Fire arm control

[promac]

For me, steak knife, tire iron, gun..whatever..it's all the same. Gun just escalates the violence faster and kills more people quicker. If you're determined, steak knife will still do the job. In the end, it's the society and people behind them that are the problem.

Knife or bat, less power, less intimidating and most likely to cause an escalation in violence. The business end of a firearm is shock and awe in comparison and situations will quickly diffuse in most circumstances. Why do you think police carry? To escalate violence?

 

[rmemedic]

Like I say, I'm not against carrying firearms..the problem is the mentality of some of the people who want them. I can't imagine many situations in a vehicle where the best option isn't to have your doors locked and just drive away. If they have a gun pointed at you, do we really have time to pull and shoot? Probably not. So get out and give them the car. If they don't have a gun, just drive away. If you feel like someone wronged you and you have to prove to them that you're the man and they're in the wrong, should that person have a gun??

For me, steak knife, tire iron, gun..whatever..it's all the same. Gun just escalates the violence faster and kills more people quicker. If you're determined, steak knife will still do the job. In the end, it's the society and people behind them that are the problem.

Yeah, if likely driving off is the best plan. If a gun is in your face before you know anything is happening, it's probably best to not go for yours. And if someone rear ends you, I seriously doubt you'll get out and point a gun in their face for an accident.

There would have to be a serious investigation after it was used, and if deemed a non-appropriate use then you would face the charges. That would keep people under control.

For example, overseas we had strict rules on when we can use our weapons. Many times you would want to just point your weapon at someone for doing something but you know it's not worth it.
Just look at the Captain who was proved innocent after a few years of trial after a legitimate fire fight. Even in a war zone, you are fully aware of the rules and follow them.

 

[RockerGuy]

Like I say, I'm not against carrying firearms..the problem is the mentality of some of the people who want them. I can't imagine many situations in a vehicle where the best option isn't to have your doors locked and just drive away. If they have a gun pointed at you, do we really have time to pull and shoot? Probably not. So get out and give them the car. If they don't have a gun, just drive away. If you feel like someone wronged you and you have to prove to them that you're the man and they're in the wrong, should that person have a gun??

For me, steak knife, tire iron, gun..whatever..it's all the same. Gun just escalates the violence faster and kills more people quicker. If you're determined, steak knife will still do the job. In the end, it's the society and people behind them that are the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to use my Seat belt cutter. But what if the individual is violent and psychotic, would u want to be caught saying "only if I had a weapon"? Sometimes robbery can become violent. Of course I would drive away if I had to.

Point being, guns don't cause crimes, criminals do. Law abiding citizens owing guns does not cause or incite crime!

The thing that bothers me is when they punish law abiding citizens just to show others that they are trying to control guns, a la David Miller when he shut down the range in toronto. All the olympic shooters must be furious

 

[invictus43]

Knife or bat, less power, less intimidating and most likely to cause an escalation in violence. The business end of a firearm is shock and awe in comparison and situations will quickly diffuse in most circumstances. Why do you think police carry? To escalate violence?

What do you base that on? Is there less violence in gun states than non-gun states? I don't see how any weapon makes a difference when both people have them. Do you think you'll be the only one with a gun? Generally, people with guns can shoot back at you. Less margin for error.

 

[rmemedic]

doesn't the school shooting incidents in the States teach us anything? These are people that just walked into a store and legally obtained a gun than go off shooting an entire classroom.

And if some of those teachers or students had a weapon, then those losers wouldn't have been able to go in there knowing they would be against no resistance and calmy walk around and execute people. Maybe that event would still have happened, but the outcome would be less innocent dead, and those guilty wouldn't have taken the cowards way out and blown their own heads off... Maybe they would have also survived.

Knife or bat, less power, less intimidating and most likely to cause an escalation in violence. The business end of a firearm is shock and awe in comparison and situations will quickly diffuse in most circumstances. Why do you think police carry? To escalate violence?

Once again, from experience, the barrel of a gun is very powerful even if nothing comes out of it. I've seen someone that didn't understand english get the point very quickly with the lifting of a gun, and nobody got hurt in the end.

 

[mma01]

doesn't the school shooting incidents in the States teach us anything? These are people that just walked into a store and legally obtained a gun than go off shooting an entire classroom.

