When mass killers meet armed resistance.

[Loachman]

You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm? The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...

They are all safety implements, specific to the circumstances for which they were designed.

A firearms would be valueless in a housefire, however, just as a fire extinguisher would be valueless in a self-defence situation.

If you have the misfortune to be attacked, the most effective means of assuring that you come through alive and unscathed is to have and use a firearm.

"Use" does not necessarily mean fire, however. In most self-defence situations, simply displaying a firearm is enough to discourage an attacker and send them looking for easier prey - like Lieberal and NDP supporters.

The fact is that firearms are merely tools. Like anything, they can be misused and abused for criminal purposes, but in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens be they police, military, or civilians, they can be lifesavers.

And that is why the police carry them.

Police are not imbued with magical powers, however - and neither are we in the Armed forces - so I do not see why you differentiate between these two groups and ordinary citizens screened and trained to a suitable standard, the one that I suggested being the RCMP fireaarms training programme. Police, military, and civilians are all bound by the same laws. Trained to the same standard, they are all equally effective and safe in a defensive situation. The difference is that there are very few police and military around, even if we were permitted to carry concealed, and we are not responsible for your safety, morally or legally.

The only people guaranteed to be present during a criminal attack are the predator and prey, the thug and you. The criminal will have armed himself as he wishes. You are prevented by law. Who is likely to win? If you feel comfortable in such a situation, fine. Your choice. Others do not.

Do you think that there is something wrong with civilians, ttrained to the RCMP standard, being granted the means to exercise their "right to life, liberty and security of the person"?

If so, what exactly is it, and why?

Again, I point out that the very citizens that you seem to fear are already in possession of far more firearms than all of the police and military personnel in this country, yet they commit virtually no crime despite having the means to do so. There is no bar to them taking their firearms out of their houses for any reason, except their tendency to follow the law, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Granting them permits to carry concealed after appropriate training - such as the RCMP standard - is not going to make them more dangerous, is it?

Credible research in the US proves this: every state in the US that has adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws has seen significant drops in all categories of violent crime. The deterrent value of a relatively small number of armed citizens is tremendous, as criminals can never know who is carrying and who is not. They do not like that uncertainty. Concealed-carry permit holders shoot more criminals per capita than do the police, as they are present during crimes while police are not and they generally spend far more time on the range, and they shoot far fewer innocent bystanders per capita than do the police, because they have more time to assess a situation and determine who an assailant is, and also because they spend far more time on the range. They are also less likely to be arrested for and convicted of crimes than police are, as they are unscrupulously law-abiding. In most states, any infraction, even non-firearms-related ones, will cost them their permit.

I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this.

Because it is another side of the same coin.

You're right, guns have no effect on suicide.

Thank-you.

If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything.

And by extension, should they wish to do somebody else in, they could use almost anything else as well.

But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about....

Car driven into a crowd and high speed. Home-made explosives (Oaklahoma City). Fire (Bluebird cafe in Montreal, Canada's worst mass murder committed purely on Canadian soil)...

Society has developed such an unreasonable and unhealthy fear of firearms over other equally effective means of mass murder that the mental defectives responsible overwhelmingly choose firearms as they know that they will garner more headlines and notoriety.

And mass-murder is merely a variation on a theme.

Serial killers are just as dangerous.

But back to the mass-variety...

Gamil Gharbi (Marc Lepine's real name) could just as easily have hidden in a women's washroom and bashed in heads as they entered one or two at a time.

A significant fact in mass-murder incidents is that the killers specifically select locations where they know that large numbers of defenceless victims will be gathered: schools (US-federally mandated "gun-free" - except for the murderer's of course - zones), US Postal facilities ("gun-free" zones), and malls and other businesses in the US displaying "gun-free" zone signs. Areas with high rates of gun possession are relatively immune - police stations, gun shows and gun shops, ranges etcetera. Mass murderers tend to kill themselves when confronted by armed resistance, especially when wounded. Immediate armed response is the only means of limiting casualties in a mass-murder incident where the killer is shooting.

