NationStates Jolt Archive

I concur. As a Canadian, I am free to own a firearm. All I need is to be 18 and older and get a permit.

However, we don't usually hand out permits to anyone. So it's harder for thugs and criminals to get their hands on one.

Same here. We have computerized background checks.

I can clearly see a direct correlation to our crime rates.

Just out of curiosity, if you were going to kill someone or commit armed robbery, would you use a legally obtained and registered gun?

And as an added thought: here, guns are REQUIRED to be kept unloaded AND locked.

By law? How is it enforced? Do government agents kick in your door and do suprise checks?

Which means no angsty teenagers can steal daddy's gun who was being kept loaded in a shoebox and use it to kill his little comrades at school.

Which almost never happens here either.

This is one of our little quirks up here in the north: we actually prefer to keep our children safe.

Good job, instead of ending with a real argument just try the old "appeal to the children" attack. Its great because it makes anyone who disagrees with you a child killer.

Is there any way we can have a real discussion without rhetoric this time?

Absolutely, we can have a nice discussion. For starters, I'll post my reply to Salishe here as well as in the other thread:


And while your guns are unloaded & locked.and some thug breaks into your house who already has his weapon out and at the ready, just what are your options eh? No thank you..if someone broke into my house I want them to know a .45 caliber is pointed at their chest and I will aim for center mast on the human body.

If a thug happens to get into my house with a gun, I'll happily raise my hands in the air, let him take my TV set and computer, and get out with the goods. I'd then call the police to chase him, and my insurance company to get my losses covered.

Seriously, pointing your .45 caliber is the best way to start a firefight between you and said thug. Is losing a couple of material possessions worth the threat of you possible death or injury? Or the possibility of stealing life from another human being, even if he is a thief(Of course he commits a crime, but death isn't a just punishement for theft.)?

I know you're a soldier, and therefore most certainly able to protect yourself with your gun without much risk of doing personnal harm to yourself or your family with it. However, you should realize that most poeple are not, and stand more chance of hurting themselves with the gun or killing someone with it than just put the thief out of commission.

That being said, gun control IS outside the range of this thread, so I'll discuss it no further here.

Just out of curiosity, if you were going to kill someone or commit armed robbery, would you use a legally obtained and registered gun?

Like I said, it's much harder to get a gun in Canada if you have a criminal record. A background check is one thing, it doesn't allow the most obviously criminal members of society to get a gun. However, there are may ways to get around it. The higher availability of guns in the US work against it, as well.

I freely admit there are ways to get around having the permit as well. However, a system where only poeple ALLOWED to have guns can purchase one is much safer than a system where only poeple not FORBIDDEN to have guns ca buy one.


By law? How is it enforced? Do government agents kick in your door and do suprise checks?

Not being a gun owner, I lack some details regarding this, but I've heard you have to purchase special locks for the trigger. Since the purchase is mandatory, most poeple go around and use it. I don't think there are surprise inspections, but I believe regulations can be verified on permit renewal(although not systematically).

I'd appreciate any Canadian owning a firearm's confirmation/infirmation about that, though.



Which almost never happens here either.

It has happened quite a few times, while it never has in Canada. And murder by guns involving minors are much more frequent in the US than Canada.


Good job, instead of ending with a real argument just try the old "appeal to the children" attack. Its great because it makes anyone who disagrees with you a child killer.


Granted, that was a cheap shot. I take it back. However, I'd like to reprhase it with : "we like to keep everyone safe". Because I do believe where guns are only in the hand of poeple trained in their use, and safely locked away when not in use, everyone is safer.

I concur. As a Canadian, I am free to own a firearm. All I need is to be 18 and older and get a permit.

However, we don't usually hand out permits to anyone. So it's harder for thugs and criminals to get their hands on one.

Same here. We have computerized background checks.

I can clearly see a direct correlation to our crime rates.

Just out of curiosity, if you were going to kill someone or commit armed robbery, would you use a legally obtained and registered gun?

And as an added thought: here, guns are REQUIRED to be kept unloaded AND locked.

