NationStates Jolt Archive

yeah
the gun nuts are all like

i need my guns to protect myself from other people with guns

and the anti gun peoples are like

if you take gunsaway from everyone you wont need guns to protect yourself


and the gun nutes are like

but criminals will have guns


and the others are like

but if no one has guns how will criminals get guns


and the guns nuts are like

blah blah blah

and blah blah blah

and then blah blah blah


It's extremely naive to think that banning guns will keep the guns out of the criminals' hands. We tried it with alcohol, and that just made organized crime a permanent fixture in the US. You ban anything in the US, and the black market will expand to meet the demand. That's exactly how illicit drugs work today. Guns would follow the same pattern. It would only stop those who respected the law from getting a firearm.

Chess, you don't listen, and you most certainly don't hear. You put the "blah blah blah" in when you can't come up with an unassailable argument, and the swearing, belittling, and demeaning still hasn't stopped your opposition. It's rather like putting your hands over your ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!"

owners should be registered,for a small fee

owners should be registered,for a small fee

I would be okay with registration IF the database wasnt held in the govts hands. If law enforcement could only access this information after obtaining a warrant from a judge.

Regisration lists in govt hands has led to confiscation too many times for me to feel comfortable.

Yeah, I know you'd like to see another way--and frankly, I wouldn't mind it either. :D But the criminals have to give up the crime before I give up the guns.

But... without criminals you'd be sending thousands of police officers and correctional employees to the unemployment line! Is that really what you want? ;)

I was just pointing out what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding the second amendment (documented in the Federalist Papers), as opposed to what Sdaeriji assumed they were thinking, without doing the research.

I know, I recognised the point, and even agree with your interpretation.

I said world, and I meant it. Show me a place in the world where every single person respects life to the point where crime is non-existant.

Every single person? Show me a place where every single person does anything the same. That's certainly pushing the acid test. :P

I called you an idealist, because you called yourself an idealist. But whatever. My attitude does not need to change. I do not commit crimes (except for the occasional speed limit infraction).

And without the trigger-happy urge, you won't have to worry about being followed and blown away when you park! :D

I already said I would budge. If you find that way to eliminate crime, I would change my views about my possessing a gun. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath tho.

Okay, but I won't forgive you if you breathe and hose me down with garlic-enriched CO2. :P

Eliminating crime is simple enough - see to it that people look to themselves for what they want. I'll leave it to you to find a uniquely American mechanism for bringing that about. ;)

But it's not really crime that needs to be eliminated, is it? Someone who eggs your house is guilty of crime, so is a jaywalker (I think you still have those laws, right?), so is someone who smokes pot, or someone who offers sexual services for money. Any of those (without extrapolating) make you feel you need a gun for protection?

oh christ is this topic still going on?

zzzZzzZzzz

Yeah, funny how it's still going on in real life too.

Sweet dreams.

Use the devastating weapon of accountability to keep up with your government, and they'll never oppress you.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

You expect to see stormtroopers busting into your home at night? Need those powerful automatic weapons to keep the government in check? If the greatest democracy on the planet ever becomes oppressive where the possibility of needing something like that will become neccessary, we're all doomed anyway.

yeah
the gun nuts are all like
i need my guns to protect myself from other people with guns
and the anti gun peoples are like
if you take gunsaway from everyone you wont need guns to protect yourself
and the gun nutes are like
but criminals will have guns
and the others are like
but if no one has guns how will criminals get guns
and the guns nuts are like
blah blah blah
and blah blah blah
and then blah blah blah

And then this really angry guy is like

letila in comparing owning a gun in the US to a post-apocalyptic ANIME character with a HUGE bounty on his head and giant friggin cannon in his arm. and YOU for agreeing that is somehow a even half way logical comparison

have you watched trigun? lets see vash is a android with a gun in his arm and a giant angel energy beam cannon in the other, he has laser like precision on his gun, there his brother knives who is evil and the same, there is a psychic psycho with mind control ability, there's people who can manipulate time, have gatling gun's on their arms, are in a giant battle shell thats made of steel and impenetrable to bullets, and everyone and there mom has at least a high caliber revolver, and they ALL want to kill vash.


hell, why dont we just compare it to mad max, people in mad max had guns! we need guns too!

and he said

and you want to know why the precent is so high for cops killing people that arnt criminals? the cops have to assume EVRYONE has a gun, they have to assume every time they even pull some one over for a traffic violation they are walknig into a shoot out, so if some oen does something that looks like they are going for a gun suddenly, people are going to be shot.


now imagine this with EVERYONE having a gun on them, or it being legal for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. everyone would be on their toes watching for any movement that would look like a gun beign drawn and the ensuing gun battle would cause multiple deaths and injuries

and he said

we have constraints on freedom of speech, some dont make sense and were made up by conservative judges (cough loser conservatives whihing about liberla jduges cough) but the facts are there are cosntraitns on your freedom of speech

to which I answered

Really? Like what?

to which he answered

i dont have the patience to relate it to everyone whos not going to listen to me anyway

Et cetera, et cetera.

owners should be registered,for a small fee

Perhaps, but I'd be inclined to say no fee. You already pay to be licensed, and presumeably you pay enough extra tagged on by the government when you purchase a gun.

If there's going to be a government-run registration system, then let all the people pay for it. Same as you folks without kids pay for schools.

I would be okay with registration IF the database wasnt held in the govts hands. If law enforcement could only access this information after obtaining a warrant from a judge.

No, the opposite. It should be a public registry that anybody can access. Including you if you want to see what your neighbours are packing. The more you hide something, the more room there is for potential abuse. Security through obscurity just doesn't level the playing field the way transparency does.

Regisration lists in govt hands has led to confiscation too many times for me to feel comfortable.

I had no idea. Have you guys really had confiscation before?

I mean, if (inventing example) automatic weapons used to be legal and then weren't, I could see officials going down a registration list to contact the owners of any newly-forbidden items, but have you had actual confiscations? Tell me more, because that's kind of creepy.

You expect to see stormtroopers busting into your home at night? Need those powerful automatic weapons to keep the government in check? If the greatest democracy on the planet ever becomes oppressive where the possibility of needing something like that will become neccessary, we're all doomed anyway.

lol

I think you missed your intended target when you replied - I'm the Canadian guy who's arguing that you need fewer guns and a way better mindset about when they should be used.

I don't think anybody needs an automatic weapon, I don't think the US government is going to go all commando on its citizens, and I don't think it's the greatest democracy when the choices are essentially lumped into two camps.

Also, might I add, you guys suck for getting ready to fingerprint us when we head south to visit. Our own government doesn't keep fingerprint records on anybody that isn't a criminal. Thanks for the trust, Yankee dogs. :P

Oh no. They'll never go after the hunters.



Ministers will 'force' hunting ban through Lords
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 13/10/2004)

Ministers will not hesitate to use the Parliament Act to railroad the Bill banning hunting through the House of Lords, peers were told yesterday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/nhunt13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/13/ixhome.html

Oh no. They'll never go after the hunters.