In the absence of such a a response, large numbers of casualties are guaranteed. The only deciding factor in that number is the killer himself. We have been most fortunate that all such murderers who have not been stopped by armed resistance have stopped shooting and killed themselves before they ran out of ammunition or we'd have seen cases with hundreds dead. Perhaps their trigger fingers grew tired. We'll never know, but sooner or later one is going to be more persistent.

Does Canada's (not sure of your nationality but this is "Canadian Politics") constitution outline a "right" to bear arms? I just read it, and can't find anything of the sort.

That is a defect in the Charter.

It does not eliminate that right either, though. It is just too vague and open to interpretation.

but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.

It does not do that.

Neither do laws which prohibit rape, robbery, and murder.

The only method of protecting "US" against "THEM" - and by "THEM", I mean the real threat, you know, the ones who ignore prohibitions against rape, robbery, and murder as well as idiotic "gun control" laws - is by being at least as well armed and constantly aware of one's surroundings. Expecting the "law" to protect you is naive and unrealistic.

In any case, the Charter is there to limit government interference in the rights of citizens. You might want to study it a bit further before misusing it.

No, no it is not any less of a crime... But if someone randomly stabs a baby in the head, a gun probably couldn't have prevented it either.

Firstly, guns themselves do not protect. Humans with guns protect. But, as you say, there are no guarantees - just as there are no guarantees that fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and sprinklers will guarantee that nobody's house will not burn down or that they will not die in such a fire. Those other safety devices will, however, reduce the likelihood of such things happening, and reduce the overall losses.

In a mass-murder situation, immediate armed response is the ONLY way of limiting casualties.

And sure, it would be nice to be able to pop that guy off right there in the middle of the street if he killed your kid, no doubt,

It would be highly illegal. You have the lawful authority to use up to deadly force to protect yourself and others, and this is clearly defined, but not to use it in revenge. If the act is in progress, you may use it; once it's over, you may not. You may arrest the attacker, and you may use force to do so, and again this is clearly defined.

All these "one kill" scenarios are null and void...

The evidence is against you. Thousands of people successfully defend themselves against criminal attack annually across North America, usually without firing a shot (which is why you never hearing about these cases: "Rapist Ran Away" is less of an attractive headline for newspapers as "Woman Raped and Shot; in both cases a firearm is used, but guns get blamed for crime purely because of the second incident).

If I have a gun, I'm not any safer if I'm the specific target.

Yes, you are, because of the deterrent value (most criminals like to avoid death and injury as much as anybody) and because of your ability to use it effectively. Again, this does not give a guarantee, but it ups the odds in your favour.

If someone has a knife, and they want to kill me and me only, then the gun isn't going to save me.

No, it won't - ever. It has no autonomous capability. Your effective use of it, or the deterrent value provided by that, could quite likely however.

I'll be bleeding out of 5 or 6 stab wounds in my back long before I get a grasp on my gun.

Presuming, of course, that you are attacked from behind and this attack remains undetected until it is too late. Not all atacks conform to that scenario. You are narrowly limiting the nature of such things in a vain attempt to bolster an indefensible position.

This whole firearm stuff is only related to mass murders, since that's what guns allow for over knives and bats and stuff.

No, it isn't, or else the police would have no justification for carrying firearms given the extremely low statistical probability of their ever being confronted with a mass-murder situation.

Would a firearm, in the hands of a properly trained individual such as many of you on here, being on hand when somebody goes postal be able to neutralize them and save a few lives? Yes, absolutely.

Then why are you arguing to limit that capability to react effectively and save lives?

You are not only illogical and ignorant of fact, but inconsistent.

Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some...intervention? In my
opinion, yes.

Your opinion is not based upon fact and evidence, and is therefore of no value.

Such opinion forms no valid reason or justification for public policy.

Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that

You prefer to operate from a position of ignorance.