By law? How is it enforced? Do government agents kick in your door and do suprise checks?

Which means no angsty teenagers can steal daddy's gun who was being kept loaded in a shoebox and use it to kill his little comrades at school.

Which almost never happens here either.

This is one of our little quirks up here in the north: we actually prefer to keep our children safe.

Good job, instead of ending with a real argument just try the old "appeal to the children" attack. Its great because it makes anyone who disagrees with you a child killer.

Is there any way we can have a real discussion without rhetoric this time?

I honestly do not understand what your point is. Is it that Canadians are just more restrained, moral people? As a Canadian, I would take that as a compliment, but I don't think that is what you're getting at. Why do you think the US has far more gun related murders than Canada?

Seriously, pointing your .45 caliber is the best way to start a firefight between you and said thug.

Actually, a recent survey (give me a few hours and I'll link it for you, my source's server is shot to hell right now) conducted in American prisons found that 80% of those sureveyed prefer retreat or surrended to fighting it out. Remember, they don't want to die either.

Is losing a couple of material possessions worth the threat of you possible death or injury? Or the possibility of stealing life from another human being, even if he is a thief(Of course he commits a crime, but death isn't a just punishement for theft.)?

It is more than just material possesions. doesn't the sanctity of your home mean anything to you? This person is violating your rights. A person needs to feel safe in their own home. Once you allow an intruder free reign through your house, it opens a floodgate.

If I willingly break into your home, your rights in that situation supercede mine.

Seriously, pointing your .45 caliber is the best way to start a firefight between you and said thug.

Actually, a recent survey (give me a few hours and I'll link it for you, my source's server is shot to hell right now) conducted in American prisons found that 80% of those sureveyed prefer retreat or surrended to fighting it out. Remember, they don't want to die either.

Is losing a couple of material possessions worth the threat of you possible death or injury? Or the possibility of stealing life from another human being, even if he is a thief(Of course he commits a crime, but death isn't a just punishement for theft.)?

It is more than just material possesions. doesn't the sanctity of your home mean anything to you? This person is violating your rights. A person needs to feel safe in their own home. Once you allow an intruder free reign through your house, it opens a floodgate.

If I willingly break into your home, your rights in that situation supercede mine.

Actually, a recent survey (give me a few hours and I'll link it for you, my source's server is shot to hell right now) conducted in American prisons found that 80% of those sureveyed prefer retreat or surrended to fighting it out. Remember, they don't want to die either.

I'd like to see the survey, and will stay tuned for it. However, 20% chances of gettin into a firefight still is too high a price for me versus losing my TV. Sorry, I cherish my health more than my possessions.


It is more than just material possesions. doesn't the sanctity of your home mean anything to you? This person is violating your rights. A person needs to feel safe in their own home. Once you allow an intruder free reign through your house, it opens a floodgate.

What's that nonsense about the "sanctity of my home" ? I don't live in a damn Church, so my home isn't any more sanctified than my toilet. It's where I live, it's mine, I'd even call it my territory. But saint, nope.

I agree he's violating my right to feel safe at home. But who's job is it to protect other poeple's right? Answer: Police officers and judges. Not computer programmers(i.e. me). I do my job, they do theirs. I rely on them for it. That's why I pay taxes,among other things.

[/quote]
If I willingly break into your home, your rights in that situation supercede mine.[/quote]
I'm not sure I agree about that. Or rather, yes, I agree, but not in the sense you seem to view it. By stealing me, you're infringing on my right to own property: so you forfeit your rights to property, up to a point, allowing me to sue to get my stuff back plus a compensation. However, your right to life remains unalienable: I don't have the right to kill you becuase you're stealing my stuff. Even if I was armed, I would NOT shoot you because you're rampaging in my home. You would have to threaten my life for me to feel it necessary to exact violence back on you.

And please bear in mind we in Canada fear much less of having our homes invaded. I don't know if it's a cultural thing, but we usually don't even bother locking up doors, and we still don't see anyone getting inside to kill us just for the heck of it.

haven't you Canadians ever heard the phrase "If you outlaw catapults only outlaws have catapults." meaning if you restrict guns to everyone, only criminals have guns.