Ministers will 'force' hunting ban through Lords
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 13/10/2004)

Ministers will not hesitate to use the Parliament Act to railroad the Bill banning hunting through the House of Lords, peers were told yesterday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/nhunt13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/13/ixhome.html

Interesting maneuver. :P

Who hunts in Britain, btw? Is it pretty even across the board?

You yanks think that just cause a piece of paper written to many years ago says you can bear arms, that the arms must be had. Get over yourself already, how does a country full o gun nuts make a better country. Dahash rel'is tocal!

Interesting maneuver. :P

Who hunts in Britain, btw? Is it pretty even across the board?
what would one hunt in britain? i thought they'd killed off most of evreything by now

to which he answered



Et cetera, et cetera.
well lets see. contraints on freedom of speech. slander, libel, "fighting words", curse words, etc etc etc

what would one hunt in britain? i thought they'd killed off most of evreything by now

Foxes. Because they're a pest. The only reason this hunting bill is going through is because a handful of activists are against it and the Government backed themselves into a corner. A number of Labour MPs have actually admitted that they support the ban on fox hunting (seen as an upper-class pursuit) purely as revenge for the mine closures in the 1980s.

Blair's going to use the Parliament Act to force a minor issue through the House of Lords, simply because it will be embarrassing if something he promised doesn't happen.

Why? He's lied before about what he's going to do, and he hasn't made this much of a fuss about it.

But... without criminals you'd be sending thousands of police officers and correctional employees to the unemployment line! Is that really what you want? ;)


Um, YAH!

I had no idea. Have you guys really had confiscation before?

I mean, if (inventing example) automatic weapons used to be legal and then weren't, I could see officials going down a registration list to contact the owners of any newly-forbidden items, but have you had actual confiscations? Tell me more, because that's kind of creepy.

Yup, it's happening in Chicago today. And this isn't even an assault weapon.

http://www.posse-comitatus.org/News_Links/chicago_gun_confiscation.htm

lol

I think you missed your intended target when you replied - I'm the Canadian guy who's arguing that you need fewer guns and a way better mindset about when they should be used.

I don't think anybody needs an automatic weapon, I don't think the US government is going to go all commando on its citizens, and I don't think it's the greatest democracy when the choices are essentially lumped into two camps.

Also, might I add, you guys suck for getting ready to fingerprint us when we head south to visit. Our own government doesn't keep fingerprint records on anybody that isn't a criminal. Thanks for the trust, Yankee dogs. :P

Many apologies! Fewer guns would always be a good thing. It really does mystify me why people get so insane on owning a gun. Paranoia must really have taken hold. Hey, to help with annoyances at the Canadian boarder perhaps Kerry should be elected! I doubt he'll go all psycho with "security" that still leaks like like crazy.

By the way what democracy is better than the U.S.? All of Europe has Socialism thrown in, not exactly totally democratic anyway.

Many apologies! Fewer guns would always be a good thing. It really does mystify me why people get so insane on owning a gun. Paranoia must really have taken hold. Hey, to help with annoyances at the Canadian boarder perhaps Kerry should be elected! I doubt he'll go all psycho with "security" that still leaks like like crazy.

By the way what democracy is better than the U.S.? All of Europe has Socialism thrown in, not exactly totally democratic anyway.

We get "insane" when people try to strip us of our rights. Makes perfect sense. We've seen what disarmed populaces go through in the past. I'm one of those that doesn't want it to happen here.

And the US isn't a democracy....it's a Federal Republic.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

No they don't have the right to take them. Thomas Jefferson specifically put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights because he knew that one day we just might have to fight against the government we put into power. Like the Revolution. They needed their guns to defend themselves and gain our independence. He wanted us to still have that ability in case we need to fight our own government.

And the US isn't a democracy....it's a Federal Republic.

Exactly. We're just based on democratic principles. We just say democracy as a general classification.

We get "insane" when people try to strip us of our rights. Makes perfect sense. We've seen what disarmed populaces go through in the past. I'm one of those that doesn't want it to happen here.

And the US isn't a democracy....it's a Federal Republic.

I really don't have a problem with gun ownership since the 2nd Amendment says that it is allowed. It would be a dream to see all guns disappear and agree with it or not the Constitution allows it. I simply don't believe that this extends to automatic weapons. Anyone who believes George Washington would allow a citizen to own an Uzi must be crazy. As for other guns, this whole issue wouldn't be a problem if there was a solution to keep guns away form gangs. If someone can give a good solution to keep these weapons off our streets with no worries of drive by shootings and other violence then maybe I will reconsider my belief of automatic weapon ownership.

Exactly. If you took the phrase 'arms' to have no limitations, you could say that in America it would be perfectly within your rights to have a stock of WMDs in the back yard. And then you'd probably get invaded.

But then again, I'm very pro gun control - and would say that anything short of weapons used primarily for hunting (which doesn't include semi-automatics in my book) should be completely restricted.

I really don't have a problem with gun ownership since the 2nd Amendment says that it is allowed. It would be a dream to see all guns disappear and agree with it or not the Constitution allows it. I simply don't believe that this extends to automatic weapons. Anyone who believes George Washington would allow a citizen to own an Uzi must be crazy. As for other guns, this whole issue wouldn't be a problem if there was a solution to keep guns away form gangs. If someone can give a good solution to keep these weapons off our streets with no worries of drive by shootings and other violence then maybe I will reconsider my belief of automatic weapon ownership.

The issue is it says "arms". That covers automatic weapons as well. Besides, automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. Your opinion, while completely valid to have, does not apply to the amendment as it is written. I believe that George Washington would allow a citizen to own any small arm. Call me crazy if you want, but I know I'm doing what I can to protect myself and the ones I love.

How to keep guns away from gangs? How about not letting people out of prison on parole? How about actually holding people accountable for murder (as opposed to California where they're slapping 5-year probation sentences down)? How about not hiding behind, "My baby would never do that!" It's time to face reality--if people are killing other people, they need to be incarcerated for a lot longer than they are being today, or put down themselves. A good solution is always subjective.

Enforce the laws that people are breaking and happen to be using a firearm to do it--don't regulate the tool itself.

Exactly. If you took the phrase 'arms' to have no limitations, you could say that in America it would be perfectly within your rights to have a stock of WMDs in the back yard. And then you'd probably get invaded.

But then again, I'm very pro gun control - and would say that anything short of weapons used primarily for hunting (which doesn't include semi-automatics in my book) should be completely restricted.

Well, the whole intent behind the second amendment wasn't for hunting. It was for defense against the government itself. And you can choose to not own any weapon that you don't want to. I wouldn't force one upon you.

Why force me to find other means of defense? I haven't shot anyone. Heck, I've killed one bird (and that was when I was 12) with a pellet gun. How am I a risk, by having any sort of weapon you feel is "unnecessary"?