Did you view the links that I provided?

I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it.

Then why are you arguing about it here?

I am re-evaluating the evidence being presented for a "crazy" assessment.

I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides

Apparently not, or at least not enough, or expended insufficient effort to properly evaluate them.

IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer.

They are already available to the general public. There are, based upon reliable estimates, about five million Canadian citizens who own firearms yet do not shoot up schools, malls, and Jane-Finch neighbourhoods, and collectively they own fifteen to twenty million firearms with which they do not shoot up schools, malls, and Jane-Finch neighbourhoods.

In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.

Why? What magical powers do we possess?

 

[DBA]

Your opinion is not based upon fact and evidence, and is therefore of no value.

Such opinion forms no valid reason or justification for public policy.

In a democracy it sure does. Right or wrong, foolish or wise the opinions of Canadians matter in crafting public policy. Although you dismiss it, "Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some... intervention? In my opinion, yes." is a very commonly held viewpoint. The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational.

It would be nice if Canadians had the same rights as Americans in regards to firearms but without such constitutional protections gun advocates are left to the mercy of the irrational fears of the majority.

 

[Foxhound]

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

On the very same page that you posted this, I posted actual data from Stats. Can. that I, a simple citizen, found online in a simple half-hour search showing the dichotomy in mindset that exists when it comes to protecting our school children from fires and from violence.

Further, I would add this study from Harvard University, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf.  This study looks at firearm crime and suicide figures worldwide.  I encourage you to read this if you want the facts.  The authors of the study themselves were surprised by the findings.

Some excerpts:

"...two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.  The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies."

"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns.  Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.  Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States."

"The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation."

"...if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime."

And the conclusion...

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources.  Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.  Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.  To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).  But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.  Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence.  When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] findings, so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns,
but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative
finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources."

*emphasis my own.

 

[ballz]

Why? What magical powers do we possess?

TRAINING

The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational.

Man I am one misunderstood sob... I don't fear firearms. I myself will soon do the PAL restricted course and purchase a handgun. If there's any changes I'd support, technically they'd be the ones that slacken gun control (such as allowing certain "magical" people more leeway and whatnot... that is being more lenient than current policy no?). I just don't support letting it go to the extent of the US, I wouldn't want to go to school where the teachers are carrying guns (there is a district in Texas that has approved this)... at that point I'd start to want my own. And when you want to be carrying around a gun at school "for your own protection," that's a bit of a problem in my opinion.

Now I know I said I would let it go, but this time I hope I can keep that promise. I'm not a God-fearing man but if he is real, he's pissed after all the words I've been muttering. This stuff isn't good for my blood pressure.

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly, I find it almost impossible to understand what your point is, then.

The availability of firearms for responsible citizens to protect themselves and others seems pretty well established both through positive evidence (i.e. comparative crime statistics from US states that have concealed carry laws vs those that don't) and negative evidence (jurisdictions and nations that restrict firearms access to law abiding citizens [Washington DC and the UK being two extreme examples]). Switzerland, with universal gun ownership, has about the lowest firearms related crime rate anywhere: are you really going to mess around in a place where every male citizen has an assault rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition at home by law?

Firearms are inanimate objects and can be used for a multiplicity of purposes; so can swords, golf clubs, chemicals, drugs, cars, steak knives etc. It is the intent of the user that counts (just watch CSI to see the insanely clever ways people use all sorts of inanimate objects to kill people). As always, the issue is not the object but rather the intent of the user.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I wouldn't want to go to school where the teachers are carrying guns (there is a district in Texas that has approved this)... at that point I'd start to want my own. And when you want to be carrying around a gun at school "for your own protection," that's a bit of a problem in my opinion.

But why not?  You yourself admitted that the teacher in questioned would be trained to carry.  So what then is the problem?  Do you also object to Police School Liaison Officers attending educational institutions armed?