Also, there's more murders in the US, I don't know why, maybe because, our population is like 200+ million people bigger than Canadas. And another thing, there's a town in Florida where it's required that all citizens own a gun, and it's prefered to b e concealed, that town has the lowest crime rate in the country. Also look at Switzerland, where nearly every citizen has a gun, it's one of the safest countries in the world.

[quote] Which means no angsty teenagers can steal daddy's gun who was being kept loaded in a shoebox and use it to kill his little comrades at school.

Which almost never happens here either.


oh it ALMOST never happens? well thats perfectly reasonable.

Aliens coming down and raping our women and stealing our goats? Tsh! that almost never happens here so its fine!

[quote]Same here. We have computerized background checks.

face it, a computerised background check for an american gun-dealer is a C64 which will only deny you a gun if you are A: legally dead or B: a serial killer.

haven't you Canadians ever heard the phrase "If you outlaw catapults only outlaws have catapults." meaning if you restrict guns to everyone, only criminals have guns.

Also, there's more murders in the US, I don't know why, maybe because, our population is like 200+ million people bigger than Canadas. And another thing, there's a town in Florida where it's required that all citizens own a gun, and it's prefered to b e concealed, that town has the lowest crime rate in the country. Also look at Switzerland, where nearly every citizen has a gun, it's one of the safest countries in the world.

As for your first affirmation, I never suggested a country-wide ban on guns. Police officers should always be armed. So should the military(that goes without saying :-P). Poeple who hunt or use guns to practice in gun ranges or have another specific reason to own one can, as well. What I,m against is everyone owning a gun just for the heck of it, "just in case somebody wants to murder me". If all that last category, who doesn't in my opinion a good reason to have a gun, doesn't have one, it's that many less poeple who can shoot you. Think about it.

About the gun murder rates, they're all done considering the population. Most figures you'll encounter use the "#of kills per 1000(or 10 000) persons" rate. What we're saying is that for an equal population, US gets more gun-related crimes.

And while that Florida town may have a low crime rate, we see many more with high crime rates where guns are rampant. I'd be led to think the low crime of that are is not CAUSED by everyone having guns, but some other factor is involved. While the gun availability/crime rate relation has been observed at many a different locale, I've yet to hear about a place where criminality has suddenly disappeared after legislation was passed to give everybody a weapon.

I wouldn't know about switzerland, so I can't really comment on that one. Do you have any evidence of Switzerland as a gun-happy country? If it is, does it have any form of gun control and regulations?

Britain doesnt have guns, British police officers dont have guns

and look! non-existant gun-crime! who'da thought it!

the 'only outlaws have guns' rule is crap btw, complete crap. Only very f*cking few outlaws have guns, and they all get caught and raped in prison

I'd just like to say: It's not the gun that kills, it's the person pulling the trigger.

I'd just like to say: It's not the gun that kills, it's the person pulling the trigger.

yeah but the gun helps

haven't you Canadians ever heard the phrase "If you outlaw catapults only outlaws have catapults." meaning if you restrict guns to everyone, only criminals have guns.
Well guns are restricted to people without a criminal record, and/or a mental deficiency, other than that, anyone over 18 I believe can own a gun, but it must be registered and kept safe when not in use.

Also, there's more murders in the US, I don't know why, maybe because, our population is like 200+ million people bigger than Canadas.
The murder rate is 6.8 per 100,000 in the US, it is only 1.8 per 100,000 in Canada.

And another thing, there's a town in Florida where it's required that all citizens own a gun, and it's prefered to b e concealed, that town has the lowest crime rate in the country.
How big is the town, and is there generally a low crime rate there anyways?

Also look at Switzerland, where nearly every citizen has a gun, it's one of the safest countries in the world.
The Swiss passed a law in 1997 to control guns. The population is 7 Million people. The Arms Act requires a permit to purchase weapons, and also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks.

face it, a computerised background check for an american gun-dealer is a C64 which will only deny you a gun if you are A: legally dead or B: a serial killer.


