of firearms use.

I was one of the department of justice officials involved in that earlier gun-control program. When the House of Commons passed the legislation, Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen of the Coalition for Gun Control, which had been part of the consultation process, supplied the champagne for a party at my Ottawa home.

So what were the Liberals to do, faced with a legislative accomplishment on this scale?

Simple: Pretend it hadn't happened, and promise to do something so dramatic that it would make Ms. Campbell look soft on gun control. The obvious policy choice was a universal firearms registry.

The idea of requiring the registration of every firearm in the country wasn't new. Governments love lists. Getting lists and maintaining them is a visible sign that the government is at work. And lists are the indispensable first step to collecting taxes and licence fees. There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada, as is arguably the case in the United States.

So why not go for a universal gun registry? The short answer, arrived at by every study in the Department of Justice, was that universal registration would be ruinously expensive, and could actually yield a negative public security result (more on this in a moment). Besides, in 1992 Canada already had two systems of gun registration: the complete registry of all restricted firearms, such as handguns (restricted since the 1930s) and a separate registry of ordinary firearms.

This latter registry, which started in the early 1970s, was a feature of the firearms acquisition certificate (or FAC) required by a person purchasing any firearm. Every firearm purchased from a dealer had to be registered to the FAC holder by the vendor, and the record of the purchase passed on to the RCMP in Ottawa. So we were already building a cumulative registry of all the owners of guns in Canada purchased since 1970.

The FAC system was a very Canadian (i.e. sensible) approach to the registration of ordinary hunting and target firearms. If you were a good ol' boy from Camrose, Alta., and didn't want to get involved, you didn't have to -- as long as you didn't buy more guns. Good ol' boys die off, so younger people in shooting sports would eventually all be enrolled in the system.

After the Montreal Massacre, the then-deputy minister of justice, John Tait, asked me to review the gun-control package under development. One thing I immediately wanted to know was how many Canadians owned Ruger Mini-14s (the gun used by the Montreal murderer). The Mini-14 came into production about the time the FAC system was introduced, so the FAC should have a good picture of the gun's distribution.

But when our team asked the RCMP for the information, we couldn't get it. Computers were down; the information hadn't been entered yet; there weren't enough staff to process the request; there was a full moon. After a week, I said I didn't want excuses, I wanted the records. Then a very senior person sat me down and told me the truth.

The RCMP had stopped accepting FAC records, and had actually destroyed those it already had. The FAC registry system didn't exist because the police thought it was useless and refused to waste their limited budgets maintaining it. They also moved to ensure that their political masters could not resurrect it.

Such spectacular bureaucratic vandalism persuaded my deputy and his minister to concentrate on developing com- pliance with affordable gun-control measures that could work. A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results, and who didn't understand what riled up decent folks in Camrose.

Which is precisely why it appealed to those putting together the Liberal Red Book for the pivotal 1993 election. If the object of the policy exercise was to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Kim Campbell, they had to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage. Nothing would better convince the Liberals' urban constituency that Jean Chretien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns than the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament Hill.

The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver.

And so we saw demonstrations by middle-aged firearm owners, family men whose first reflex was to respect the laws of the land. This group's political alienation is a far greater loss than the $200-million that have been wasted so far. The creation of this new criminal class -- the ultimate triumph of negative political alchemy -- may be the worst, and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war.

John Dixon is a hunter, and president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. From 1991 to 1992, he was adviser to then-deputy minister of justice John Tait.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 01, 2005, 20:20:24
Canadian RKBA:

Date: Fri,  1 Apr 2005 12:20:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Herald

I read with interest "Pair made police uneasy"Wednesday, March 30,
2005.

While I accept the main theme of your article, your court recorder
needs
some historical
enlightenment. Sherri Bordon Colley stated in reference to Canadian's
right
to bear arms that "No
such right
exists in Canada". She is wrong.  We derive this right from the same
sources
as do the Americans,
"The English Bill of Rights 1689". The extreme tyranny of the Stuwart
family
controlled England
led the British to the world's most free state, until that time, via
the
Glorious Revolution.  On
Dec. 6, 1686, King James II (a Stuwart) of England issued the order to
his
Lord Lieutenants
instructing their deputies "to cause strict search to be made for such
muskets or guns and to
seize and safely keep them till further order."  Soon the Glorious
Revolution and the resulting
English Bill of Rights enacted on December 16, 1689 changed all that.
The
despot, King James II,
abdicated the throne of England.  Prince William and Princess Mary of
Orange
were asked to
replaced him.  One of the conditions King William III and Queen Mary
had to
meet was their
acceptance of the British subjects' English Bill of Rights.  Contained
within this Bill of Rights
is the British subjects' right to keep and bear arms.   It states
"That the
subjects which are
protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their
condition,
and as allowed by law."
The right is reaffirmed by the "Blackstone Commentaries" and confirmed
in
several legal
precedents. The right was imported into Canadian law by the preamble
of the
British North America
Act of 1867 and section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of
1982. This document
is definitely a significant part of our Canadian firearms cultural
heritage.
In short the right to
bear arms exists to this day in Canada for our use.

Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask

------------------------------

End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #940
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 01, 2005, 21:24:29
Thanks TCBF.

Actually since the gun laws are not/have not changed, I do hope you are able to take your FN's to the range to "have some fun". In fact I remember fondly my first military (cadet) range firing the FN. It blew me back about 2 feet prone. Man, what a time.

As for the lack of arguments...        ...well, one mans logic is another mans trash. Ah well. I will still believe by getting rid of hand guns period, that over time the number of them would fall to the point that criminals would then no long have access to them.

I still agree and the above articles prove the political stupidity of, the gun registry.

I would guess the the main contention between myself and others here as far as political thinking goes, is from the fact that we look at liberty and totalitarianism quite differently. Insults aside.

If we looked at a sliding scale in Canada from left to right, those on the right who believe in individual freedom above all would be fine, except they are willing to give up that freedom to a certain extent for "security" purposes to police/government and other type organizations. However by going to far down this line you fall into fascism, with totalitarianism beyond that.

If we go down the left side, the left is more willing to give up individual freedoms to the government for social programs. Going to far down this route and you have communism and totalitarianism just beyond that.

Point to all this? We all do not want the extremes of each, but still want our society to prosper and be safe. We just see it differently. And while the idea of having gun's in schools (that above article) scares the hell out of me. Some seem to be alright with that.

However, until the world sees things my way ( ;D). I have no problems with taking the occasional trip to West Edmonton Mall and blowing off a few rounds. And I do miss the military ranges (especially gun camps).

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 01, 2005, 21:43:32
I mostly agree.

