The Great Gun Control Debate

[Highland Lad]

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.

 

[KevinB]

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!

 

[Zipper]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

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.

 

[Dare]

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.

 

[Zipper]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

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?

 

[CH1]

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

 

[rw4th]

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.

 

[Zipper]

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.

 

[rw4th]

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.

 

[Zipper]

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

 

[CH1]

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!

 

[Zipper]

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.

 

[TCBF]

"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

 

[KevinB]

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.



 

 

[McG]

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.

 

[Zipper]

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.

 

[glock17]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

Some interesting stats on the rate of homicide in the US.


Stay Safe

 

[glock17]

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