Yet another shooting in the USA

[promac]

Forum Sponsor

Not greater number of guns, greater availability of guns. This is generally reflected in numbers, but it isn't the same thing.

Availability to the right people is key - decent & lawful people as opposed to violent criminals. There is value in a background check - there's no need for license expirations, Gov't lists of guns or other arbitrary rituals - Safety is covered in S86 of the CC. C68 is convoluted & dangerous legislation designed to ensnare and criminalize the otherwise lawful, but unwary gun owner - the sooner it goes, the better. Is it reasonable to believe that Canada only has 1.8 decent & lawful people out of say, 20M of legal age, worthy of gun ownership? Of course not. Violent criminals are very few.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Availability to the right people is key - decent & lawful people as opposed to violent criminals. There is value in a background check - there's no need for license expirations, Gov't lists of guns or other arbitrary rituals - Safety is covered in S86 of the CC. C68 is convoluted & dangerous legislation designed to ensnare and criminalize the otherwise lawful, but unwary gun owner - the sooner it goes, the better. Is it reasonable to believe that Canada only has 1.8 decent & lawful people out of say, 20M of legal age, worthy of gun ownership? Of course not. Violent criminals are very few.

Availability, responsibility, and control help keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. In the US, where they have a hodgepodge of disparate systems and laws, you have people who qualify for gun ownership buying large quantities in one State, and then turning around and selling them to criminals in another State. The system instituted with the long gun registry may be overly draconian but going to a US model, if you will pardon the (censored) language, would be one of the most incredibly ****ing god damned stupid things that we could do. Where we do things better than the US does, it makes absolutely no sense to try and follow their example.

 

[jc100]

Do you drive? Aren't you sacred of all the other drivers who aren't as in control and skilled as you are? Carrying a gun isn't predicated on being scared the same as putting on a seatbelt doesn't mean you are scared of accidents. It's there just in case and will likely never be used.

Got a lightning rod on your house too? Did you buy a hardhat when Skylab was falling? Nuclear bunker in the back yard maybe? 5 Years of provisions in case zombies invade?

I put needing to carry a gun in the same category as those above. Putting on a seatbelt...mandated by law so I do it. Plus it makes sense and it will never impact anyone else in any way by me using it.

Conversely...carrying a gun in Canada just doesn't make sense.......unless you're scared and it makes you feel better. Having them at home is totally different. Lets just be clear here...my only problem is with carrying concealed guns in public. What you have in your home is no concern of mine...you could have a tank parked in your front room turret pointed at the door....whatever floats your boat.

 

[Sabex]

Am I the only one who read this title to the beat of "Party In The USA"?

 

[sonnythebull]

Got a lightning rod on your house too? Did you buy a hardhat when Skylab was falling? Nuclear bunker in the back yard maybe? 5 Years of provisions in case zombies invade?

I put needing to carry a gun in the same category as those above. Putting on a seatbelt...mandated by law so I do it. Plus it makes sense and it will never impact anyone else in any way by me using it.

Conversely...carrying a gun in Canada just doesn't make sense.......unless you're scared and it makes you feel better. Having them at home is totally different. Lets just be clear here...my only problem is with carrying concealed guns in public. What you have in your home is no concern of mine...you could have a tank parked in your front room turret pointed at the door....whatever floats your boat.

You don't think thru your arguments. If you don't wear a seat belt you impact the people in the vehicle with you ( literally). Carrying a gun in Canada doesn't make sense according to you? Ok, that same argument can be used for motorcycles( which kill many more people than guns do in north America) you really want to take the stance of deciding what makes sense or just allow freedoms and enforce laws accordingly.

 

[sonnythebull]

We all have self control it's just not absolute, regardless of how much we like to think we are masters of our own destinies.

And yes the widespread acceptance of MMA will have a similar effect of increasing our acceptance of violence in society. Except the risk/benefit equation is much more heavily skewed towards benefit as I don't ever see anyone going out and robbing anyone using a choke-out, or accidentally armbaring someone! There's only so much harm that can be done in hand-to-hand combat.

So your argument now is don't allow me to legally carry a gun because I'm going to start robbing people with my legal gun???
Actually violence in society is way less accepted than it was even 20 years ago. You can't spank your kid, kids aren't allowed to fight it out at school, boxing used to be a sport at some high schools and not any more. So you are completely wrong there. But the way I could break your arm and choke you to death very very easily so don't think hand to hand isn't going to cause much harm. Take some training and you will be humbled at the power of someone who has skills and knows how to use them.