  The fact that they snuck this non-FN thing through proves their ultimate goal is to discourage civilian ownership, and "not necessarily confiscation, buy confiscation if necessary".  All for votes.
Removing pistols from law abiding citizens would have some "unintended consequences" socially.  Home invasions would go up.  The UK and Australia have done a lot of this and their thug-gun crime is going through the roof and wil prob pass the US rate in a decade or so.  That should be a laugh.  Other than that, their latest effort has turned my $5000 of FNs into about a $1000 worth. No tax write-off there, though.

Now that the Mounties have "tested" the Wacko's HK-91 and determined it was semi-auto, not auto (would've taken you about 30 seconds to figure that out, right?), there will be a hue and cry about all "Evil" semi-auto rifles and shotguns.  On the way.

Rumour has it, Trudeau and Ron Basford figured in the sixties that it would take fifty years to disarm Canada.  So far, they are on track.

But, all I can do is enjoy them while I have them, let others on the range see an important piece of Canadian history in action, and take lots of pictures.

Have a good Edmonton weekend!

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on April 03, 2005, 05:01:01
I have been reading this thread with interest as I have long collected and target shot firearms.  One of the points that is often over-looked by those who say that this particular class of firearm is ok and this other class is not, is that they are all pretty much simple technology.  A basic working firearm has a projectile, a tube and some sort of propellant to get things moving.  They are all the same.  Several years ago, I was able to see some pieces of a collection of zip guns held in a prison museum - it is really amazing what human ingenuity can come up with in designing simple working firearms.  The plain truth of the matter that firearms cannot be controlled such that they are out of the hands of criminals.  Laws that control types of firearms and limit use of firearms are only applicable to citizens willing to obey the laws.  The criminal element is not concerned with such matters - never has and never will be.  Gun laws never have been about preventing criminal use, the real purpose of gun laws is to ultimately disarm the law-abiding public.  History has several examples of such acts by governments - The Weimar Republic of Germany's laws before the nazis came to power, the laws of Cambodia, China, Bosnia, - you pick the place.  Usually such laws start by targeting a specific group and then expanding to the larger population in an incremental fashion.  Disarming the public  has always been the only reason for such laws.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 03, 2005, 05:08:30
" Disarming the public  has always been the only reason for such laws."

So far, they appear to be on track.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 03, 2005, 16:11:17
And all the above mentioned governments (China, Cambodia etc) are totalitarian regimes who try to control the daily lives of all their citizens. Anyone starting to see the Liberals going down this path (disarming us, telling us what to eat by banning trans fats here in Ontario, making us all slaves to one health care system etc)? Maybye I'm just being paranoid, but hey, I'm seeing some startling similarities here.

So your saying that the government should not try to do what is "best" for your health?

Maybe we should have allowed them to continue to use Cocaine in Coke?

Seat belts? Only by choice.

Traffic lights? Way to much control!

Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.

If the Government is trying to bring in "rules" with which to help protect society as a whole, it is up to you whether you will follow them or not. Of course their may be penalties. But I hardly see you getting fined for going to McDonald's. Or complaining about it.

The fact that even the US is looking at ways of "legislating" controls on un-healthy food must mean something is up.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: InterestedParty on April 03, 2005, 17:03:44
Quote
So your saying that the government should not try to do what is "best" for your health?


No - the state doesn't know what's best for my health.

Quote
Maybe we should have allowed them to continue to use Cocaine in Coke?


So based on that we should welcome state intervention to decide what's "best" for our health? Why not just ban Coke all together in the war against obesity?

Quote
Seat belts? Only by choice.

Yes

Quote
Traffic lights? Way to much control!

Traffic lights are simply a way to regulate traffic flow - nothing more and nothing less.

Quote
Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.

N Korea at the extreme hard end - Canada and other welfare states at the soft end - there are lots of laws aims at controlling what you think and how you express yourself - with lots of government sanctioned agitprop ( i.e. those Kyoto commercials "challenging" us to fight global warming).

Quote
If the Government is trying to bring in "rules" with which to help protect society as a whole, it is up to you whether you will follow them or not. Of course their may be penalties. But I hardly see you getting fined for going to McDonald's. Or complaining about it.

Not yet but give it time.   Portion control was recently raised as a measure by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health - that she wasn't instantly denounced as a fool shows you that's an idea with a future.

Quote
The fact that even the US is looking at ways of "legislating" controls on un-healthy food must mean something is up.

Since when do you look to the US as a guiding light? If so I will tell what's up - that the state wants to control what you eat and reduce individual choice. It merely proves Piper's point and that he is not being paranoid enough.

cheers, mdh
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 03, 2005, 17:16:54
I'm not sure if the majority of people here are conservatives because of their ideas of "individualism" over "Society as a whole", or Anarchists (individual choice before all)? Especially when Conservatism means rules for all that are "proven by tradition" to work for the greater whole.

Sheesh...

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 03, 2005, 17:43:01
I'm not sure if the majority of people here are conservatives because of their ideas of "individualism" over "Society as a whole", or Anarchists (individual choice before all)? Especially when Conservatism means rules for all that are "proven by tradition" to work for the greater whole.

Sheesh...

You are wrong: "conservatives" are generally a mix of conservatives and libertarians:

Conservatives generally wish to preserve, or revert to, tradition, regardless of whether it is proven to work for the greater whole, generally because they believe that strict hierarchy is a desirable social/economic structure (us smart government-types will make the world safe for you).

Libertarians accept/believe that individual choice is the only means by which the most benefit for the greater whole can be achieved, and thus authoritariansim/totalitarianism is the worst of all evils: economic hierarchy is desrable but very fluid (cream allowed to rise to the top).  Anarchists are a subset of radical libertarians, although most people that identify themselves as "anarchists" are actually socialists (anti-Establishment, rather than anti-authoritarian).

Conservatives generally accept the libertarian ideal of less government/authoritarianism in the economic sphere and for that reason the two (in Western society) have generally co-operated to oppose authoritarianism (read: socialism, fascism, etc.).  The two generally differ on social policy ...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 03, 2005, 17:51:31
Well put, and the last point is where all the headaches come in.

Also your first generalization is just that. You are assuming that conservatives are that mix. I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: InterestedParty on April 03, 2005, 17:51:54
That's a good question Zipper.  

I would say that the most influential tendency (reflected to some degree on this board) has been the neo-conservative movement that began to take intellectual root in the late 1970s.  

It's principle characteristics were a distrust of the state and belief that liberty had   been seriously eroded by a combination of big government, dogmatic centralization, unionism, and a sustained attempt to subvert market economics - all in favour of collectivist social goals.