Exactly. We're just based on democratic principles. We just say democracy as a general classification.

Yup, and that's where everyone gets confused. Democracy is legal mob-rule, where the majority gets to decide for everyone.

The republic still protects the individual--at least that's how ours was created.

119 Pages. I think that if you all just read each others posts then:

a) You wouldnt have to say your opinion as it has already been voiced.
b) You'd fall asleep

119 Pages. I think that if you all just read each others posts then:

a) You wouldnt have to say your opinion as it has already been voiced.
b) You'd fall asleep

And c) We'd be no closer to any type of resolution.

The issue is it says "arms". That covers automatic weapons as well. Besides, automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. Your opinion, while completely valid to have, does not apply to the amendment as it is written. I believe that George Washington would allow a citizen to own any small arm. Call me crazy if you want, but I know I'm doing what I can to protect myself and the ones I love.

How to keep guns away from gangs? How about not letting people out of prison on parole? How about actually holding people accountable for murder (as opposed to California where they're slapping 5-year probation sentences down)? How about not hiding behind, "My baby would never do that!" It's time to face reality--if people are killing other people, they need to be incarcerated for a lot longer than they are being today, or put down themselves. A good solution is always subjective.

Enforce the laws that people are breaking and happen to be using a firearm to do it--don't regulate the tool itself.

I simply can't fathom why someone needs an automatic to protect themselves. I just don't know how to understand that. I can certainly understand the idea of putting violent criminals behind bars and not complain about what a hard life they had or putting on some kind of Twinkie Defense.
The only problem is that especially in California there is a prison shortage. Plenty of people to arrest and no place to put them. Of course the taxpayers don't want to spend money on something like that even though it would keep them safe. Something else though needs to be found other than more jails. If gangs can tell us anything, it's that they don't give a damn about going to prison. If they don't care then why have any qualms on shooting people?

As I understand home defense anyway, who really can't do anything. In order to shoot an intruder they need to have a gun also. If they think you won't shoot and come at you unarmed or with a knife and you kill him, as I understand YOU'LL be charged with the intruders murder!

Many apologies! Fewer guns would always be a good thing. It really does mystify me why people get so insane on owning a gun. Paranoia must really have taken hold. Hey, to help with annoyances at the Canadian boarder perhaps Kerry should be elected! I doubt he'll go all psycho with "security" that still leaks like like crazy.

No need to apologise for an honest mistake. :)

And I'm not really disgruntled about plans to fingerprint me as I go across the border, it's just that.. if I subsequently blow something up and leave without getting caught, who cares if you have my fingerprints? Seems like an expensive and time-consuming way to protect nobody from anything.

I don't know that it's paranoia, btw. I do know that lots of well spoken Americans in this thread have told me that (aside from hunting and target shooting) they want the option to be prepared if a situation occurs when they have to defend themselves using deadly force.

I was less concerned with gun ownership than with the willingness to use them on other people. And several of the examples offered in this thread just didn't seem like a "no other choice" to me. Plus all the people that said they'd shoot someone if they caught them breaking into their car, for instance. I'm a life-before-property kind of guy. I realize that not everybody is the same.

By the way what democracy is better than the U.S.? All of Europe has Socialism thrown in, not exactly totally democratic anyway.

I typed two completely different responses to this, and deleted them both. Then I looked up the definition of "democracy" online just to be sure we'd be talking about the same thing:



1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

And by "greatest democracy", I assume you meant "best/purest example of democracy".

So based on all of that, I'd say that since there are many more opinions than can possibly be reflected by only two parties (yes, I'm aware that there are/have been others, but aren't the odds stacked against anybody, no matter how reasonable, that isn't a Democrat or Republican?), the common people feel disconnected from their elected representatives and the government process, that there is significant doubt about who really won the last federal election, and that there isn't social equality and/or respect for the individual within many communities, I'd say that the US doesn't show the best possible face of democracy.

That said, I don't know who does.

And I note that you mentioned socialism like it's a bad thing. If you have public schools, unemployment insurance, or welfare, you've got socialism. Go on, tell me it's really such a bad thing. ;)

And the US isn't a democracy....it's a Federal Republic.

You know, you'll find my response to him a bit later on, and you summed it up much more succinctly than I ever could, damnit. :P

How to keep guns away from gangs? How about not letting people out of prison on parole? How about actually holding people accountable for murder (as opposed to California where they're slapping 5-year probation sentences down)? How about not hiding behind, "My baby would never do that!" It's time to face reality--if people are killing other people, they need to be incarcerated for a lot longer than they are being today, or put down themselves. A good solution is always subjective.

Enforce the laws that people are breaking and happen to be using a firearm to do it--don't regulate the tool itself.

Regulate the tool as well.

But I've got no objection to enforcing the existing laws. If you're not going to enforce them, then why even have them at all? To support the softwood timber industry?

Write your laws, enforce them, adjust as necessary. Also, maybe some more effort to actually apprehend criminals would help. I don't think stiffer sentences do squat. I'd think that most people who commit a crime figure they can avoid being caught, so the penalty isn't much of a deterence.

And empty out your prisons of all of those pot smokers and prostitutes. Lock up the people that cause the problems. :P

I sometimes wonder if those few examples that get such media attention aren't even the worst ones, and don't highlight the frequency of such things. :(

Waco, Ruby Ridge & Elian Gonzalez were pretty much the only things in the news during the Clinton years, other than that damn blue dress!!

Yeah, there might be even worse things that Janet Reno did. ;-)

(Seriously, you're likely right -- the biggest abuses of any Government are likely never brought to light)

And c) We'd be no closer to any type of resolution.

It doesn't matter, but the free flow of ideas and speculation can't hurt. And if it helps, bravo to us. :)

Say, can't you as citizens push to have a bill or something introduced? How does something go from being an issue for individuals to becoming a law there?

You guys aren't allowed to drink alcohol down there until you're 21?!

So... you're responsible enough to vote, responsible enough to go to war and die, but not responsible enough to drink a beer with your dinner?!

About your country... :P

Exactly. I'm all about standardization.
Actually, soldiers of any age can drink on base. Not a big consolation, IMHO, but something at least.

Exactly. I'm all about standardization.
Actually, soldiers of any age can drink on base. Not a big consolation, IMHO, but something at least.

Contradiction!

Waco, Ruby Ridge & Elian Gonzalez were pretty much the only things in the news during the Clinton years, other than that damn blue dress!!

Didn't they auction that thing off? I wonder if they has it drycleaned first. Imagine what her closet smelled like after a couple of years!

Yeah, there might be even worse things that Janet Reno did. ;-)

What are you talking about? She kept on appearing on Saturday Night Live - and that final time when she played both herself and her evil twin... magnificent! lol

(Seriously, you're likely right -- the biggest abuses of any Government are likely never brought to light)

Do you guys have a standard time after which "classified" papers are supposed to be automatically de-classified?