Would properly trained and armed teachers not prevent idiots or crazies (who do not care about gun control laws, one iota) from walking through a school with impunity until the cops arrive in (5-8 minutes) shooting the place up?  How many kids can die in 5-8 minutes?

Your argument is riddled with breath-taking illogic.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do appear to be afraid of guns- if not the specific  object, then the idea.

 

[Loachman]

TRAINING

And I discussed that, several times. Apparently, you did not read very well, which seems to be your general custom.

The National Firearms Association's proposed standard for civilian concealed carry in this country is the RCMP firearms training programme, ie, the same training given to RCMP candidates.

Do you believe that that is adequate or not, and why, if not?

Weapons training in the CF, by the way, is completely inadequate as a qualification for self-defence concealed carry.

 

[Loachman]

In a democracy it sure does. Right or wrong, foolish or wise the opinions of Canadians matter in crafting public policy. Although you dismiss it, "Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some... intervention? In my opinion, yes." is a very commonly held viewpoint. The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational.

I stand by my statement of "no valid reason or justification".

I did not say that opinions did not matter in crafting public policy, or that ballz' opinion was not commonly held. Such opinions are indeed commonly held, but that does make them valid or justify bad law.

Laws need to be grounded in fact, which the Canadian firearms legislation clearly is not, which is why it is failing miserably and costing so much.

Bad laws tend to be ignored, which is why over three million firearms owners refused or did not bother to obtain licenses and hundreds of thousands more have not bothered to renew, or register over eight million firearms.

Bad laws also get picked to pieces or destroyed outright by the courts as well. This one has yet to be properly tested, but that is coming.

 

[ballz]

But why not?  You yourself admitted that the teacher in questioned would be trained to carry.  So what then is the problem?  Do you also object to Police School Liaison Officers attending educational institutions armed?

Would properly trained and armed teachers not prevent idiots or crazies (who do not care about gun control laws, one iota) from walking through a school with impunity until the cops arrive in (5-8 minutes) shooting the place up?  How many kids can die in 5-8 minutes?

Your argument is riddled with breath-taking illogic.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do appear to be afraid of guns- if not the specific  object, then the idea.

Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises. Most people, whether they have a gun or not, are going to get the hell out of their and save their own ass. That is human nature, so what's the good of them having a gun anyway?

How do you set the standards for properly trained? I don't know, but I think a 1-2 week course that's as easy to pass as CPR is not adequate. An RCMP is trained to deal with a crisis, as is CF personnel (ok Loachman.. you want to get specific about it... maybe only certain trades should be able to carry it? I haven't gone through my courses yet, so I don't know the details... Maybe only the infantry? Maybe the Combat Arms?)

You are absolutely right, a properly trained and armed person in a given scenario could save a lot of lives. Try and find somewhere that I argued that it's better to let the shooter run out of bullets than to shoot him. You won't. That is why at our high school, we had an RCMP officer at our school at all times. He had his own office and everything. Did I feel unsafe with him walking around with his gun? No, not at all. I felt safer.

And I discussed that, several times. Apparently, you did not read very well, which seems to be your general custom.

The National Firearms Association's proposed standard for civilian concealed carry in this country is the RCMP firearms training programme, ie, the same training given to RCMP candidates.

Do you believe that that is adequate or not, and why, if not?

Weapons training in the CF, by the way, is completely inadequate as a qualification for self-defence concealed carry.

My general custom? Says who? George? Big effin deal, like I said to him, I can't find anymore of these "frequent" complaints that I'm accused of.

Would RCMP training be sufficient? Hell yes... But that's an intense 6 month course with a lot of prior screening... You're making it sound like its a weekend course or something. It wouldn't be very practical to try and put my should-be-retired, going-through-menapause teacher through that course now would it? There's not a whole lot of adequate training that she'd be able to partake...Perhaps it would be safer if she just WASN'T able to have a gun on her then? Yes that sounds about right.