 

[jc100]

You don't think thru your arguments. If you don't wear a seat belt you impact the people in the vehicle with you ( literally). Carrying a gun in Canada doesn't make sense according to you? Ok, that same argument can be used for motorcycles( which kill many more people than guns do in north America) you really want to take the stance of deciding what makes sense or just allow freedoms and enforce laws accordingly.

Did you miss the part where it's mandated by law to wear a seatbelt? Motorcyclists tend to kill themselves...guns tend to kill others wherein lies the problem. No, carrying a gun in one of the safest countries in the world doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Thankfully the powers that be agree.

 

[mmmnaked]

Not greater number of guns, greater availability of guns. This is generally reflected in numbers, but it isn't the same thing.

An average of 3 firearms per owner? That's a believable number. Remember that prior to the long gun registry, there was no duty (nor ability) to register unrestricted firearms. That meant there were an awful lot of them around. People could acquire a firearm, using a FAC, then retain it after the FAC expired. The FAC was a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate", not a firearms owner registration.

That's what I was arguing the other day. Canada has at least 10x (the numbers support this, and far more if you consider who we share a border with) the actual availability of guns, but that fact isn't represented at all by the firearms homicide numbers when compared to the UK. I would expect that if availability of guns was as important a factor as some claim it to be, our firearms homicide rate would be at least 10x that of the UK.

I just don't buy the arguments. Of all the variables to consider in crime rates (and specifically homicide), guns and their availability must be pretty far down the list of contributing factors.

 

[sonnythebull]

Did you miss the part where it's mandated by law to wear a seatbelt? Motorcyclists tend to kill themselves...guns tend to kill others wherein lies the problem. No, carrying a gun in one of the safest countries in the world doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Thankfully the powers that be agree.

And you don't think the nanny state will try to ban motorcycles one day if you keep allowing inanimate objects that do no harm on their own to be banned?

 

[OpenGambit]

This thread has taught me that some people around here believe:

Concealed carry of fully automatic weapons = acceptable
Sikh student carrying 2 inch knife = not acceptable.

 

[sonnythebull]

This thread has taught me that some people around here believe:

Concealed carry of fully automatic weapons = acceptable
Sikh student carrying 2 inch knife = not acceptable.

More like allow laws that encompass everyone and don't include or exclude any group.
and 1 nice semi auto pistol would be more than enough but I'm not sking for just me or my religion to be allowed to do it.

 

[fastar1]

So your argument now is don't allow me to legally carry a gun because I'm going to start robbing people with my legal gun???

This isn't about any one person. It's a societal issue and yes, I don't want to allow the public to legaly carry a gun because people will be more likely to commit armed robberies, whether their guns are legal or not.

Actually violence in society is way less accepted than it was even 20 years ago. You can't spank your kid, kids aren't allowed to fight it out at school, boxing used to be a sport at some high schools and not any more. So you are completely wrong there.

Those are all examples of us becoming overprotective of our kids. That's a separate topic.

But the way I could break your arm and choke you to death very very easily so don't think hand to hand isn't going to cause much harm. Take some training and you will be humbled at the power of someone who has skills and knows how to use them.

Not as easily as you could shoot me. Guns are to criminals like e-bikes are to drunks; the cheap, unskilled, brainless solution to getting what they want, everyone else can be damned. They are an easily accessible tool to overcome whatever obstacles they see in their way.

In fact, I think e-bikes should be legislated out of existence by defining them as motor vehicles as long as they can move without physical exertion on the rider's part. So to carry my analogy further, I would probably support individual C&C if guns were legislated to contain a mechanism that forced the user to answer a college level skill-testing question every time before the trigger can be pulled. That would make them hardly more dangerous than a choke-hold.

 

[promac]

This isn't about any one person. It's a societal issue and yes, I don't want to allow the public to legaly carry a gun because people will be more likely to commit armed robberies, whether their guns are legal or not.

Not as easily as you could shoot me. Guns are to criminals like e-bikes are to drunks; the cheap, unskilled, brainless solution to getting what they want, everyone else can be damned. They are an easily accessible tool to overcome whatever obstacles they see in their way.