If the guns were not legally available, do you think that these lunatics would have just shrugged and said: "oh well, not going to kill anyone today because I cant legally get a gun"

Or would they have sought out another means to carry out murder, like get a gun in the black market, or lock up the doors of the school and burn it down with legally obtained gasoline, or any any number of ways there are to kill someone without a firearm?

 

[invictus43]

The thing that bothers me is when they punish law abiding citizens just to show others that they are trying to control guns, a la David Miller when he shut down the range in toronto. All the olympic shooters must be furious

That was a political stunt. Going after the wrong people for political points.

 

[rmemedic]

What do you base that on? Is there less violence in gun states than non-gun states? I don't see how any weapon makes a difference when both people have them. Do you think you'll be the only one with a gun? Generally, people with guns can shoot back at you. Less margin for error.

And those illegaly carrying them and using them for illegal activities will be less likely to use them knowing the next person they try to intimidate is possibly packing too. Why give them an advantage?

 

[invictus43]

Once again, from experience, the barrel of a gun is very powerful even if nothing comes out of it. I've seen someone that didn't understand english get the point very quickly with the lifting of a gun, and nobody got hurt in the end.

The problem with that is, they didn't have a gun.

 

[invictus43]

And those illegaly carrying them and using them for illegal activities will be less likely to use them knowing the next person they try to intimidate is possibly packing too. Why give them an advantage?

Yup..just remember, if you pull, they will too..and that could have a bad ending. Like I say, it's not the weapon, it's the people behind them.

 

[rmemedic]

The problem with that is, they didn't have a gun.

Oh yeah? How do I know that? Very easy for them to hide a shortened up AK-47 in their clothing... Or a Suicide vest, and how do I not know that car with the saggy springs isn't loaded up with 500lbs of HME??

 

[rmemedic]

Yup..just remember, if you pull, they will too..and that could have a bad ending. Like I say, it's not the weapon, it's the people behind them.

They generally use the gun as a show of power so they can pull if the job with less resistance, you know take the easy way out. Once they see you're not backing down, they will likely rather move on to a target that won't fight back.
If that wasn't the case, they would just shoot first.

 

[llaen]

And if some of those teachers or students had a weapon, then those losers wouldn't have been able to go in there knowing they would be against no resistance and calmy walk around and execute people. Maybe that event would still have happened, but the outcome would be less innocent dead, and those guilty wouldn't have taken the cowards way out and blown their own heads off... Maybe they would have also survived.

Students carrying a gun, eh?

Once again, from experience, the barrel of a gun is very powerful even if nothing comes out of it. I've seen someone that didn't understand english get the point very quickly with the lifting of a gun, and nobody got hurt in the end.

And if something comes out of it, someone is most likely dead.

Again, what's the scenario? An unarmed robbery? What if the guy had a gun? What if he/she had already pointed it to you? You're screwed and at least one person is likely to die.
Is pulling a gun on someone and risking a death (yours, a bystander's, etc) worth protecting your wallet?

 

[invictus43]

Oh yeah? How do I know that? Very easy for them to hide a shortened up AK-47 in their clothing... Or a Suicide vest, and how do I not know that car with the saggy springs isn't loaded up with 500lbs of HME??

And we're back to the paranoid, boogey man argument. I don't really live in fear like this. I don't think many people do in this country.

 

[llaen]

They generally use the gun as a show of power so they can pull if the job with less resistance, you know take the easy way out. Once they see you're not backing down, they will likely rather move on to a target that won't fight back.
If that wasn't the case, they would just shoot first.

You base this on what experience/evidence? I would imagine that if I have my gun pointed at someone and they pull a gun as well, I'd probably now be fearing for my life and be much more likely to shoot.

 

[RoadHogg]

doesn't the school shooting incidents in the States teach us anything? These are people that just walked into a store and legally obtained a gun than go off shooting an entire classroom.

Whats your point, we are not talking about being able to walk into Walmart and buy a gun, that or giving it to any Joe on the street. In Texas a citizen can legally buy a gun just by walking into the gun store, purchasing a handgun and waiting 20 minutes. No real checks or anything.
Someone that hell bent on causing so much harm will probably carry it out any way possible.. How about more focus on mental health? Or lack of in the area.