Or if you are a convicted felon, have a history of violent crime, or stays in a mental institute. But, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly bigotted rant?


What I,m against is everyone owning a gun just for the heck of it, "just in case somebody wants to murder me". If all that last category, who doesn't in my opinion a good reason to have a gun, doesn't have one, it's that many less poeple who can shoot you. Think about it.

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

And while that Florida town may have a low crime rate, we see many more with high crime rates where guns are rampant.

Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

I wouldn't know about switzerland, so I can't really comment on that one. Do you have any evidence of Switzerland as a gun-happy country? If it is, does it have any form of gun control and regulations?


In Switzerland, every citizen is required to serve time in their national defense force, and to retain their weapon afterward. An assault rifle in every closet and the people are trained to use them.

Of course, its been a while since I've read up on them, so I could be off a little.

I'd just like to say: It's not the gun that kills, it's the person pulling the trigger.

That may be true, but often a gun is picked up in panic and fired.

And also, countries where the police don't carry guns (eg, New Zealand, the UK) seem to have very low gun crime rates. Before you go "Teh criminals can beat teh police!1!!1", they do have guns (in their cop cars), just not on them all the time.

I'd just like to say: It's not the gun that kills, it's the person pulling the trigger.
Yup that is true and there appears to be a lot of trigger happy people in the US.

I'd just like to say: It's not the gun that kills, it's the person pulling the trigger.

Yes, but someone cannot pull the trigger if he has no gun.

By your logic, I could then possess a small nuclear tactical weapon, and it wouldn't be dangereous since I had no intention of using it to kill anyone.

I know a weapon is not evil in itself, but by making it available and easily accessed you open the way for criminals and murderers to get them.

Besides, would you let a child use a knife?Of course not, he doesn't know how to use it properly,and could injure himself. I think the same goes about guns and poeple who haven't been properly trained in their safe use.

and most of the people pulling the trigger are the people you liberals love to protect. Does Canada have giant cities with large poor populations that join gangs to try and fit in and start killing.

Also, if someone's crazy enough to kill someone with a gun, don't you think they'd just use something else to kill someone?

don't carry guns (eg, New Zealand, the UK) seem to have very low gun crime rates. Before you go "Teh criminals can beat teh police!1!!1", they do have guns (in their cop cars), just not on them all the time.

wtf? no they dont :s trust me my dads a cop (in Britain, i cant talk for New Zealanders obviously)

Or if you are a convicted felon, have a history of violent crime, or stays in a mental institute.

That goes without saying dude

But, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly bigotted rant?

Just because i think you suck doesnt make me a bigot :)

What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?
As a non resident I would have no right to tell you how you defend your home, but I imagine some States do not give you the express right to shoot intruders.

Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.
So if everyone had a gun in those cities than the crime rate would go down?

In Switzerland, every citizen is required to serve time in their national defense force, and to retain their weapon afterward. An assault rifle in every closet and the people are trained to use them.
So this would be more for the defense of the country then?

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

So if everyone had a gun in those cities than the crime rate would go down?

Doubt it, but why is the government spending money to take away a citizen's ability to defend him/herself rather than on fixing the problems that would cause a person to comit a crime?

There is no panacea for the crime problem, but re-evaluating some of our gun laws is a step in the right direction.

As for all you who keep harping on the Columbine massacre and use it as some kind of standard for average life here, those two also made over 200 pipe bombs and coverted propane tanks to explode. When will you be protesting Home Depot?

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.

[quote]So if everyone had a gun in those cities than the crime rate would go down?

Doubt it, but why is the government spending money to take away a citizen's ability to defend him/herself rather than on fixing the problems that would cause a person to comit a crime?
That does tend to open up a whole new topic, i.e. root causes of crime. In Canada, a person who uses a handgun to commit a crime, faces harsher penalties than those that don't. It acts as a larger deterrent.