Perhaps now, finally, you'll see where I'm standing... I'm not anti-firearm at all, I'm pro-adequate training, and anti-"arm everybody and let them protect themselves against their own shadow"

Or maybe you still think I'm afraid of guns... Well you can think that if you want, but to me you're all coming across as if you're afraid of your own shadow.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well you can think that if you want, but to me you're all coming across as if you're afraid of your own shadow.

Again, nothing but your own uneducated opinion. Nothing is further from the truth. I won't be one of your sheep. I'll protect me and mine, as I see fit, with the tools I choose because I can, not because you don't like it, or agree with it. And I pray, for the sake of your loved ones, you never have to make that decision. Rolling up in the fetal position waiting for a 911 response normally doesn't end well for the victims.

It's about time another mod locked this. It's going nowhere, a couple of times.

 

[ballz]

And I pray, for the sake of your loved ones, you never have to make that decision. Rolling up in the fetal position waiting for a 911 response normally doesn't end well for the victims.

Yes because that is clearly what I'm all for... For everybody to roll up in the fetal position and just take it.

You're as rediculous as your exaggerations.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes because that is clearly what I'm all for... For everybody to roll up in the fetal position and just take it.

You're as rediculous as your exaggerations.

Just trying hard to match your own

PS - Try the spell check once in a while, will ya?

 

[George Wallace]

Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises.

This would be the first I have ever heard of there being some sort of training to be a hero.  I always thought that it came about when a person reacted with extremely extraordinary courage to an extremely extraordinary set of circumstances.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And I would point out that Cops, Firefighters and members of the Military receive no such "hero training".  It does not exist.

We are all, however, well trained and familiar with both drills and our various tools of trade.  Which allows first responders and military personnel to (generally) maintain their wits in really bad situations.

CCW training in Canada would not take 6 months like RCMP Depot, because the actual firearms handling/shooting/law associated therein forms only a relatively short part of the course.

 

[George Wallace]

Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises. Most people, whether they have a gun or not, are going to get the hell out of My general custom? Says who? George? Big effin deal, like I said to him, I can't find anymore of these "frequent" complaints that I'm accused of.

You do know how to make an A_____ of yourself don't you.  

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.

I can't say I read all 18 pages of this thread, I can't say I read all of the first page. I pretty much only read the initial post. But, I thought I would point out something about this paragraph:

You can't even read all the way through your own posts:

George: I just read the last 1/3rd of my posts, and I fail to see where having to read has been a "common complaint." But hey, I'll take you're word for it.

I, and I suppose many others, question your future success in your current endeavors.  I would suggest a major overhaul of your attitude.

 

[NL_engineer]

Would RCMP training be sufficient? Hell yes... But that's an intense 6 month course with a lot of prior screening... You're making it sound like its a weekend course or something. It wouldn't be very practical to try and put my should-be-retired, going-through-menapause teacher through that course now would it? There's not a whole lot of adequate training that she'd be able to partake...Perhaps it would be safer if she just WASN'T able to have a gun on her then? Yes that sounds about right.

Lochman is saying the RCMP firearm training be the minimum standard.  He is not saying everyone needs to do a police course, but the weapon handling part of it.


O and ballz I took the time to read everthing that has gone on in this thread (actually the 4+ pages since I looked at it last).  It is not that hard.


Edited for spelling

 

[Burrows]

Aaaaand I'm pretty sure we're done here.  Things are just getting repetitive and abraisive.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Loachman]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2008/11/weve_been_brainwashed.html

We've been brainwashed
Posted by mjm0771, November 17, 2008 9:22AM

There are a lot of people in New Jersey with open minds and open eyes, but the majority of us have been mentally conditioned to be afraid of guns.
The Media in general have done an excellent job of demonizing firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.

A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights.
Broadcasts from major networks from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories, the ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was
16 to 1. That means, for every one story of someone using their firearm in self defense or to save the live of another, they aired 16 stories of criminals using their guns to hurt the innocent. That ratio still remains the same today. It seems one sided and unfair, does it not?

Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than shootings. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, and other bizarre injuries as compared with students who were murdered by firearms during that same time period. (Source:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm )

Why do majority of our lawmakers think that making it more difficult to own and carry a concealed firearm is going to help quell the rate of violent crime in New Jersey? It's been proven time and time again that criminals in New Jersey do not care about strict gun restrictions or outright bans. The vast majority of the illegal guns used in crimes come from a few corrupt gun dealers outside the borders of the Garden State .

It seems most of our legislators have this unfounded fear that if Bill
A1282 is enacted, everyone will rush to get their concealed carry permit and there will be millions of guns on our streets which will result in a bloodbath the likes we have never seen. History shows since concealed carry legislation was passed in Florida in 1987 only an estimated 3% of the Floridian population has chosen to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Now, let's return to New Jersey. The latest Census estimate the population of NJ is 8.7 million. If two percent of citizens are granted a concealed carry permit, that would be approximately 174,000 people. That also means there will only be 2 people per square mile who would have their permit to legally carry their weapon. There are 10 times more criminals and street gang members in our cities that are illegally carrying concealed right at this very moment! So what exactly are we afraid of???

The majority of us who live in and around urbanized areas in New Jersey believe guns are the problem. We seem to believe this because the mainstream media has trained us to think that way. The truth is there is an estimated 50.6 million households having at least one gun in the United States , totaling approximately 228 million firearms. The total number of firearms that are used by criminals to commit their violent acts is approximately 450,000 nationwide. That equates to 0.09% of all guns that are involved in crimes. (Source: http://www.gunfacts.info)

97% of people in Florida have not chosen to obtain their concealed carry permits, but they are getting a huge benefit from the 3% who do. Since Florida passed concealed carry legislation crime has dropped to 4% below the national average from 36% above the national average before 1987. This is why most of us in NJ will choose not apply for one because we have been convinced by our government and the media that guns are evil. But for those upstanding law-abiding citizens that feel differently, they should not be denied their constitutional right to defend themselves, if they feel the need to do so.

 

[Scratch_043]

Okay, I've been lurking in the shadows for a while, sifting through the previous posters, and evaluating (to the best of my ability) both sides of the issue. From what I can figure, both sides are trying to persuade the other to abandon their own view, and 'cross the line'. That simply won't happen, what's needed here is co-operation from both sides to make it work.

Let me start out by stating that I am not a gun owner, or even a PAL holder. I have however, written both examinations, and have had my paperwork in a file for the past 3 years, for when I do intend to apply. I say this to make it clear that I do tend to lean towards the gun owners side of the issue, and make that position clear.

I have the distinct pleasure of being somewhere in the middle, and as such, neither completely liked, or disliked by either side. I do not advocate complete freedom of 'joe public' to go out and buy as many guns as he can get a hold of, to use as he sees fit. But on the other hand, I also do not wish to see a society in which trained, law-abiding citizens are denied the capability to defend themselves or others from those who would do them harm.

I am not going to call it gun control, as that is not really main issue here, I am simply going to call the groups of people represented here Group A and Group B, since the aim of each is the same, so they are, in fact, not on opposite sides of the issue, but have a different viewpoint on the same side of the public safety issue.

From what I have seen, what the posters from both sides want, is a compromise, of sorts. Group A want the strict laws governing the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition, which we currently have in place, in order to prevent 'gun crime'. Group B want a system put in place that allows them the right to defend themselves in a situation which could result in the loss of life.

What I am proposing, is scrapping the current legislation, and replacing it with one more agreeable to BOTH groups, or failing that, a dramatic re-drafting of the current legislation.

First off, all that stuff about having to be licensed, registering your firearms, and follow strict guidelines on safe transportation and storage when not in use. And we all know, that if a firearm is kept on the person, with proper ATC, then it is in fact 'in use. That stays.

as a matter of fact, most of the core of the bill could still be saved, just adjusted slightly.