Exactly. I'm all about standardization.
Actually, soldiers of any age can drink on base. Not a big consolation, IMHO, but something at least.

"I'm not drinking this milk - gimme a beer or I'll throw this grenade in the soup!"

If you stretch the definition, you are. America talking to North Korea, Germany talking to North Korea, China talking to North Korea, etc all looking for common things (lose the nukes, guys) is similar to multilateral talks. If you want a textbook definition, then no, they're not and you're right. :P

At last we understand each other. Maybe not agree with, but at least understand. :)


lol
I agree. :) We have Canadian Idol because there's always been a strong current of describing ourselves as "not American". Hence our own Idol show. Hence lots of dumb things. I'm going to go rinse this bad taste out of my mouth now. :P
Fair enough. I'll not prosecute on that horrible Dr. Who thing if you'll leave Survivor alone. Deal?



Yeah, the giant ones in Stanley Park regularly rob tourists. I think they're in cahoots with the geese.
Ours just become road pizza, but then here in CT we only have the plain gray ones. The big ones in South Carolina are another story. I suspect their IQ to be higher than most housepets.


Now instead look at the very tight tendrils of control snaking out of both countries. And if you're going to point at countries with substantial older populations, look to your own. They're the ones that control the bulk of your money too, and turn out to vote more often. Be afraid! "Night of the living Old People"! Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! lol

All I'm saying is that their economies together are much smaller than the US, and that they're going to go through even harder times than the US, as they will soon have a lot of benefit payments.


I don't know dude, seems like an awful lot of European, Asian, and African countries use a lot of Russian tech and have lots of their things manufactured or constructed by Russian firms.
Unless you're speaking of military hardware, I'm not sure about this. I've seen most Russian stuff replaced with stuff from ANYwhere else in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia over the past decade.


And the containment structure over Chernobyl IS a pretty fantastic little piece of engineering. Needs to be replaced though. Hopefully it'll cost them fewer lives this time.
Dirt is a wonderful thing. Yes, fewer deaths would be good.


I'm sure that's wonderful. I own several samosas. Mmmmm, potato. :D
No no no... I speak of American Samoa! (Though I like samosas too...)
(http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aq.html)


<slaps your American arrogance> lol
Pfha! What arrogance?
We'll work with a Minority Coalition, if necessary. And the majority shouldn't pick on the minority, right? ;)


Yeah, nothing as noble as oil rights. ;)
Yep.


I say, grind 'em up and use them as cattle feed.
You have no idea how often that idea has come up. :>


We've been gaining on your dollar - we've even stopped using our own as toilet paper! (Mostly because we use coins for our dollar, and it just doesn't absorb)
Yeah. You loonies! (Yes, I know that is a pun.)


Online multiplayer gaming. I'm satisfied. ;) [/QUOTE]
True, but it's not quite Magna Carta.

About servicemen being able to drink on base, when I joined in 1982 I was only able to drink 3.2% beer on base under 21 (had to be over 18.. I joined at 17).
Now, more and more bases have had to change their drinking age to 21. Something about having to abide by the local laws ... as in depends on where the base is located (foreign bases vs. stateside bases)

Didn't they auction that thing off? I wonder if they has it drycleaned first. Imagine what her closet smelled like after a couple of years!
One imagines... and hopes...

What are you talking about? She kept on appearing on Saturday Night Live - and that final time when she played both herself and her evil twin... magnificent! lol
Er... they were *both* evil twins... :)

Do you guys have a standard time after which "classified" papers are supposed to be automatically de-classified?
I *think* it is 75 years, but don't quote me...

Contradiction!

I want the drinking ago *lowered* to 18.
That there is a contradiction in US society now is what I'm against!

There are cities in the US where guns are "banned"?

Can you name a few for me?

Washington, DC


Banning guns does not help the violent crime rate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Washington, DC one of the worst violent crime cities in America?

Washington, DC


Banning guns does not help the violent crime rate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Washington, DC one of the worst violent crime cities in America?
which taking other factors into judgement, i dont think guns would help anything. i dont think giving all the dumbasses guns is really going to help anything

which taking other factors into judgement, i dont think guns would help anything. i dont think giving all the dumbasses guns is really going to help anything

The point is that although they are "illegal", DC has the worst crime anyway.
So, either the guns are not to blame for the crime, or the ban is ineffective.

Further:
Who is a dumbass? Someone living unarmed in DC? If so, I agree with you! :)

I simply can't fathom why someone needs an automatic to protect themselves. I just don't know how to understand that. I can certainly understand the idea of putting violent criminals behind bars and not complain about what a hard life they had or putting on some kind of Twinkie Defense.
The only problem is that especially in California there is a prison shortage. Plenty of people to arrest and no place to put them. Of course the taxpayers don't want to spend money on something like that even though it would keep them safe. Something else though needs to be found other than more jails. If gangs can tell us anything, it's that they don't give a damn about going to prison. If they don't care then why have any qualms on shooting people?

As I understand home defense anyway, who really can't do anything. In order to shoot an intruder they need to have a gun also. If they think you won't shoot and come at you unarmed or with a knife and you kill him, as I understand YOU'LL be charged with the intruders murder!


Nah, you just have to be in fear for your, or someone else's, life--in Wisconsin. You'll go to jail in Illinois, though. It varies from state to state.

But I've got no objection to enforcing the existing laws. If you're not going to enforce them, then why even have them at all? To support the softwood timber industry?

Write your laws, enforce them, adjust as necessary. Also, maybe some more effort to actually apprehend criminals would help. I don't think stiffer sentences do squat. I'd think that most people who commit a crime figure they can avoid being caught, so the penalty isn't much of a deterence.

And empty out your prisons of all of those pot smokers and prostitutes. Lock up the people that cause the problems. :P

I like a lot of those ideas. Put criminals in, not people charged with victimless crimes.

It doesn't matter, but the free flow of ideas and speculation can't hurt. And if it helps, bravo to us. :)

Say, can't you as citizens push to have a bill or something introduced? How does something go from being an issue for individuals to becoming a law there?

You push your senators and congressmen to start the wheels. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Washington, DC


Banning guns does not help the violent crime rate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Washington, DC one of the worst violent crime cities in America?

It's been at the top of the list several times.

The point is that although they are "illegal", DC has the worst crime anyway.
So, either the guns are not to blame for the crime, or the ban is ineffective.

Further:
Who is a dumbass? Someone living unarmed in DC? If so, I agree with you! :)

I wish. Unfortunately, Chess seems to think that everyone that ever wants a firearm for any reason is pretty much a dumbass. <sigh>

To be honest, I'm surprised he's still alive in Alabama, with that attitude. Guess he hasn't hit many of the watering holes away from campus. :D

Aaaaah! These gun-control nuts really get under my skin! Convenience store guns? Shopping mall gun stores? Don't need a semi-auto to hunt? WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?!? Do you know ANYTHING about guns at all? By Zeus, you've got me thinking that if all people are as uninformed as you and willing to voice their crack-brained opinions, then all hope for the world as we know it is lost. If that's the case, I'll see you all in the fiery depths of Gehenna.