There is no panacea for the crime problem, but re-evaluating some of our gun laws is a step in the right direction.
That is a good attitude. However, the NRA has an agenda, and tend to fight hard against gun control, which I think does a disservice to the citizens of the US who want a safer environment in which to live, work and play.

and most of the people pulling the trigger are the people you liberals love to protect. Does Canada have giant cities with large poor populations that join gangs to try and fit in and start killing.

Also, if someone's crazy enough to kill someone with a gun, don't you think they'd just use something else to kill someone?

Yes, Canada DOES have large cities with large poor populations that join gangs, heck, we even have small cities with gangs. My city is the murder capital of Canada, and while I dont know how many people live in the city, I do know that there are less than 1 million people in the entire province. We have the Hells angels, and there are regular murders within the city.
My city's downtown and North End is dying, filled with broken down old builings and poverty.

The only people I know that own guns, own guns because they hunt. I don't think most break and enters are committed with the intention of murder, I'm sure an intruder is more likely to shoot when he sees someone coming after him with a gun.

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

No, but my cousin did use his shotgun to chase a robber out of his house. The police arrived 15 minutes later.

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

No, and neither did the US Supreme Court. They ruled that the police are not there to provide us all with personal protection. The security of your home is on your shoulders.

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around?

I advocate training gun owners in proper maintenance and use of firearms. Nobody these days dies from "accidentaly" firing a gun.

Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end.

After the fact. I'd rather prevent my home from being violated in the first place.

Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

Actually, the jewlery my grandmother gave my mother was taken in a break in. Seeing as to how my grandmother was dead by then, I don't see how that is going to be replaced.

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.

The people who know about guns advocate training gun owners.


Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house.

And how often does that happen?

It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit.

I cannot think of a single case where a criminal used his own, legally obtained weapon to commit a robbery.

There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them.[/.quote]

The US uses the same security measures.

[quote]And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

I've never said I wanted the waiting period repealed. I do question its effectiveness, but I'm not crying about that.

and most of the people pulling the trigger are the people you liberals love to protect. Does Canada have giant cities with large poor populations that join gangs to try and fit in and start killing.

Also, if someone's crazy enough to kill someone with a gun, don't you think they'd just use something else to kill someone?

Yes, Canada DOES have large cities with large poor populations that join gangs, heck, we even have small cities with gangs. My city is the murder capital of Canada, and while I dont know how many people live in the city, I do know that there are less than 1 million people in the entire province. We have the Hells angels, and there are regular murders within the city.
My city's downtown and North End is dying, filled with broken down old builings and poverty.

The only people I know that own guns, own guns because they hunt. I don't think most break and enters are committed with the intention of murder, I'm sure an intruder is more likely to shoot when he sees someone coming after him with a gun.

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.
You obviously live in fear of someone violating your house? Does your State actually allow you to shoot to kill an intruder? That is incredible, if it is true.

I will give you a scenario......your neighbour gets drunk one night and accidently comes to your door. His key doesn't fit the lock and he breaks the glass, you run down the stairs and shoot him dead. This is ok?

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.

I really think I'll never get what makes US house sacred. DO you actually get a priest to bless where you live? :?

And no, they can't get in, because criminals tend to end up in prison. And I higly doubt someone can rape your wife and harm your children while holding you at gun point. Besides,if criminals don't have a gun, they can't point it at you.

I don't get it: why are you all so afraid someone would barge in and do all that? Last time I heard, even if US had higher crime rates than Canada, it wasn't an anarchist, law-of-the-jungle country where anyone does anything he likes. You're supposed to have police forces; you're supposed to have prisons. Why not put your criminals in prison instead of arming everyone against them? It's much simpler to hold a couple dangerous persons in than mobilize a whole militia of armed and scared citizens against them.

And as far as killing goes, I'll always be against it. It's something we do to animals, not human beings. And if someone goes in and harms your family, you're not the one supposed to do justice, because you're not objective on the matter. Sure, I know, it's easy saying it and you don't like it if you're ever on the wrong end of it, but it's been designed that way so someone can't get murdered(yes, I call that murder) because he was stupid enough to trespass or wanted to hijack your car. The violence used in retribution is NOT at par with the offence commited.