To some degree this was a reaction to the times - stagflation, the "winter of discontent" in Britain, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" in America, etc.

Neocons were in reality the intellectual heirs of 19th century laissez-faire liberalism (not to be confused with the current decadent state of Canadian Liberalism).   And to a large extent they revived classical economic thought and used it to undermine the Keynsian orthodoxy of the period.

(Read Milton Friedman, Michael Oakshott, Frederich Hayek)

Paleoconservatives would be the more traditional-minded variety (if we're talking about European conservatives) who would have a preference and deference for established authority (but usually in the dynastic or even religious sense) and - in IMHO - have had less intellectual influence on the conduct of modern politics and the formulation of public policy. (see John Lukacs)  

Paleos in the US sense would trace their origins to the inter-war years of Republican opposition to the New Deal, support for Isolationism, and the importance of states' rights over federal rights - (Pat Buchanan).

Gun control as presently practiced via the gun registry -   (in my view) is nothing more than a political ploy by the federal Liberals to buy urban votes - which has penalized honest gun owners engaged in honest sporting activities.   And as such from a neocon POV, represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.
  
Cheers, mdh
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 03, 2005, 18:19:25
Gun control ... represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.

Exactly!!! It has nothing to do with crime, safety or whatever other bullsh*t rationale the Toronto Star (et.al.) tries to use!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: InterestedParty on April 03, 2005, 18:38:14
JG

It never ceases to amaze how one individual - in this case Wendy Cukier - can have so much sway over a debate.   To this day I have no idea who she really represents, how many members her organization really has? who funds her organization? how much reach her organization really has?

Yet the media - especially the T. Star (as you rightly pointed out) - has represented her as some kind of populist leader marshalling thousands of Canadians in an anti-gun crusade.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 03, 2005, 21:39:01
" I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize."

Good Grief Zipper, you just about gave us all heart attacks with that one!   ;D

Man, I love those smileys...

Here's another one:   ;D

Tom

 ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 04, 2005, 02:43:05
Well with you Tom I'll make an exemption. You Libertarian neo-fascist pig dog.   ;)

I am going to be back with some more ideas for you and to reply to mdh's great explaination. So beware... :dontpanic:

Which is why I like this thread. Its forcing me to think way to much. Which hurts.

Heh heh!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 05, 2005, 20:02:23
"agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."



Personally, I would defend my family or myself by any means necessary, and at the end of the day, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

My 2 cents.

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: ramy on April 05, 2005, 20:13:31
Last day to shoot prohibited rifles in Canada is on April 9th 2005.
Government isnt allowing them to be transported to the range after that date... Sad how many people have thousands of dollars in prohibited firearms and the government says they cant use them.....


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 05, 2005, 21:37:35
"agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .Bear in mind you cannot have more firearms in use than you can control.  67 rifles leaning on the wall may not cut it in court.

Otherwise, it is like giving you a ticket while your car is in motion, for not having it properly "Parked."

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on April 06, 2005, 03:32:00

Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .


How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: pronto on April 06, 2005, 09:26:59
OK - here's some thoughts to get the whole board hopping! I am certainly NOT an apologist for firearms regulations :o, both sides have points, but here's some fodder:

Licensing and registration are not the same thing.  I think the media often mixes up "registration" with licensing. All cars are registered, but not everyone is licensed to drive one. They seem to lose that distinction sometimes...

The Police are very supportive of the firearms act because firearm registration allows police to distinguish between legally held firearms and those that are possessed illegally.  If they come upon an unregistered firearm the police can take appropriate enforcement action, and know they won't have to deal with it  in a nastier situation later on. Registration information can trace and track the source(s) of crime weapons. Cops have said for years they want to know how firearms get here.

Not all violent acts are committed by career criminals.  Police often deal with situations where an individual may act violently on impulse during a domestic dispute or a personal crisis.  Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.

Registration encourages safe handling, storage and lawful transfer of firearms by reinforcing accountability.  Heck people, WE know what we're doing (generally) ;D, but there are lots of others out there who don't... Police have been saying for years that to be able to track the networks that supply the criminal market, they need to know where the firearms are coming from.  Registration, combined with the tracking of imports and exports, provide valuable tools for this purpose. 

I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms. 

By linking firearms to their owners, registration makes it easier to hold firearm owners accountable if they give, lend or sell a firearm to someone who should not have it, or if they store or transport their firearms carelessly, making the firearms easy targets for thieves.  Again - not something likely to happen with military and ex-military, but hey - civvies can occasionally make mistakes. ::)

heh heh.... Now I would love to hear your cogent and well-thought out thoughts!

Cheers
 :salute:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: LowRider on April 06, 2005, 14:27:18
Quote
Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.

Hence Bill C-250
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 06, 2005, 17:44:25
"How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"

Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 06, 2005, 18:20:12
>Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.

This rationale - and it's a popular one, believe me - has always puzzled me.  Does _not_ knowing whether or not firearms may be present excuse the police for approaching any particular situation with a lesser degree of caution?  Does _knowing_ (with certainty) that firearms may be present place completely innocent people at some measurably higher degree of risk from the occasional officer suffering a heightened degree of anxiety?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on April 06, 2005, 18:29:55
No kidding

Picture the SWAT Team about to go in:

"Well, this crack-dealer doesn't show up on the gun registry, so you guys can relax now...."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 06, 2005, 19:00:21
"I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms."

And all Prostitutes started off as virgins.

So, what is your point?

It is not the tool - it is the intent of the user.

Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

$5,000 worth of my private property has just been dropped to a market value of zero because of this (5 x class 12 (5) items).  For what?

There are already good laws against careless storage and misuse.  But the real responsibility must lie with criminal intent and use, not lawful possession.  Punish the criminal, not the citizen.

Tom

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 06, 2005, 19:18:33
Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

HA!  It only is going to cost less than $2 million, smart guy!   :crybaby:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on April 06, 2005, 20:30:29
"How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"

Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?


Last I checked, sitting at home sleepling isn't Ex or Ops.  Slight difference, methinks.  ;)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on April 06, 2005, 20:34:35
What are the quick access safes that were referred to earlier in this thread?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 06, 2005, 20:35:51
"Your Honour, I was cleaning it, and I fell asleep."

No case law either way on careless storage/proper storage under such circumstances.   Careless storage is normally laid to administratively inconvenience the accused, and the charges are often stayed or dropped.

If the accused can afford to fight it, he might win.

Another one of those "Lets get a bunch of elected lawyers to pass a bad law so the supreme court can tell us what it really says" laws.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 06, 2005, 21:25:53
.... But the real responsibility must lie with criminal intent and use, not lawful possession.   Punish the criminal, not the citizen.