However, the handful of you all who intelligently posted on the virtues of freedom, of gun-ownership rights, and other defenses of our civil liberties give me hope in humanity. Hail to you, and may the whole world know you as exemplars of liberty and champions of freedom. To those of you who just wrote "from my cold dead hands," or "when you come to take my guns, make sure you have your own," I wholeheartedly agree with you, but we need a little more self-control from the manner in which you voice your ideas. If we preach to our own kind or use radical phrases, we only make the gun-control Nazis feel more confident that we are crazy. When it actually comes down to the wire and people are breaking down doors to take away our guns, then is the time for battle cries and extreme language. Hopefully, that time is still far away and we can protect our civil rights without resorting to (seemingly) irrational speech. I applaud you all for taking the time to make yourselves heard (or read in this case), even those of you who are clearly confused and ignorant. At the very least, you are trying, and you have my gratitude for that. In closing, I would like to implore you all to vote in the upcoming election, preferably for Michael Badnarik, the libertarian candidate, although who is the libertarian candidate is unimportant, as long as you vote libertarian, since it is a party based on principle. Still, any voting at all is better than none, so get to the polls everyone, and vote for freedom.

No, the opposite. It should be a public registry that anybody can access. Including you if you want to see what your neighbours are packing. The more you hide something, the more room there is for potential abuse. Security through obscurity just doesn't level the playing field the way transparency does.

What a rotten idea. Such information would be most valuable to criminals. If you have a $15000 firearm collection, it'd be wise not to make that information public. OTOH, if you don't own a single gun, it'd be a good idea to keep that to yourself as well. If you want to know more about your neighboors, try talking to them.

If someone can give a good solution to keep these weapons off our streets with no worries of drive by shootings and other violence then maybe I will reconsider my belief of automatic weapon ownership.

End drug prohibition.

What a rotten idea. Such information would be most valuable to criminals. If you have a $15000 firearm collection, it'd be wise not to make that information public. OTOH, if you don't own a single gun, it'd be a good idea to keep that to yourself as well. If you want to know more about your neighboors, try talking to them.

Sorry, Wild, but I'm going to have to go with Battery on this one. It's a massive tactical error to wear on the hip as opposed to concealed.

Relate that directly to gun registration--someone that has nefarious schemes afoot in their heads can look at those "advertisement" lists to figure out who to rob next.

End drug prohibition.

That would do much, actually.

Exactly. I'm all about standardization.
Actually, soldiers of any age can drink on base.

Nope. I got in trouble twice for drinking underage in the Army. Whatever the law is in the surrounding area is what the military uses.

Nope. I got in trouble twice for drinking underage in the Army. Whatever the law is in the surrounding area is what the military uses.

Been awhile, I'm not as young as I used to be, whipper-snapper! :)

Washington, DC


Banning guns does not help the violent crime rate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Washington, DC one of the worst violent crime cities in America?

correction: it is the worst. sometimes detroit michigan takes the lead, but generally it is DC

correction: it is the worst. sometimes detroit michigan takes the lead, but generally it is DC

Yeah, thats what I've always heard. DC with the worst.

Though I don't think the crime rate for DC includes what all those damn politicians do. They're scared of how high the crime rate would be.

Newsflash! in case you havent already noticed, criminals tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! In other words, if you ban those guns, then all you're doing is disarming the law-abiding citizens and making them more susceptable to gun-related violence, because now they dont have any guns and the criminals do! If the murderers and criminals are going to find ways to get those weapons anyway, which way would YOU feel safer: armed? or unarmed?

I *think* it is 75 years, but don't quote me...

Hmmm

I remember hearing/reading once that the complete John Kennedy files the government holds will be fully opened after 75 years, to give time for anybody alive and capable of remembering the events to have died off. :P That's 2038. Is it really such a big deal, guys? What ever happened to the idea of a 25 year sequestering, and then additional time when it was demonstrated to be necessary. You'd think secrecy was a reflex. :P

I like a lot of those ideas. Put criminals in, not people charged with victimless crimes.

If there's no victim or potential victim (just because you didn't hit anybody when you firing your homemade mortar at the schoolyard doesn't mean you're innocent), makes no sense to jail you. Perhaps a fine if you were annoying enough.

It'll save you guys a fortune too, although I don't know how much cheaper those private prisons can keep people in for. Anybody know offhand?

You push your senators and congressmen to start the wheels. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Ah, I thought it might be something like that.

But you sound skeptical. What's the actual mechanism? Say you wanted to introduce a bill requiring cities to collect dog crap and convert it into smokeless fuel. How do you get the ball rolling on that?

To all crazy people who like to troll - the above is a totally spurious issue. Please don't talk about how pit bulls are really gentle, or that a sliding-scale tax would be required based on the monthly output of a given dog. :P

[chopped out mythology-flavoured rant for brevity]

although who is the libertarian candidate is unimportant, as long as you vote libertarian, since it is a party based on principle. Still, any voting at all is better than none, so get to the polls everyone, and vote for freedom.

You can't run a country on principle. Pragmatism guided by principle works a lot better. And listening to what the people want, even the diametrically opposed people, is important too.

What a rotten idea. Such information would be most valuable to criminals. If you have a $15000 firearm collection, it'd be wise not to make that information public. OTOH, if you don't own a single gun, it'd be a good idea to keep that to yourself as well. If you want to know more about your neighboors, try talking to them.

That's like saying that if you publish your phone number, you'll be automatically harassed and targeted for telephone fraud.

If you have a $15000 anything that's easily portable and you keep it at home, you'd better have a damn secure place for it, or you're being a bit foolish, imho.

And, frankly, I'd like to see just about anything that the federal government (yours or mine) keeps tabs on available publicly. It might be pure drudgery to know how many people have licensed red 1999 Dodge Neons, but I'd want the option. I'd really like to see transparency be the default, and some justification given for why something is kept confidential.

Obviously I wouldn't want to apply this to things such as medical histories or those that are the victims of crimes, or anything that could adversely affect you if it wasn't your fault.

I would want to include anything that the IRS (that's the only taxation department you have, right?) has on you. I've never understood why it's such a touchy subject how much money you make.

I should probably add at this point that the above opinion is very atypical for a Canadian - we're traditionally very privacy-oriented, much more so than you folks to the south.

I'm not sure how such a system would work socially, but I'd like to see it tried. Maybe a bit at a time.

Newsflash! in case you havent already noticed, criminals tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! In other words, if you ban those guns, then all you're doing is disarming the law-abiding citizens and making them more susceptable to gun-related violence, because now they dont have any guns and the criminals do! If the murderers and criminals are going to find ways to get those weapons anyway, which way would YOU feel safer: armed? or unarmed?

Hmm... how will I feel safer... I'll go with armed.