Magazine and barrel length limitations.... In my opinion, it's bullshit. The only difference in a 5rd magazine and a 20rd magazine is a couple of 2 second magazine changes. Same goes for barrel length, 4" of barrel length on a rifle or shotgun is NOT going to make a difference. if anything, having a shorter barrel, as most hunters will tell you, is a disadvantage because of the loss of accuracy and muzzle control.

I do believe that properly trained and licensed by the government individuals should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. Those individuals should also be subject to extreme scrutiny by the regulating authority, whoever that may be. In addition to that, under the current legislation, it is also very difficult for an individual to obtain a wilderness ATC for the purpose of protection from wildlife during the conduct of their duties or recreation in areas where you can't just dial 911 and wait for help, because help is not 10 minutes away, not even 30 minutes away under most conditions.

I realize that this position does not make me particularily popular with either the pro or anti gun control people out there, but it is my meager first attempt at trying to sort through the issue and present a suggestion for compromise from my own little viewpoint.

Back to the shadows I go.
Nic

 

[Loachman]

Firstly, sorry Kyle, I didn't see your lock as I was posting my last. Now that it appears to have gone by the wayside...

ToRN - I'm going to start with one of your last sentences first:

I realize that this position does not make me particularily popular with either the pro or anti gun control people out there, but it is my meager first attempt at trying to sort through the issue and present a suggestion for compromise from my own little viewpoint.

Not so meager - and a useful post.

Firstly, "gun control" has become too loaded a term, and meaningless.

What all sides wish to see, or at least should wish to see, is a reduction in overall violence, accident, and suicide.

The approaches taken and/or proposed vary, however.

There are many on the anti-gun side who are driven by ideology and/or an irrational fear of something with which they are unfamiliar, and see nothing but inanimate objects as the root of all human evil. They, combined with politicians seeking cheap and easy votes, have driven much of public policy to date in many countries. Despite demonstrated failure everywhere, and no success anywhere, at reducing violence they continue to push for more of the same. Their concepts are, literally, killing people.

As I said before, they do not seem to care about violent crime committed by other means, which, here in Canada, ignores approximately two-thirds of all murders and similar proportions of all other violent crime and suicide.

Even if they could eliminate all firearms, including those in criminal hands (which the Liberal's Firearms Act completely ignored), the murder and other violent crime and suicide rates would remain unchanged as other methods would be substituted. Private ownership of firearms is almost completely non-existent in Japan, for example, yet the overall suicide rate is far higher than ours, which is, in turn, higher than that of the US. In Japan, swords figure highly in suicides. Murder is also means-independent, and successive waves of "gun control" in this country and others have consistently failed to reduce murder and other crime rates.

Something is not working, and people are dying.

These people ignore the constant factor in all crime and suicide: the human one.

The majority of firearms owners see the other two-thirds as well, and are far more aware of that human factor.

We feel the pain of those other victims and their families and friends, and wish to see all violence, accident, and suicide reduced to the maximum extent possible.

This is why we believe in punishing the criminal for the crime committed, regardless of the implement used, and increasing public safety by removing proven threats from circulation for as long as possible rather than attacking, scapegoating, overly restricting, and criminalizing honest citizens who are highly unlikely to commit misdeeds.

We will happily support any measures which are likely to actually improve public safety, based upon logic and evidence. Call that "good gun contol".

We will not support that which is blatantly stupid, such as the specific things that you mentioned (mag restrictions, arbitrary barrel length restrictions, etcetera). Call that "bad gun control".

I do not advocate complete freedom of 'joe public' to go out and buy as many guns as he can get a hold of, to use as he sees fit.

Yet this seemed to work fairly well in the not so distant past, before the rise of drug gangs, who are unaffected by the lack of "complete freedom of 'joe public'. "Gun control" has absolutely no effect on them at all, and they are the ones about whom we should be worrying, and taking meaningful and effective action against, not 'joe public'.