If only Tom, sadly we have to deal with the snivel libertairans and the Wendy Cukiers out there, who have a blind rage against all firearms. A small minority of people who seem to get caught up in a one sided media circus, yet out west, in say Sasakatchewan, the provincial government refuses to enforce many of the new gun laws, and at least know and understand what the majority local people feel.

I used to have quite a gun collection when I lived in the prairies, and although it was a good hobby and passtime, it was also an investment, which for many years prospered, but when in the early 90's with the mag laws, re-registeration, and changes of classification,   the majority of my 'bad' guns value dropped beyond all hope, and when I sold off in 1994, some I could not even sell for a pittance, and ended up going to museum for tax donations. So there went my investment, thousands of dollars out of pocket, all because of a knee-jerk reaction to a problem which could have been better addressed through other avenues of education and responsibility. Question: Am I still bitter about the Cdn federal government and my situation over 10 yrs ago? You better bloody believe it. Skidmarks (like on your boxer shorts) of personalities like Alan Rock and the like, legally robbed thousands upon thousands of law abiding TAX PAYING Canadians of their property and legal passtimes and hobbies.

As we all know the political future of Canada always is decided in Ontario and Quebec as thats where the population base is, and yet for the life of me, I cannot understand HOW and WHY those spineless Liberals keep getting re-elected.

Unfortunatly there is nothing we can do except a large scale of civil disobedience, but its already in the cards for Canadians who LEGALLY own guns, that one day, sooner than later, this will come to an abrupt end, and the only gun owners in Canada will be Police, some security agencies and the CF, not to forget our criminal element who will continue to prosper in their use and trade of illegal firearms, and them not having to fear when they do a B&E or home invasion of being challenged by the owner who sadly cannot even defend himself or his family. This on the news here all to often, women being pistol whipped by theives, raped sometimes killed, then their house is robbed. Its an increasing way of life ( brought on by some ethnic cultures of hate, guns and violence and their values opposed to generic Australian ones) in Sydney alone. I am simply calling like it is, so no race cards please.

Its the criminal activity which sadly the law abiding guns owners have paid the price for here in Australia. with Croats shooting Serbs, Muslims shooting Christians, Koreans extorting businesses, Vietnamese and Chinese drug lords, cricky waht ever happend to the Aussie bloke with with a sawn off .22 bolt action rifle. Its all R4's AKs and glock pistols, and even thewse crims outgun the police in many ways. The times truly have changed and the worn has turned for the worse.Quite frankly I feel bloody lucky to be now living in Queensland, where the gun laws are more relaxed compaired to Vicv and NSW, and the polpualion base is still mainstream Australian with tradional values still in place. Sure bris-vegas has its problems, but it's different than Sydney.

A gun show in Brisbane is like a gun show in western Canada in the 90s (shy of semi-auto rifles). althjough i own no guns here, I sure still enjoy the greater freedom here rather in NSW, where its much more toned down, and all to be politically corrrect.
Pretty sad affair overall.

Next they'll be coming for your bayonet collection, then your steak knives and scissors.

Regards,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Torlyn on April 06, 2005, 21:29:46

Another one of those "Lets get a bunch of elected lawyers to pass a bad law so the supreme court can tell us what it really says" laws.


And after they've been lawyering for a while, let's appoint them to that Supreme Court...  ;)

T
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 07, 2005, 00:50:35
"Next they'll be coming for your bayonet collection, then your steak knives and scissors"

Saturday is our last legal you-can-take-your-FN-to-the-range-and-shoot-it-day.

My wife, son, brother in law and I are taking my 8L FN C1A1 (with the EX stock) to the range.  I have 280 rds of Portuguese FNM ball that is seeking Ammo Nirvana.

Will take photos for posterity.  Will post'em.

Tom.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 07, 2005, 02:10:17
"Saturday is our last legal you-can-take-your-FN-to-the-range-and-shoot-it-day.

My wife, son, brother in law and I are taking my 8L FN C1A1 (with the EX stock) to the range.   I have 280 rds of Portuguese FNM ball that is seeking Ammo Nirvana.

Will take photos for posterity.   Will post'em.

Tom.

Is that a Canada wide thing? Were you notified by letter or adds in the paper? What province do ya live in?

Thats pretty limp wristed isn't it.

Frankly I am at a loss of words, yet I am not suprised the ways things are going there. I don't know what one can do, but write your MP, and stay in comms with the NFA or similar organisations.

Pump a '5rd' mag thru one for me, I had an 8L, an ex-OPP rifle, she was a beaut, bought it out of Collectors Source out of Ontario back in about 1987 for about $850, sold it totally kitted out with all EIS one could muster for $750.


Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on April 07, 2005, 10:10:43
Quote
Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

Tom - I think you are onto something with this. Maybe the best way to defeat pedophiles is to register all children, restrict and regulate their movement and storage, and even require parents to pass a background check before creating any..
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 07, 2005, 17:30:45
"Tom - I think you are onto something with this. Maybe the best way to defeat pedophiles is to register all children,"

Soon I bet, All will be fingerprinted at school fot their own "safety".  As it is, it is voluntary now.

Wes:  Yes, all 8000 FNs in Canada, plus all non 12 (6) Prohibited can no longer be fired.

Bought my 2 8L s for about 1200 each same place in 1986.  Ex OPP.  Prices last month were listed as $1600 for a Cdn 8L, and $750 for an L1A1.  I have 3 L1A1s and 2 C1s.  Was $5000, now scrap.

C_cksuckers.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: CH1 on April 07, 2005, 20:42:36
Praise the Lord & pass the ammo! Don't forget the flechette rnds  in the back of the armoury (definitively banned by convention). As far as I'm concerned, the proponents of this piece of garbage called gun control have all volunteered for MTR (1 pace forward). As I have stated before, the preamble to the original salvos state that the intent is not crime control, but control of what Revenue Canada defines as Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer (an entity not recognised by the courts & law).

As for Mr. Rock, Ms. Campbell, Ms. Cukier & other wanna be bereaucrats, They float to the level of their incompetence.

This country has developed a need to pander  to small special interest groups (see Gomery inquiry).

For those that have not noticed, those of us that are born & raised here, do not really matter. Immigration has been linked to votes by the politicians. It is easier to get a vote by importing crime along with a very few good people.

It is also easier for a politician to use a sledge hammer to fix a swiss watch, rather than tighten the loose screws. The politicians tend to over react to any situation that they feel they are not in control of. Look at what is happening in the political forum. Graft & corruption at almost all levels, self indulgence, etc.

Politicians have forgoten who signs the front side of the pay cheque.