Sorry, Wild, but I'm going to have to go with Battery on this one. It's a massive tactical error to wear on the hip as opposed to concealed.

Relate that directly to gun registration--someone that has nefarious schemes afoot in their heads can look at those "advertisement" lists to figure out who to rob next.

But you're treating everybody as a potential threat with that mindset! Doesn't that seem a bit... odd to you?

I should add that in such a system (and the one that's in my above reply) you ought to be automatically notified if/when someone browses your information. Fair's fair.

Newsflash! in case you havent already noticed, criminals tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! In other words, if you ban those guns, then all you're doing is disarming the law-abiding citizens and making them more susceptable to gun-related violence, because now they dont have any guns and the criminals do! If the murderers and criminals are going to find ways to get those weapons anyway, which way would YOU feel safer: armed? or unarmed?

Newsflash - read some of the past posts. Nobody wants to ban guns. It's regulation and mindset (that's my baby, the mindset ;)) that we're mostly on about.

Note also that it's been fairly well accepted (shout out if you don't agree, folks) that most of the criminals get their guns by stealing them from those that own them lawfully. That makes people that legally own guns but don't take better care of them a major source of crimes that involve guns. Responsibility on all sorts of levels is important.

If there's no victim or potential victim (just because you didn't hit anybody when you firing your homemade mortar at the schoolyard doesn't mean you're innocent), makes no sense to jail you. Perhaps a fine if you were annoying enough.

It'll save you guys a fortune too, although I don't know how much cheaper those private prisons can keep people in for. Anybody know offhand?

acting recklessly(firing a mortar into a schoolyard) IS a crime even if noone is hurt. Doing something dangerous is DIFFERENT from simple ownership.

Owning a gun should not be a crime. SHOOTING a gun(without justification) in a manor that might hurt some innocent(even if none are hurt) should be a crime.

Owning a car should not be a crime. DRIVING a car in a manor that might hurt someone should be a crime(even if no one is actually hurt).

Do you see a pattern here. Actions should be criminilized not ownership.

Hmmm

I remember hearing/reading once that the complete John Kennedy files the government holds will be fully opened after 75 years, to give time for anybody alive and capable of remembering the events to have died off. :P That's 2038. Is it really such a big deal, guys? What ever happened to the idea of a 25 year sequestering, and then additional time when it was demonstrated to be necessary. You'd think secrecy was a reflex. :P

It really cuts down on the litigation.

acting recklessly(firing a mortar into a schoolyard) IS a crime even if noone is hurt. Doing something dangerous is DIFFERENT from simple ownership.

Owning a gun should not be a crime. SHOOTING a gun(without justification) in a manor that might hurt some innocent(even if none are hurt) should be a crime.

Owning a car should not be a crime. DRIVING a car in a manor that might hurt someone should be a crime(even if no one is actually hurt).

Do you see a pattern here. Actions should be criminilized not ownership.

There you go. That sounds good to me.

Newsflash - read some of the past posts. Nobody wants to ban guns. It's regulation and mindset (that's my baby, the mindset ;)) that we're mostly on about.

Note also that it's been fairly well accepted (shout out if you don't agree, folks) that most of the criminals get their guns by stealing them from those that own them lawfully. That makes people that legally own guns but don't take better care of them a major source of crimes that involve guns. Responsibility on all sorts of levels is important.


You might have a valid argument IF

a) it wasnt possible to easily smuggle guns into the country

b) it wasnt possible to easily make guns at home.

If the only source for criminals to get their hands on guns was stealing them from law abiding owners then it would be the begining of an argument to make gun ownership either illegal or heavily regulated.

But you're treating everybody as a potential threat with that mindset! Doesn't that seem a bit... odd to you?


Actually, no. Everybody IS a potential threat--potential, not actual. But as soon as they start investigating me (really, that's what it is when you try to find out if someone owns a gun or not) then the threat is actual. There is no reason for someone to need to know if I own a weapon or not--unless they are there to attack or rob me. Idle curiosity is not enough reason.


I should add that in such a system (and the one that's in my above reply) you ought to be automatically notified if/when someone browses your information. Fair's fair.

That would be fair warning that someone was looking at a topic that's none of their business, is what it would be.

Ah, I thought it might be something like that.

But you sound skeptical. What's the actual mechanism? Say you wanted to introduce a bill requiring cities to collect dog crap and convert it into smokeless fuel. How do you get the ball rolling on that?

To all crazy people who like to troll - the above is a totally spurious issue. Please don't talk about how pit bulls are really gentle, or that a sliding-scale tax would be required based on the monthly output of a given dog. :P

The only reason I'm skeptical is because they don't listen to the average citizen. They listen to special interest groups.

Nothing really gets started because of a regular person.

acting recklessly(firing a mortar into a schoolyard) IS a crime even if noone is hurt. Doing something dangerous is DIFFERENT from simple ownership.

Owning a gun should not be a crime. SHOOTING a gun(without justification) in a manor that might hurt some innocent(even if none are hurt) should be a crime.

Owning a car should not be a crime. DRIVING a car in a manor that might hurt someone should be a crime(even if no one is actually hurt).

Do you see a pattern here. Actions should be criminilized not ownership.

Then at the risk of repeating some older arguments... people should be allowed to have fully operational tactical nukes as long as they don't use them?

I see the argument you're trying to make, but I think that regulation of guns needs to be much tighter than regulation of motor vehicles. You can jump over a guardrail if someone is trying to run you down. To avoid a gun being used on you is much harder. Since the defense against misuse (attack) by a gun is so much more difficult, then regulation of such should be accordingly stiffer.

Unless people/society have moved to the point where such regulations aren't necessary.

It really cuts down on the litigation.

Hmmmm. How practical is it to bring suit against someone in this case? Like.. against the military for secret bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam era?

I was unaware that you as citizens there had a shot at taking someone in (or formerly in) office for something they did.

You might have a valid argument IF

a) it wasnt possible to easily smuggle guns into the country

b) it wasnt possible to easily make guns at home.

If the only source for criminals to get their hands on guns was stealing them from law abiding owners then it would be the begining of an argument to make gun ownership either illegal or heavily regulated.

Are there any numbers available for the guns recovered by the police from criminals? Are there in fact a significant percentage of such weapons that are created at home, or smuggled from other countries?

Here in Canada that would be true, because people smuggle them (handguns I'm talking about) in from the US. Is it true in your country as well?

Actually, no. Everybody IS a potential threat--potential, not actual. But as soon as they start investigating me (really, that's what it is when you try to find out if someone owns a gun or not) then the threat is actual. There is no reason for someone to need to know if I own a weapon or not--unless they are there to attack or rob me. Idle curiosity is not enough reason.

That would be fair warning that someone was looking at a topic that's none of their business, is what it would be.

I can see the thought of such information being publicly available has gone right up your nose. lol

Frankly I can't see the harm in people knowing. You ought to know what your government knows about you, after all.