That aside, and despite evidence that government-mandated training courses and screening has extremely little real value, we tend to support reasonable screening and safety awareness as a condition of lawful acquisition anyway. It is relatively inexpensive, and serves as a useful public-perception CYA measure.

I am describing the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate here, except that it should be granted for life rather than require renewal, subject to revocation under appropriate circumstances.

I am most definitely against the current requirement to have a valid licence as a condition to continue to possess one's lawfully-acquired property under pain of lengthy jail sentences. It proves nothing, and is extremely heavy-handed.

Violent criminals are generally given firearms prohibitions as part of their sentencing. All that is required, then, is to confirm whether or not anybody in possession of a firearm in questionable circumstances is under such a court-ordered prohibition. A requirement for law-abiding citizens to continually prove their law-abidingness is repugnant to a free society, especially when it is only a segment of that society which is singled out.

A prohibited-persons list is far simpler and cheaper to maintain, and far more effective, than a huge database of the law-abiding. It's also more in keeping with the nature of the society that we think that we have, ie free.

I am not going to call it gun control, as that is not really main issue here, I am simply going to call the groups of people represented here Group A and Group B, since the aim of each is the same, so they are, in fact, not on opposite sides of the issue, but have a different viewpoint on the same side of the public safety issue.

I got a bit ahead of this above...

From what I have seen, what the posters from both sides want, is a compromise, of sorts.

Barring the extreme idealogues on the anti-gun side, yes, although firearms owners have been compromised to death by creeping waves of "bad gun control".

Our demands are not inconsistent with public safety, however, and, based upon evidence seen elsewhere, would enhance it.

Group A want the strict laws governing the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition, which we currently have in place, in order to prevent 'gun crime'.

Which it clearly does not and cannot, as criminals do not require safety courses, licences, and registrations etcetera.

, as, surprisingly, we are not criminals         
Group B want a system put in place that allows them the right to defend themselves in a situation which could result in the loss of life.

That, and measures which will actually reduce crime, and not just "gun crime". Such measures are not inconsistent with our wants and needs as, surprisingly, we are not criminals.

What I am proposing, is scrapping the current legislation, and replacing it with one more agreeable to BOTH groups, or failing that, a dramatic re-drafting of the current legislation.

The flaw, unfortunately, is that those pushing "gun control" are driven more by a hatred of guns than anything and refuse to see any other way. This is why any legislation has to be strictly evidence-based in order to be fair and effective.

First off, all that stuff about having to be licensed, registering your firearms, and follow strict guidelines on safe transportation and storage when not in use. And we all know, that if a firearm is kept on the person, with proper ATC, then it is in fact 'in use. That stays.

No, no, no, no, no. Licensing, as it currrently exists, and registration are evil, and must end. They are useless as crime prevention tools and serve only to criminalize the law-abiding. The only purpose that registration serves is to provide a handy list whenever governments decide to go on the banned-wagon again. It puts everybody's hard-earned property at risk of theft by government decree. Safe storage is a red-herring. Enforcement can only be done through "inspection" as contained and described in the legislation, which is nothing more than thinly-veiled warrantless search where no crime has been committed or reasonably presumed to have been committed - and is therefore contrary to our Constitution. Should a crime or accident occur where safe storage may have been a factor, then that is covered quite adequately under negligence charges.

I used to be an advocate of licensing, by the way, but changed my mind several years ago as I learned more.

as a matter of fact, most of the core of the bill could still be saved, just adjusted slightly.

Have you read it, and tried to actually comprehend it?

If you had, you would not say that.

It has been criticized by many judges, and rightfully so, as confusing, convoluted, and contradictory. It was written by people with no knowledge of firearms whatsoever, but tons of prejudice in compensation.

Back to the shadows I go.

No - stay out in the sunlight. You're not doing too badly, and are "salvagable".

You are attempting to get it right, and are keeping an open mind.

Thanks.