Going back to Ms. Campbell (& not wanting to rekindle bad memories) but Somalia rests squarely with her faulty mission statement & other blunders. Her reward for screwing up, a diplomatic posting to the US, followed by her appointment as a professor to a US university. Oddly enough political science.

Oh well I've used up several billion $ more of forum for my musings.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: redleafjumper on April 07, 2005, 22:28:41
I received my letter from Mr. Baker (Commissioner of Firearms) the beginning of this week telling me that my prohibs can no longer be taken to the range.   I had earlier understood that the Special Authority to Possess (SAPs) were not affected, but apparently this is not the case.   Now I am in the same boat with my collection of FN's among my other 12(3), 12(5) and (so far ok) 12(6) stuff.     It is quite useful to write a letter to MP Garry Breitkreuz at House of Commons, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 and give him some more ammo to fight these liberals that not only steal our money but also our property.   He is a Conservative that has long been supporting firearm owners. I am hoping for a federal election sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 09, 2005, 02:52:25
The Liberals have stolen our property.  They just haven't gotten around to coming and picking it up yet.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on April 09, 2005, 02:57:27
Go out and buy "Unintended Consequences"

- we are frogs been slowly boiled...

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 09, 2005, 03:05:59
I read it ten years ago.  Good book.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on April 09, 2005, 22:15:07
I loaned it out a few years ago to a buddy in Ottawa - he lent it to another buddy, etc...

 I hear there is an upcoming sequel. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 09, 2005, 22:26:16
What a great day!  A family outing to the shooting club, where my son, wife, brother in law, and myself all fired my 8L FN C1A1 on the last legal day allowed to do so (notwithstanding the SAPs that go to 31 May 05).

I threw in the Mini-14 as well (because, who knows what those cumbubbles will ban next?) and a grand time was had by all.  Nice to kinow I can still consistantly group 3" to 6" at 100 yards, with a C1.

A superb family outing.  The Mini-14 is the first rifle my son ever fired.  The FN C1A1 was the second.

What a wonderful day for traditional Western family values!   

Tom

 ;D

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 09, 2005, 23:30:40
Chair's Summary of the 'International Meeting on the Regulation of
Civilian Ownership and Use of Small Arms' -
Rio de Janeiro, March 16-18 2005
Convened by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in collaboration with the
Government of Brazil, Viva Rio and Sou da Paz
Representatives of States, international organisations and civil society groups
participated in the International Meeting on the Regulation of Civilian Ownership
and Use of Small Arms from 16-18 March 2005 in Rio de Janeiro. The meeting
included participants from all regions of the world, making it one of the first
ever explicitly concerned with the establishment of global standards for
ownership and use of small arms as it relates to national arms control.
Participants observed that the majority of small arms are, in fact, in the hands
of civilians, hence the importance of regulation of the possession and use of
such arms. In addition, the meeting also observed that the majority of victims
and survivors of gun violence around the world are civilians, thus
emphasizing the direct impact of these weapons on civilians, as well as the
urgent need for states to address the issue of regulation and licensing of
weapons.
Experiences were exchanged from a number of contexts - 'peaceful' nations
as well as those recovering from years of war. It was consistently reinforced
that weapons proliferation and misuse knows no borders. Participants
further reiterated that many weapons are held and used illegally. In addition,
many legally-held weapons are used with illegal intent. It is therefore
necessary to recognise that all civilian-held firearms, whether legal or illegally
held, pose potential threats for misuse, and legislation must recognise and
address this reality. Where firearm legislation is in place, it is often
inadequately enforced. Moreover, states highlighted the importance of
promoting greater harmonisation of arms control laws both within each State
and region and globally, to limit the ability of lawbreakers to evade tough
standards.
There was also reflection on the progress that has been made in recent years
in improving national small arms control legislation, particularly at the
national and regional levels. The participants were heartened by emerging
trend towards increased national regulation, as suggested by major legislative
revisions in at least a dozen countries in the past decade, and by ongoing law
reform efforts in a number of other States. These national-level efforts have
occurred in tandem with impressive regional efforts, including the 2000 Legal
Framework for a C(the Nadi Framework), the 2001 Protocol on the Control of Firearms,
Ammunition and other related materials in the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) region, and the 2004 Nairobi Protocol for
the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in
the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa.
Despite this progress, however, participants cited a need to better coordinate
actions at the local, national and regional levels, and to strive for the
establishment of minimum standards so that inadequate legislation in one
state or region does not undermine the efforts of others to address the issue.
The 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is a positive first
step in terms of achieving progress at the international level. Article 3, in
particular, calls on States to criminalise illegal firearm possession, to require
all firearms be marked, and to establish accurate and timely systems to record
firearm stockpiles. Despite the omission of the need for regulation of civilian
possession in the 2001 UN Programme of Action, more than sixty nations
reported on their national arms control laws and approaches at the 2003
Biennial Meeting of States on the UN Programme of Action, indicative of the
will and commitment to address this issue. In preparation for the forthcoming
Second Biennial Meeting of States, States were encouraged to continue this
practice and include this focus in their national reports and statements.
Participants observed that the discussions on the development of global
principles for arms transfers including small arms and light weapons and the
possibility for greater control of these transfers would further support efforts
to end the misuse of weapons by civilians in many nations and regions. In
addition, a compelling case for careful regulation of civilian-held weapons
was put forward by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
and Small Arms. Ms Frey noted that international human rights standards
place duties on States to take proactive steps to protect those within their
jurisdiction against threats to life and bodily harm, and it is increasingly
recognised that doing so requires states to put in place effective systems for
regulating the possession and use of guns by civilians.
Building on the principles noted in the Chair's summary from the January
2005 meeting in Montreux and having examined the above instruments, as
well as several national case studies, the experts proposed a number of
principles that could form the basis for minimum standards to guide national
small arms control policies and regulations:
"¢ Civilians should be restricted from acquiring or possessing small arms
designed for military use.ommon Approach to Weapons Control of the South Pacific
"¢ Ownership of small arms should be contingent on obtaining a firearms
license, which, in turn, could be based on the following minimum
criteria, inter alia - meeting a minimum age requirement; lacking a
relevant criminal history, including of intimate partner and family
violence; existence of a legitimate reason to acquire weapons;
observance of relevant gun laws as well as the safe and efficient
handling of small arms.
"¢ Small arms licenses should be time-limited and subject to periodic
renewal.