The only reason I'm skeptical is because they don't listen to the average citizen. They listen to special interest groups.

Nothing really gets started because of a regular person.

Ah, this is what I sort of thought the default condition is. When you said that people could get it started, I was surprised. :)

So how does one go about being a SIG if you don't have deep pockets? ;)

Then at the risk of repeating some older arguments... people should be allowed to have fully operational tactical nukes as long as they don't use them?

I see the argument you're trying to make, but I think that regulation of guns needs to be much tighter than regulation of motor vehicles. You can jump over a guardrail if someone is trying to run you down. To avoid a gun being used on you is much harder. Since the defense against misuse (attack) by a gun is so much more difficult, then regulation of such should be accordingly stiffer.

Unless people/society have moved to the point where such regulations aren't necessary.

Radiactive material is dangerous just sitting there. A gun, a knife or bat just sitting there is not dangerous.

Jump over the guardrail - what if there is no guardrail and you are sleeping in your bed and a 6000 pound car comes through your bedroom. Dead is dead no matter what kills you. Punish the killer not the law abiding citizen. It is a fact that most crimminals will back off if the mark is armed because it is not worth it.

Radiactive material is dangerous just sitting there. A gun, a knife or bat just sitting there is not dangerous.

Note that I'm not pushing for regulation of knives or bats, because I think that guns are something different.

And remember, my basic position in all of this is that I want people to stop shooting each other. I find far fewer statistics for people deliberately killing each other via baseball bat, knife, or automobile than I do people shooting each other. Hence the concern. :)

Note that I'm not pushing for regulation of knives or bats, because I think that guns are something different.

And remember, my basic position in all of this is that I want people to stop shooting each other. I find far fewer statistics for people deliberately killing each other via baseball bat, knife, or automobile than I do people shooting each other. Hence the concern. :)


More people are killed by automobiles than guns period.

During the 3rd debate, Kerry stated that he wouldn't infringe on the second amendment to the constitution. His voting record has shown otherwise.

He also lied about the AWB by associating it to fully auto weapons.

...
And remember, my basic position in all of this is that I want people to stop shooting each other. I find far fewer statistics for people deliberately killing each other via baseball bat, knife, or automobile than I do people shooting each other. Hence the concern. :)


If your intent is to stop people from shooting each other then put the crimminals in jail and keep them there. Statistically, drug addicts, drug dealers and gangs do most of the killing. Statistically, you have a better chance of not being killed if you own and if necessary use that gun to protect yourself, family and even bystanders.

Use our resources to enforce the laws we have now, and stop wasting it on new laws that only make it harder for law abiding citizens to go on with their lives and have no effect on crimminals because they are just that, crimminals.

Are there any numbers available for the guns recovered by the police from criminals? Are there in fact a significant percentage of such weapons that are created at home, or smuggled from other countries?

Here in Canada that would be true, because people smuggle them (handguns I'm talking about) in from the US. Is it true in your country as well?

Currently in the USA, the cheapest and most convenient source of gun for criminals IS either theft or straw purchasers, so the numbers are not going to show significant numbers of smuggled gun. With regard to full suto guns, the source is smuggled but lets not get into that because they are used in so few crimes.

So what point am I trying to make when I agree with you that the most common source of illegal guns is stolen guns? Well, I am trying to say that even if that option(eg, there were no legal guns in the USA) criminals would still be able to get their guns(for not much more cost).

Why do I believe this? Well, I believe this because I look at another good that is readily smuggled into this country. A good that is illegal and one that there are heavy penalities for bringing in/possessing/selling:drugs

Despite all the penalties, drugs are readily availible in theUSA and all the prohibition activities havent even raised the costs of these drugs in the last 25 years. Jeez, steel prices have gone up more than drug prices.

If it was worth the time of smugglers, they would bring in guns in lieu of some drugs. Given how long guns last and how rarely they are used, it wouldnt take much volumn.

DO I like it that criminals have guns and that guns are used to kill so many people? no. I dont. But banning guns for law abiding citizens only makes things worse not better.

edit: sorry, raised the price in 15 years. Im too young to know about 25 years

I'm new to nationstates and came in late on this argument. I've read much of the posts here (not all of the many, many pages I see) but missed some perspectives I thought I could add.

I live in Colorado (in the US) and have relatives that must hunt for food, not for sport. They're poor enough that simply going to the grocery store to buy meat all the time isn't an option. Hunting for a few elk or deer a year keeps the family fed. In that regard, I find the argument to keep hunting "sportsmanlike" and "fair to the animal" moot. I also why a semi-auto rifle or shotgun wouldn't possibly be much more humane (strange term) for the animal in question. What if the first shot missed, especially with a bow? Take time to reload, re-aim, or even close the distance and fire again. With a semi, you just quickly try for another kill shot.

As to someone posting about semi-autos being used in Columbine and not being able to do the same damage without, I have to strongly disagree. I can fire off 3 kill shots a second (within a 6" scatter) at 50 meters with a revolver, and about 2 per second at 150 meters with a bolt action rifle. All you need to do is have spare clips on hand or a speed loader to keep that kind of speed coming. Most men and women in my family could do the same.

As to banning pistols, yes, they're used for protection primarily, but not always against people. I myself have been hiking through deep forest in this nation and been approached by wild dogs and mountain lions. A simply 357 mag or .45 that's easy to carry and lightweight provides all the protection I need against any crazy animals as well as humans in those situations. Keep in mind Ted Bundy didn't use a gun and was fond of finding his victims in yellowstone national park (am I getting the right serial killer?).

When I was growing up, gun control wasn't much of an issue. Parents taught their kids gun safety and all was well in the world (exaggeration). Why isn't it suggested more often that instead of banning multiple types of weapons (wherever your particular views draw the line) we make gun education mandatory in public school (it need not even include live rounds or using the weapons themselves, simply an education to remove the mythos surrounding these weapons in the modern world), and create harsher penalties for the perpetrators of violent crime?

As for a little pertinant background about myself, I am an owner of 5 guns (two different calibre hunting rifles, a colt python, and a .22 pistol and rifle for cheap target practice), have been trained by both my father and the military in the proper use of many kinds of guns, and have my concealed carry permit (which allows travel with guns ... not so I can carry one around in the city).

And yes, the government has exactly as much power as we give them to exercise, which is why it's important to become involved politically. If you choose not to become involved, but instead simply wish this country was like (pick your favorite ... the particular one I saw in these posts was the UK), moving has become much cheaper and more practical, and most of Europe is anxious to have immigrants at this point in time.

I'm curious to hear opinions.

I think I'm wit Mac.
And oh yea...
Keep your damn hands off my Python!

Radiactive material is dangerous just sitting there. A gun, a knife or bat just sitting there is not dangerous.

Jump over the guardrail - what if there is no guardrail and you are sleeping in your bed and a 6000 pound car comes through your bedroom. Dead is dead no matter what kills you. Punish the killer not the law abiding citizen. It is a fact that most crimminals will back off if the mark is armed because it is not worth it.