Why do you think lawful individuals would be more likely to commit armed robberies if CCW was legal? Where does that idea come from? Intent is the enabler, not the tool. An armed robber will acquire suitable tools to maximize success.

Criminals will get illegal guns inspite of any controls or laws. If you deal in drugs or extortion, a gun is a must have tool. That will never change.

 

[promac]

Availability, responsibility, and control help keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. In the US, where they have a hodgepodge of disparate systems and laws, you have people who qualify for gun ownership buying large quantities in one State, and then turning around and selling them to criminals in another State. The system instituted with the long gun registry may be overly draconian but going to a US model, if you will pardon the (censored) language, would be one of the most incredibly ****ing god damned stupid things that we could do. Where we do things better than the US does, it makes absolutely no sense to try and follow their example.

Gun trafficking occurs in Canada as well, in spite of the hodge-podge of controls & laws. Controls are circumvented & laws are broken just as they are in the US. IMO, the concept of CCW permits for lawful people is brilliant - effectively a mine-field for violent criminals.

Interesting trends:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.contrepoints.org/2012/08/14/93643-taux-de-criminalite-plus-eleves-en-europe-quaux-usa&usg=ALkJrhi2AuK_a901KdGuyp2ZjYORzKRhiA

 

[fastar1]

Why do you think lawful individuals would be more likely to commit armed robberies if CCW was legal? Where does that idea come from? Intent is the enabler, not the tool. An armed robber will acquire suitable tools to maximize success.

Criminals will get illegal guns inspite of any controls or laws. If you deal in drugs or extortion, a gun is a must have tool. That will never change.

I pretty much explained it already. Simply put it normalizes gun use in society, making it less of a moral obstacle for people to make the decision to use guns, whether for legal or illegal purposes. A modest example is that in Europe, the hand signal used when talking about a murder is a hand chop, like the motion of a hatchet. In the US and Canada, it's pointing the index finger and triggering the thumb to mimick a gun.

Criminals do get guns illegally, primarily in Canada because guns are so prevalent in the US and our border is by necessity very porous. The US is the problem, not us.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Gun trafficking occurs in Canada as well, in spite of the hodge-podge of controls & laws. Controls are circumvented & laws are broken just as they are in the US. IMO, the concept of CCW permits for lawful people is brilliant - effectively a mine-field for violent criminals.

Interesting trends:

http://translate.googleusercontent....ux-usa&usg=ALkJrhi2AuK_a901KdGuyp2ZjYORzKRhiA

Two points:

Trafficking of illegal guns, that are either purchased or stolen in Canada, is far less prevalent than trafficking in illegal guns from the US. If not for their lack of controls, we wouldn't have as many illegal guns on the street.

Because of our controls, it is more likely that someone who is purchasing guns and then selling them illegally will be caught.

As I have said, it would appear that our system works. If the US actually had a Federally based system I would say that it didn't work, but they don't have such a system.

 

[sonnythebull]

So to carry my analogy further, I would probably support individual C&C if guns were legislated to contain a mechanism that forced the user to answer a college level skill-testing question every time before the trigger can be pulled. That would make them hardly more dangerous than a choke-hold.

So you believe the ability to answer a college level question stops people from committing crime. Head in the sand much?

 

[fastar1]

So you believe the ability to answer a college level question stops people from committing crime. Head in the sand much?

Wow, I said that? Either I'm must be real stupid or you're playing dumb.

If I said what you seem to think I said, then I'd have to believe no college-educated person would ever commit a crime. I don't believe that or ever suggested anything of the sort.

Since I don't think you're dumb, you must be playing dumb.

I'm not going to play games with you, but when you want to have an adult discussion I'll be very glad to.

 

[mmmnaked]

The notion that CCW would result in random robberies by law-abiding citizens is hilarious. I have guns, I can easily conceal a pistol whenever I want and I'll bet 1 million dollars that I'd never get busted for it.

Why haven't I robbed or killed anyone yet :lol:

FWIW, I think gun laws in Canada are almost perfect. I could use fewer restrictions on "restricted" firearms, and do away with the need for ATTs... beyond that I think the licensing system is alright. If the classification system for firearms was more straight-forward and based on function rather than "scary looks", we'd have it great.

 

[ariesmars]

I remember arguing about this on here. I think they passed a law in TX that allowed students to walk on campus with guns; those in favour of the law said that shooting would decrease, I guess not.

Forum Sponsor