Measures should be in place to allow for the removal of small arms
from owners whose licenses have been revoked or persons unfit to
possess firearms.
"¢ Small arms ammunition sales should be restricted to those with a valid
firearms license, and only for ammunition suitable for the type of gun
specified on the license as well as limitation on the number of rounds
of ammunition allowed.
"¢ States should ensure that adequate records are kept of all civilian-held
small arms, including details of the authorised holder and unique
serial number of the weapon.
"¢ Greater co-ordination of civilian focussed small arms laws and
enforcement practices should be encouraged to the greatest extent
possible to ensure consistent good practices within regions as well as
national uniformity.
"¢ Where feasible, States, international organisations and civil society
should provide assistance and collaborate for the effective
implementation of standards such as these.
The meeting concluded with agreement that interested States could usefully
build on progress made in the UN small arms process as well as at regional
and national levels, by promoting good practices and lessons learned as well
as the identification of policy recommendations on the issue of effective gun
control legislation and approaches for discussion at the 2006 Review
Conference.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on April 10, 2005, 01:06:00
What a wonderful day for traditional Western family values!     

Me and domestic 9er took her son and her neice out bowling, does that count?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 10, 2005, 03:47:37
Bowling?    Well, yeah, of course it counts.  Ten Pin or Five Pin?

Before I was 16, I spent a lot more time in a bowling alley with my parents than I ever did on a range.

Quality family time, right?

And hey, it's our culture.  Think Bin Laden bowls?  ;D

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: muskrat89 on April 26, 2005, 15:34:28
Interesting article in the Tucson newspaper today: http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/71920.php

Quote
Assault-weapons ban ended, crime didn't rise
THE NEW YORK TIMES
 
Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault-weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say.
 
It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.
 
The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor it did not surprise some gun-control advocates. Rather, it underlined what many of them had said all along: That the ban was so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition.
 
"The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault-weapons ban, there never really was one," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.
 
What's more, law-enforcement officials say that military-style weapons, which were seldom used in gun crimes but enjoyed some vogue in the years before the ban took effect, seem to have lost appeal to criminals.
 
"Back in the early '90s, criminals wanted those Rambo-type weapons they could brandish," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Today they are much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in their belt."
 
When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons already in private hands.
 
Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons were produced - legitimately - by manufacturers that availed themselves of loopholes in the law, according to the Violence Policy Center.
 
Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.
 


All content copyright © 1999-2005 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its wire services and suppliers and may not be republished without permission. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed written consent of Arizona Daily Star or AzStarNet is prohibited.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on April 26, 2005, 17:18:37
Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.

...which goes to show you that it is more fear than actual knowledge or logic driving much of the Gun Control crowd....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: CH1 on April 29, 2005, 00:24:33
Evening All.

And what of the Afghanny School of gunsmithing, never mind improvised munitions.  I wonder if all that have served in the military will be the next target.  After all the years of intensive Trg, & ops, with out deprogramming, we could be classed as weapons dangerous to the public peace.  With the current definition of "weapon" being so vague, it could in a few years, become fact.  To most of us this may be a very abstract concept, but the minds behind these laws are not really playing with a full deck!  We are a tool used by a certain group to attain their lofty goals.

Gives new definition to 9920-21-107-0000 Grunt C1R1 Class C Expendable.

Cheers 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 30, 2005, 01:07:03
Attempt to add photos unsuccessful.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Zipper on April 30, 2005, 03:32:18
I have to ask as to that last article. Was it so porous and completely ineffective because of a combination of the fact that there were already millions of said weapons out there, there was a loop hole you could fire a 16 inch shell through, and the fact that law enforcement did not enforce the law? Its hard to say a law is on the books when everyone concerned ignores that it is there. Not to mention most crime is petty in nature and a handgun is far more effective.

If even one of those facts above changed, it would have been a different matter. But oh well, another waste of paper.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on April 30, 2005, 04:40:32
Zipper, did you post on the wrong thread?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on April 30, 2005, 04:49:27

...which goes to show you that it is more fear than actual knowledge or logic driving much of the Gun Control crowd....

Yes...they tend not to let the truth get in the way of their "platform" very much.

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 07, 2005, 12:10:05
The gun issue is very personal. My old Irish descendants left a place where they could not own land, hunting(poaching ye masters land) and owning a rifle was illegal. Then we moved to Canada. We owned land could hunt and grow our own food. We could also own guns. We were no longer serfs, we were men! Canada was also probably 80% rural.That was a long time ago. But some ideas live on after they may no longer useful.

  My experience with guns is as a soldier. I see guns as useful tools to kill people. I lived in Toronto for 7 years, worked in law enforcement. I was stabbed in the chest (chipped the sternum, a bone plate over the heart COOL), shot in the back with a pellet gun( Ouch! That hurt holy s*&t) and had a shotgun pointed at my head(stolen from a legal owner or as payment for drug debts, never did get to the bottom of it.) If guns were more available most likely I'd be dead. These events shaped my opinions. Opinions based on facts and experience. Just like all the opinions in this thread.

  Maybe we shouldn't take our opinions as beings absolute truths. Our experiences are merely anecdotal evidence. WE all have an axe to grind here. No objective observers.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 07, 2005, 15:35:27
"No objective observers."

Or, perhaps we are all objective observers.   

A gun is a tool, wielded for good or evil.  Our society is changing, and it is becoming much more acceptable to blame objects rather than individuals. 


How will this end?  Who knows.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on May 07, 2005, 16:51:10
I see guns as useful tools to kill people. I lived in Toronto for 7 years, worked in law enforcement. I was stabbed in the chest (chipped the sternum, a bone plate over the heart COOL)[/u], shot in the back with a pellet gun( Ouch! That hurt holy s*&t) and had a shotgun pointed at my head(stolen from a legal owner or as payment for drug debts, never did get to the bottom of it.) If guns were more available most likely I'd be dead. These events shaped my opinions. Opinions based on facts and experience. Just like all the opinions in this thread.

Should knives be outlawed too?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Steve on May 07, 2005, 17:13:18
Nah just make knife control legislation to stop all those criminals and cooks from running around with knives, put cleavers in a restricted class, and have it take 3 months to get your non-restricted knife license.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 07, 2005, 18:38:49
I was trying to get some plutonium, you know for home protection. The amount of paperwork and questions was intolerable,...

   Where do you draw the line? Many things in society are limited, not because you are irresponsible but because the good simply outweighs the bad. Mandatory breathalyser stops are clearly unconstitutional, yet the clear majority of citizens support them. Are your rights the only ones that matter? Because you are strong morally does that mean the weak must be given temptation? I would love a Karl G for plinking in the backyard, that would be #$^@!# awesome. I'd get it legally for clearing brush and whatnot, lol.