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.
You obviously live in fear of someone violating your house? Does your State actually allow you to shoot to kill an intruder? That is incredible, if it is true.

I will give you a scenario......your neighbour gets drunk one night and accidently comes to your door. His key doesn't fit the lock and he breaks the glass, you run down the stairs and shoot him dead. This is ok?

It's not that I live in fear..but one must hope for the best, prepare for the worst..Yes..my state does in fact stipulate that an intruder in my house, deadly force is in fact authorized and is a form of self-defense..now if I shot him outside my property line then I could be charged under a few statutes..as for the scenario you mentioned..while tragic..it still would be considered self-defense by any jury..because how am I to know that the person who broke the glass isn't some hopped up junkie or petty thief looking for something to steal or cause bodily harm?

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.

I really think I'll never get what makes US house sacred. DO you actually get a priest to bless where you live? :?

And no, they can't get in, because criminals tend to end up in prison. And I higly doubt someone can rape your wife and harm your children while holding you at gun point. Besides,if criminals don't have a gun, they can't point it at you.

I don't get it: why are you all so afraid someone would barge in and do all that? Last time I heard, even if US had higher crime rates than Canada, it wasn't an anarchist, law-of-the-jungle country where anyone does anything he likes. You're supposed to have police forces; you're supposed to have prisons. Why not put your criminals in prison instead of arming everyone against them? It's much simpler to hold a couple dangerous persons in than mobilize a whole militia of armed and scared citizens against them.

And as far as killing goes, I'll always be against it. It's something we do to animals, not human beings. And if someone goes in and harms your family, you're not the one supposed to do justice, because you're not objective on the matter. Sure, I know, it's easy saying it and you don't like it if you're ever on the wrong end of it, but it's been designed that way so someone can't get murdered(yes, I call that murder) because he was stupid enough to trespass or wanted to hijack your car. The violence used in retribution is NOT at par with the offence commited.

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.
You obviously live in fear of someone violating your house? Does your State actually allow you to shoot to kill an intruder? That is incredible, if it is true.

I will give you a scenario......your neighbour gets drunk one night and accidently comes to your door. His key doesn't fit the lock and he breaks the glass, you run down the stairs and shoot him dead. This is ok?

It's not that I live in fear..but one must hope for the best, prepare for the worst..Yes..my state does in fact stipulate that an intruder in my house, deadly force is in fact authorized and is a form of self-defense..now if I shot him outside my property line then I could be charged under a few statutes..as for the scenario you mentioned..while tragic..it still would be considered self-defense by any jury..because how am I to know that the person who broke the glass isn't some hopped up junkie or petty thief looking for something to steal or cause bodily harm?

No, but my cousin did use his shotgun to chase a robber out of his house. The police arrived 15 minutes later.

I was referring to the criminal being armed, not your cousin. If the thief didn't have a gun, he would've fled ANYWAY.

No, and neither did the US Supreme Court. They ruled that the police are not there to provide us all with personal protection. The security of your home is on your shoulders.

Well, I guess that confirms the cultural difference. Here we pay more taxes to actually have efficient police forces, so we don't have to fear for our safety or actually enforce laws ourselves. I guess it's a choice of society, and personnally I prefer how things are up here.


I advocate training gun owners in proper maintenance and use of firearms. Nobody these days dies from "accidentaly" firing a gun.

That ensures the owner can safely use it. But anyone, including children or suicidal/mentally unstable adults can pick it up and do something crazy with it. It doesn't happen if the gun is offloaded and locked securely away from ammunition.

After the fact. I'd rather prevent my home from being violated in the first place.

I advise locking doors or buying a security system.


Actually, the jewlery my grandmother gave my mother was taken in a break in. Seeing as to how my grandmother was dead by then, I don't see how that is going to be replaced.

Indeed, that could not have been avoided with insurance. But is it worth risking everyone's safety? And besides, should the thief be apprehended before he has a chance to sell it, you can get it back. Hence the emphasis on swift police forces.