 

[llaen]

You guys are getting away from the point.....it doesn't matter if canada is a relatively safe place to live, the fact that there is any crime at all is what is important.

If there is any chance, however remote, that someone might be the victim of a violent crime, then they should eb afforded the right to defend themselves.

There are a million statistics on how safe an armed society can be.

Ie. Vermont is generally regarded as having the least stringent gun control laws, allowing citizens to carry guns without permits. They are also the only state to NEVER have had a state trooper killed by a firearm.

Ie. Switzerland allows all their citizens to own guns, even fully automatic firearms. Gun crime in Switzerland is so low its not even tracked.

Point being, guns don't cause crimes, criminals do. Law abiding citizens owing guns does not cause or incite crime!

Of course, a potential victim should be offered the right to defend themselves. Unless that right also causes another few hundred people to die each year who would have otherwise went on living their lives. You end up saving the life of one and sacrificing that of another X hundred. If that's okay with you, then it's a matter of different life views and not so much about stats/crime rates.

It all comes down to whether there'll be more cases where having a gun saved your (or someone else's) life than cases where having a gun (legally) has taken some else's life.

At this point no one has presented any stats that would confirm this. In fact, if someone does prevent a deadly crime using their legal weapon you'll keep hearing about it for days; there's so many people who would love to tell and retell that story for the rest of their lives while lovingly caressing their handgun.
Meanwhile there's the staggering statistics of people who are victims of gun crime that are just that - statistics. You only hear about it when someone goes on a rampage in a school/church/local neighbourhood and kills X number of people. And you hear that pretty often.

That's why I'm pointing out that this is all hypothetical. All these scenarios that people give seem to be based on the idea of the usefulness of a gun as self-defense. But that's all this is - an idea based on emotions and nothing else.

Anyway, that's all I can say about it.
There's always going to be two sides of this argument. I'm just thankful that my country of residence is on the right side (at this point).

Have a good day, everyone! And beware of increased chance of lightning strikes while wielding a tire iron!

 

[invictus43]

You base this on what experience/evidence? I would imagine that if I have my gun pointed at someone and they pull a gun as well, I'd probably now be fearing for my life and be much more likely to shoot.

I think stats show that the weapon really has no effect..maybe a little more one way or the other. Bottom line is, societal conditions dictate the amount of violence. Guns or no guns, we'll still have all the same problems we have now.

 

[invictus43]

Someone that hell bent on causing so much harm will probably carry it out any way possible.. How about more focus on mental health? Or lack of in the area.

Bingo! I can kill 10 people by running them down in my car if I really wanted to! The question is, why do people want to?

 

[rmemedic]

Students carrying a gun, eh?




And if something comes out of it, someone is most likely dead.

Again, what's the scenario? An unarmed robbery? What if the guy had a gun? What if he/she had already pointed it to you? You're screwed and at least one person is likely to die.
Is pulling a gun on someone and risking a death (yours, a bystander's, etc) worth protecting your wallet?

Whats wrong with students carrying a gun? at 14 you can start to carry in Canada...
No, my wallet isn't worth killing someone, but my life is and so is that of my family. Someone comes in to my home with a weapon that is enough intent for me!

And we're back to the paranoid, boogey man argument. I don't really live in fear like this. I don't think many people do in this country.

I mentioned I have seen how much the barrel of a gun speaks with my own eyes, you said "the problem with that is they didn't have a gun" and I replied as to what I DIDN'T know but in that circumstance I drew my experience from it was very possible that they had something that could harm me... That would be from Afghanistan.

You base this on what experience/evidence? I would imagine that if I have my gun pointed at someone and they pull a gun as well, I'd probably now be fearing for my life and be much more likely to shoot.

It's phycological, that if some guy was robbing the 7-11, if he walks in with a gun he knows he will have no resistance as he has the most powerful thing in that room. No real intention to use it, it's just a show. If he intended to use it, he would walkin, pop everyone in there and take what he wanted.
Knowing that if he busts in there and he might be faced with another weapon, either from the clerk who he is facing or the customer that was in the back he will be less likely to go in and commit the crime.