   What do you think are reasonable gun laws? Why is it so important? Considering the majority of Canadians don't want anything to do with them?   Lets face it, if I am in Texas I am packing for sure. I like not owning one. Could there be some enlightened compromise? I have the uneasy feeling that rational debate on this has died on both sides. Its not like people in the Army are opinionated or anything,... :threat: :dontpanic:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: 2 Cdo on May 07, 2005, 20:23:16
Nemo888, Imagine saying that you would gladly lock up anyone defending their home, property or loved ones from some piece of crap gang banging teen criminal. If I work hard for what I have am I not allowed to protect it, and try to prevent some arsehole from taking it?

If more people blew these little **** stains away when they break into their homes eventually the breakins would stop. The problem in this society is people like yourself who want to criminalize normal citizens while bending over backwards granting rights to criminals. Wake the **** up!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 07, 2005, 23:09:10
I geuss you don't remember all the guys the army recruited out of the jails back in the day. Alot turned out to be pretty good guys, you've unknowingly worked with some. Some people deserve a second chance. If you kill a guy over a dvd player I'll lock you up in a second.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 07, 2005, 23:49:55
QUOTE,
I geuss you don't remember all the guys the army recruited out of the jails back in the day. Alot turned out to be pretty good guys, you've unknowingly worked with some. Some people deserve a second chance.[/i]


I was about to raise the BS flag, but instead I want to know just what kind of law enforcement you were actually in?
Because I sure don't know any that would make that statement since anyone in the biz would know that before they actually get to jail, most have already burned 7 or 8 chances........


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on May 08, 2005, 00:46:52
NEMO - You blame an inatimate item for what?  Who are you to say who should or should not have that tool. 

Despite the fact that automatic weapons are banned - other than benig frightfully cool to watch thay aren't anymore effective than semi-auto's or even bolt actions (with a skilled user) for taking down targets.

 The unfortunate thing that gets glossed over is we already have laws against violence - does it really matter the item used? 

You want to kill a slew of people use a CAR. 


I might not shoot someone over a DVD - but IF I feel my family or I are in jeopardy from someone entering my home - TAP TAP.  911 "Hello" I just had to shoot an intruder.

Its not your job to lock someone up - thats the courts - last I looked it was to serve and protect, not to screw and oppress.




Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 08, 2005, 01:43:08
"To Screw And Oppress."  I like that.  I bet it would even fit on a car door.  Can I use it?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: KevinB on May 08, 2005, 02:18:20
"To Screw And Oppress."   I like that.   I bet it would even fit on a car door.   Can I use it?

Yes, I will license it to you  ;D


I am going to play with photoshop next week, I need to get a good shot of a MP car first (- with my camera...  ;) )
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 08, 2005, 02:38:42
Worked for the movie companies, alarm monitoring and a property managment, all in TO. We had special constable status. Toronto was crazy in some areas, I even saw a murder. I quit not long after that. Regent Park or Jane/Finch were real holes.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 08, 2005, 02:42:44
"Regent Park or Jane/Finch were real holes."

So, to keep peace and quiet in those 'hoods full of new Canadians, us old Canadians get our private property confiscated without compensation courtesy of thr Firearms Act?  I say, get back on the boat to all of them - the criminal ones, I mean.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 08, 2005, 02:59:28
Exactly, in those areas guns are only to kill people. You see the basic rural urban split. In those areas people llived in fear. I really couldn't care less  what guns people owned in rural areas.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 08, 2005, 04:03:13
Difficulties arise, when people elected from those urban areas attempt to impose their ghetto values on the rest of the country.  "If it's good enough for T.O., its good enough for Kapuskasing."

Also, if I get posted to Toronto, and move into the projects, I should not be told to unload my fleet, merely because firearms ownership is a deemed privilege of only the homies.

Hey, isn't that a song by Roy Orbison? - " Only the Homies..."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 08, 2005, 11:42:53
And you are an anachronism. Intresting historically, but politically just a fringe extremist. Good for you though, extremeists often push the envelope and produce positive change. The absolute conviction that they are right gets a little irritating though. I also believe gun control legislation is ineffective and that a gun control registry is easily abused. But I would like that men who threaten their wives with a firearm get them at least temporarily confiscated. In a small town I lived near there was a certain plumber went nuts on his wife and threatened her with one of his rifles. His guns were then "stolen". Everyone in the town knew by who. He really couldn't handle the responsibility, and no one ever turned the culprit in. I don't know how to make large urban areas safer. IF rural people had some better ideas than restricting gun ownership and were eloquent I'm sure that would happen. Calling people names just makes you look like a crackpot. :o I just did it myself!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on May 08, 2005, 15:23:00
First, the "guns are tools/weapons" arguement has went on about 4 times in this thread (and has been soundly trounced), so go back and read some of the stuff before going into another spin cycle.

Second, knock off the name-calling - I'm locking this thread up for a bit and cleaning it up so everybody can cool down.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Infanteer on May 08, 2005, 17:01:17
Ok, cleaned it up a bit and rereleased this album.  Play nice - if you have some interesting facts or arguments related to something said earlier, by all means post it - but if all you are going to do is rehash something that was said 35 pages ago, spare us the bandwidth.

As well, no personal attacks - I don't want to have to ban people here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 08, 2005, 18:19:50
Awww, all the juicy insults hurled at me are deleted. My posts are the same. Must have missed the best ones that almost got the thread locked, PM me. LOL
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 09, 2005, 10:30:55
Why are gun control laws getting stronger?
People are afraid of violent crime.

So would preventing violent crime in urban areas take the pressure off of legitimate gun owners?
Yes.

Would longer and harsher prison sentences prevent violent crime?
Judging by the experience in the USA, no.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with our system of incarceration, it does not seem to be working?
Yes.
  It seems that the ancient custom of incarcerating the body in an unpleasant location for a set period of time is ineffective. Violent criminals especially don't find jail much of a hardship. I think incarcerating the body is primitive compared to what we can now do to the criminal mind. Why not brainwash them into being productive members of society. ( insert evil laugh here )

Does anyone remember those CIA mind control projects? Projects Artichoke, Blubird and Mk-Ultra. You could even call it rehabilitation, there would be very little recidivism. I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 09, 2005, 10:51:09

Now, I admit that Lorne Gunter is not everyone's cup of tea, but he has a view, too, and it is expressed in today's National Post at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=7c8e444c-e4e2-46fb-b23f-0d83536dfe4c

Quote
Gun control myths just won't die

Lorne Gunter
National Post

Monday, May 09, 2005


I have never owned a firearm. Heck, I've never even held a real gun, much less fired one. Still, there are few federal programs that irk me more than Ottawa's gun registry.

It's not just the waste, although that's atrocious -- nearly $2-billion for a dysfunctional pile of uselessness.

And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear).

But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens.