The people who know about guns advocate training gun owners.

See above


Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house.

And how often does that happen?

Often enough to cause deaths and lots of gun-related crimes. Which is too often.


I cannot think of a single case where a criminal used his own, legally obtained weapon to commit a robbery.

If no guns lie around, they can't stolen. If guns aren't easy to buy, they aren't easy to re-sale on black market where no regulations take place. No citizen can order 50 handguns and a few rilfes without raising a few eyebrows in the gun regulation department.


The US uses the same security measures.

Wrong. The US are MUCH more lax in their measures and their applications. The NRA makes sure of it.

I've never said I wanted the waiting period repealed. I do question its effectiveness, but I'm not crying about that.
Well, at least that's a ground on which we agree.

What is worse, to have and not need or to need and not have?

I have my car insurance "just in case" and that is an excellent reason. "Just in case" does happen.

And so what about your opinion about my justification for a gun? What right do you have how to tell me to defend my home?

Have you ever seen someone barge into your house and point his gun at you?Heard firsthand of anyone to whom it has happened?

And have you paid any attention about the paragraph where I state defending your home is the POLICE's and the JUDGE's job, not yours?

About the insurance part, I'd like to ask, why not just get insurance on your house and what's in it, instead of putting poeple's life at risk by having a loaded gun lying around? Insurance makes sure you don't lose anything in the end. Very few thieves bother with taking photo albums and things of sentimental value over electronics(which can be replaced).

And it's not about MY opinion of your justification for a gun, but about the opinion of poeple who know what's what about firearms and lets poeple who needs them have one, and make sure those who don't need them don't have a couple lying around for anyone to pick up.



Not neccissarily. Most of the viloent crime in the US happens in heavy urban areas, where gun control is the stritest. The problem is, CRIMINALS DON 'T CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW! They still have their illegal guns, and their victims have no way to defend themselves.

Indeed they don't, that's beside the point. The point is, ANY criminal can find a gun very easily if there's two or three inside every good redneck cowboy's house. It's much harder for them to get some if the only place they can buy it are shops who actually takes the time to delay the sale to verify that permits are legit. There is little to virtually no black market in weapons in Canada, because it's too unconvenient for criminals to order weapons, get license-checked, and wait for the guns before re-selling them. And it's intetionnal: that's so much more time to track them and get them BEFORE they ever see those weapons, much less use them in committing crimes.

And strangely enough, no respectable citizen into the noble sport hunting really minds waiting a few weeks before they can go shoot themselves some beaver. And even if they did, it's a minor inconvenience for what it pays off in the end.

My house is supposed to be a safe haven for me and my family..should someone break into it...and attempt to steal my things..sure I could get insurance..but that isn't the point..the man is breaking into my HOME..the one place that is my sanctum santorum...it is more then just sticks and stones..of electrical wiring and plumbing..it is the place I sleep in..relax from the world...it's my cocoon...safe and inviolate...and for some thug to break in and disrupt the harmony of my home..it's unconsciousable...and I thank the Gods that I still live in a state that says if that man breaks my property line I have every right to kill him..and kill him I would..without a second's thought..because if he could break in to steal my things..he could break in to rape a wife...harm a child...burn my home down. I know if I shoot him..his genome will never again taint some child.
You obviously live in fear of someone violating your house? Does your State actually allow you to shoot to kill an intruder? That is incredible, if it is true.

I will give you a scenario......your neighbour gets drunk one night and accidently comes to your door. His key doesn't fit the lock and he breaks the glass, you run down the stairs and shoot him dead. This is ok?

It's not that I live in fear..but one must hope for the best, prepare for the worst..Yes..my state does in fact stipulate that an intruder in my house, deadly force is in fact authorized and is a form of self-defense..now if I shot him outside my property line then I could be charged under a few statutes..as for the scenario you mentioned..while tragic..it still would be considered self-defense by any jury..because how am I to know that the person who broke the glass isn't some hopped up junkie or petty thief looking for something to steal or cause bodily harm?
Well then, if you do not know what the circumstances are and shoot, then you would be commiting murder, at least thats how I see it., especially if it is an unarmed man.