This is especially true of Canada's gun registry. You really, really have to have faith in government, and be really, really suspicious of the gun owner down the block to continue to think our national registry will ever do any good.

Frankly, I'll take my law-abiding neighbours over politicians, bureaucrats, experts and advocates any day.

Believers in our registry like to say that since its inception in 1998 it has helped keep gun licences out of the hands of 13,000 people deemed unstable or too violent to possess guns. What they never boast about is that the registry doesn't even try to track the 131,000 convicted criminals in Canada who have been prohibited by the courts from owning guns.

Gee, who do you think is the greater risk?

Still, the fact that 13,000 Canadians -- about one-half of one per cent of applicants -- have been refused a licence in the past seven years might be meaningful if gun-controllers could then point to lowered murder rates, or show that firearms suicides have declined faster than suicides by other methods, or demonstrate a significant reduction in spousal homicides (most of the 13,000 denials have stemmed from complaints by one partner against another).

But despite these thousands of licence refusals, government ministers and special interest groups who favour the registry can't even point to a reduction in armed robberies.

The registry is not keeping the unfit from getting guns, just licences. And licences don't kill people, guns do. Keeping licences out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is meaningless.

James Roszko, the slayer of four Mounties in Alberta, had been banned from owning guns for the past five years. But paper gun controls were useless at keeping him from acquiring the weapons he used in his murders.

The only meaningful gun control is taking firearms away from criminals. And since crooks, drug dealers and murderers don't register their weapons, the registry is useless in this task.

Consider, too, (from the latest Statistics Canada homicide report), that 68% of firearms murders in Canada in 2003 were committed with handguns, and handguns have been subject to mandatory federal registration since 1934. Indeed, in the past 15 years, the percentage of total murders committed with handguns has doubled, despite their being tightly controlled.

That should tell you all you need to know about the worth of firearms registries.

Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.

Harassing duck hunters, target shooters and gun collectors to register their firearms will have no effect on crime. But don't tell liberals. They take great comfort in their myths.

© National Post 2005

I am no longer shacked and appalled by government corruption or ineptitude but, like Gunter, I have a special, deep distaste for the gun registry.  I can forgive waste, I can forgive what appears to be a chronic, maybe genetic inability, amongst about 35% of civil servants, to think, what I find immensely distasteful is the notion that social engineering, of any kind ever does any good.  I reject that notion out of hand; in my well informed opinion all[/u] social engineering is always[/b] destructive of the very values its misguided proponents aim to preserve.  The gun registry is social engineering gone mad.  It isa a silly programme designed to pacify the masses.  Svengali would be proud.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 09, 2005, 12:48:51
Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.


This should be a bitter pill for those who crusade for gun control by trying to make comparisons to the "wild west" US of A. ^-^
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Slim on May 09, 2005, 13:41:09
Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.

this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.

Slim
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Thucydides on May 09, 2005, 14:50:49
Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.

this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.

Slim

They can only "get rid of" the ones they know about, the tens of thousands they don't know about will still be out there. To bad there is no reality check that seems to work with these social engineers, if they were designing bridges they would be out of work and in jail long ago.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 09, 2005, 14:58:00
" I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new."

Nemo, lets try something OLD: It's called execution - no repeat offenders.

NO?   The lets try capital imprisonment - jail works best, when they don't get out of it.   Recidivism means you let him out too early, thats all.

The 2 - 4 % criminaly violent psychopaths are the recidivists, target them, get in their back pocket - and put them away until they die.

How?   By using health and safety legislation. These guys are a health hazard, isolate them in 'sanatoriums' in the arctic.

Then, to tidy up - remove the citizenship and deport every papered Canadian convicted of a criminal offence.   Institute exit controls so others cannot leave Canada to return to their homelands to fight against Canada.   Puplicize the link between organized crime drug orgs and terrorist funding, and treat drug dealers as terrorist fudraisers - which they are.

There.   Too easy.   Why should I have my private property confiscated because 'Canadians of convenience' do not have the cultural preparation and background to properly appreciate and handle our freedoms?

If they don't, won't, or can't legally adapt to our peaceful culture - back on the boat with them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Nemo888 on May 09, 2005, 21:02:16
Actually recidivism is  67% after three years out in the USA. They also have a massive proportion of their population imprisoned. Its reached 1.3% of the male population. They have longer sentences, tougher prisons and more crime(nationwide). Some cities in the states feel like war zones.  Following their lead will probably be as effective as gun control at cutting crime. Good parenting  prevents crime, treament for drug addicts maybe. Better schools teaching values and morals and how about how to be a good parent ?  More opportunity to get good paying jobs? Urban fear mongering  is a cheap way to get votes though. The "truth" is often not very sexy. Democracy at its best.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: TCBF on May 10, 2005, 00:08:09
Well now Piper, maybe you will, and maybe you won't.  Remember - the government deemed confiscated without renumeration over 500,000 handguns by classifying them as Prohibited 12(6) and "Grandfathering" their owners.  That means if any of your Dad's handguns are Prohibited 12(6), he can own them and fire them, but when he dies, you are out of luck, you cannot inherit them.  Your PAL will not now or ever show a Prohibited 12(6) designation.  Non-Restricted and possibly eventually Restricted, yes.  Prohibited, no, unless you already have it.

There may have been instances where firearms have "disappeared" upon the death of the owner, but those guns are then bad news for the person found afterwards to be possessing them - particularly if prohibited.  No doubt, if a perp has just robbed a bank, the firearms charges don't mean diddly, since they will be plea bargained off, or served concurrently anyhow.  But for a law abiding family man, FA or related RSC charges can be a nightmare.  Remember, the guvmint has been packing the Supreme Court with trustworthy minions, and they have not been recruiting them out of Gun Clubs or RCL Branches.

Tom
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on May 10, 2005, 01:43:34
"No objective observers."

Or, perhaps we are all objective observers.     

A gun is a tool, wielded for good or evil.   Our society is changing, and it is becoming much more acceptable to blame objects rather than individuals.  


How will this end?   Who knows.


Well, one day, sooner than later the only guns in Canada will in possession of the following:

- the crims,
- The CF
- LEO and designated security agencies

The general populus will be SOL.

Sad but true in ths PC world that you have let be created by the minorities not wishing to 'offend', and ENFORCED by a government the population bases in Ontario and Quebec voted in. I would not give the Liberals the steam off my crap to boil and egg!

truly disgusted,

Wes
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Larry Strong on May 14, 2005, 03:14:52
Wait for it, the final chapter has not been writen yet. If the fiberals win again after Gomery, I am not sure how much longer the west will want to be involved with the ROC
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 14, 2005, 11:52:37
I'll say the same thing that I say