Here is something that I found, that looks reasonable:

Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

A lawful occupant within a place of residence is justified in using any degree of force reasonably believed necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry:

if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder
may kill or inflict serious bodily harm, or

if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends
to commit a felony in the home or residence.

A lawful occupant within a place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section. This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law.

Well, I guess that confirms the cultural difference. Here we pay more taxes to actually have efficient police forces, so we don't have to fear for our safety or actually enforce laws ourselves. I guess it's a choice of society, and personnally I prefer how things are up here.

No, it is facing a logistical reality. I'll try and illustrate my point.

I live in the New York City area. There are 50,000 men and women on the NYPD. The city has a population of over 8 million, not counting the people from the outlying areas that go to the city to work and play.

There is no way to expect the police to be everywhere to stop every crime. They are highly trained and effective, but they are only human.

Unless your local police are clones of Batman, I doubt they will fair much better here.

Well, I guess that confirms the cultural difference. Here we pay more taxes to actually have efficient police forces, so we don't have to fear for our safety or actually enforce laws ourselves. I guess it's a choice of society, and personnally I prefer how things are up here.

No, it is facing a logistical reality. I'll try and illustrate my point.

I live in the New York City area. There are 50,000 men and women on the NYPD. The city has a population of over 8 million, not counting the people from the outlying areas that go to the city to work and play.

There is no way to expect the police to be everywhere to stop every crime. They are highly trained and effective, but they are only human.

Unless your local police are clones of Batman, I doubt they will fair much better here.

Well, I guess that confirms the cultural difference. Here we pay more taxes to actually have efficient police forces, so we don't have to fear for our safety or actually enforce laws ourselves. I guess it's a choice of society, and personnally I prefer how things are up here.

No, it is facing a logistical reality. I'll try and illustrate my point.

I live in the New York City area. There are 50,000 men and women on the NYPD. The city has a population of over 8 million, not counting the people from the outlying areas that go to the city to work and play.

There is no way to expect the police to be everywhere to stop every crime. They are highly trained and effective, but they are only human.

Unless your local police are clones of Batman, I doubt they will fair much better here.

Guns, ha. What is a gun compared to the hand that wields it? The problem isn’t with guns, it’s with people. But it’s not so easy fixing people now is it? So people resort to ban the most common, easy to use tool. So why do people kill other people? People kill because of greed, lust, wrath, pride, recklessness and sometimes even envy, most everything else will be done in defense. If some of those look familiar, it is because they are a part of the seven deadly sins. Although I don’t believe in sins, they are right in calling them deadly.

Out of all those reasons perhaps the easiest to deal with is recklessness. However banning guns is no way to deal with recklessness. Education people more about guns would be more suitable than banning.

With lust, pride and envy, it doesn’t matter what tool is used, they’ll find some way to kill their target.

Greed and wrath are the biggest areas of concern when it comes to killing. Greed can be made random, and wrath can emerge without warning. Sometimes those that evoke wrath even deserve to be killed. Sometimes an innocent gets in the way. That is the only real tragedy, when an innocent is killed.

But it is not guns that are the problem, it is people. And what can you do to people to stop them from killing? People will always find a way if driven far enough.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Still MZ, if Canadians are not admiited to be morally superior, there must be something in their social and legal systems to account for their four times lower per hundred thousand rate of gun deaths.

Still MZ, if Canadians are not admiited to be morally superior, there must be something in their social and legal systems to account for their four times lower per hundred thousand rate of gun deaths.

Still MZ, if Canadians are not admiited to be morally superior, there must be something in their social and legal systems to account for their four times lower per hundred thousand rate of gun deaths.
I don’t doubt that. I think that Canada has a lot less of the things I already listed that help contribute to killing. There may be other things, but I’m tired and going to bed now. Even Demons need their rest you know. Torturing souls may be fun, but it’s also exhausting.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man