I don't know that it's a fact that most criminals will back off if their target is armed. Why would they? You're not talking about backing off if the criminal is armed, after all.

Absolutely punish the killer. And while dead is dead, your intent matters. If a piece from the second stage of an Apollo rocket launched in 1972 and has been in an eccentric orbit these many years finally tags the atmosphere and hurtles to earth, heating up but not completely evaporating away, and drills through someone's roof and kills them, do you send a former NASA engineer to prison?

No, of course you don't.

Radioactive material isn't necessarily dangerous just sitting there. Have a watch with a glow-in-the-dark dial? That used to be from radium. Nowadays it's from cesium. Both radioactive. Radium's a bit more dangerous in a low-grade long-term exposure kind of way. You'll note that you don't often hear about people gathering together radioactive material from watches to make a dirty bomb, hence no reason to restrict it.

Yes, people die from cars. But a car isn't a murder weapon particularly often. But you find that cars are constantly being made safer (so if you're in a car that's struck, you tend to live more often) and (here at least) the requirements for getting a license are getting tougher so that you have to prove you're capable of driving safely before we trust you to drive on your own.

I also think that you won't find that deaths from knife or baseball bat are particularly common either.

But guns... how many of the deaths via guns are accidental? Certainly some are, especially idiots fooling around and then saying "I didn't know it was loaded!". But people are deliberately killing each other with guns. And these aren't people that are also using their guns for hunting, or target shooting, or anything like that.

And in the US, the death rates from guns are much higher than the rates the rest of the comparable countries have. So what gives? A gun isn't a car. People are killing each other with guns. You don't want to restrict them? Fine, then demonstrate a way to have fewer deaths from them.

You can't simply say "catch the criminals", otherwise why hasn't law enforcement been doing that already? Stiffer sentences never seems to work. So then what?

Saying that people should be able to protect themselves by having their own guns is something that you guys have been doing since before the second amendment was penned, and still you've got the atrocious death rate. So what, if you don't like gun control (and I repeat that I'm not talking ban) is the answer here?

More people are killed by automobiles than guns period.

And more people still are killed by heart attacks.

The vast majority of those people being killed by automobiles aren't being killed because someone decided to kill them with one. Hence more safety measures built into cars, and (here at least) tougher standards to get your unrestricted driver's license.

Show me measures you can put in place that are similar for guns, if not tighter gun control.

If your intent is to stop people from shooting each other then put the crimminals in jail and keep them there. Statistically, drug addicts, drug dealers and gangs do most of the killing. Statistically, you have a better chance of not being killed if you own and if necessary use that gun to protect yourself, family and even bystanders.

Er, no.

Murderers do most of the killing. Being addicted to heroin doesn't make you a killer.

And there are statistics that show that a fair thwack of people are killed with their own guns. That's not possible if you don't own a gun.

So where are the statistics that show you're safer for owning a gun?

Use our resources to enforce the laws we have now, and stop wasting it on new laws that only make it harder for law abiding citizens to go on with their lives and have no effect on crimminals because they are just that, crimminals.

Except that I disagree with you that they have no effect on the criminals. Again, I point to my own country as an example. Where are all the shooting deaths? The ones that happen here (in my province, it's Vancouver that has the bulk of the shooting deaths) appear to be all done with handguns smuggled in from elsewhere (mostly the US). Where are all the ones being done with Canadian guns? Where are all the Canadians defending themselves from evildoers with their vast personal arsenal of guns (which we have but don't shoot people with)? Why are our stats so much lower than yours?

We've got criminals too you know. They're always ripping off our dogsleds. ;)

Welcome to the rock meeting the hard place.

Most of the counter arguements you will get will be "but what about the children", should you be able to own fully-auto weapons, the constitution is just a paper, the 2nd amendment is outdated, etc.
Gun safety courses would make to much sense. It would still leave firearms in the hands of citizens.

Personally I own 2 K98k Mausers (one for show, one for target shooting/re-enactments), 2 .22 rifles, dbl barrel 12 ga., semi-auto AK-47, and a 9mm pistol. I don't hunt but love to plink and target shoot.

Currently in the USA, the cheapest and most convenient source of gun for criminals IS either theft or straw purchasers, so the numbers are not going to show significant numbers of smuggled gun. With regard to full suto guns, the source is smuggled but lets not get into that because they are used in so few crimes.

Um, not to be more of an idiot than necessary, but I don't know what a straw purchaser is. :P

So what point am I trying to make when I agree with you that the most common source of illegal guns is stolen guns? Well, I am trying to say that even if that option(eg, there were no legal guns in the USA) criminals would still be able to get their guns(for not much more cost).

From where? Where are the guns coming from that aren't from the US to begin with?

[quote]Why do I believe this? Well, I believe this because I look at another good that is readily smuggled into this country. A good that is illegal and one that there are heavy penalities for bringing in/possessing/selling:drugs

It's well known that non-complete enforcement of bans on something that people really want will do little but change the nature of where you can obtain the forbidden item, and enrich those that sell/produce it in direct proportion to those that try to prevent it.

That said, you don't see a lot of slaves being moved into the US from elsewhere, and it's forbidden too. Why not?

Drugs that are brought in from outside the US are as cheap as they are because there are lots and lots of buyers. If guns were regulated more tightly (this is why I think the guns/drugs comparison falls apart, because nobody's trying to ban guns) do you think there'd be millions of constant customers for outside guns? It's not like you smoke a gun once and it's used up. And guns are worth far less by weight and size than any drug is. So less incentive to set up gun cartels.

Despite all the penalties, drugs are readily availible in theUSA and all the prohibition activities havent even raised the costs of these drugs in the last 25 years. Jeez, steel prices have gone up more than drug prices.

Again, drugs are a consumable commodity and there's a huge customer base. And since your population keeps increasing, that increases the number of customers. No reason for the price of drugs to skyrocket.

If it was worth the time of smugglers, they would bring in guns in lieu of some drugs. Given how long guns last and how rarely they are used, it wouldnt take much volumn.

Which is what would make it far less profitable to run guns the way drugs are run. But again, nobody's talking about banning guns. Why does everybody always equate regulation with banning?

DO I like it that criminals have guns and that guns are used to kill so many people? no. I dont. But banning guns for law abiding citizens only makes things worse not better.

But you're wrong, so wrong.

Here in Canada, just try and get a handgun. This doesn't apply to criminals of course. Somehow us defenseless citizens end up with a way lower murder rate than you guys with all the guns for "protection". Explain it if you can.

All I'm saying is that you guys have easy access to guns NOW and you seem to be LESS safe than those of us from places with tighter restrictions. Don't you see that?

Er, no.

Murderers do most of the killing. Being addicted to heroin doesn't make you a killer.

And there are statistics that show that a fair thwack of people are killed with their own guns. That's not possible if you don't own a gun.

So where are the statistics that show you're safer for owning a gun?



Except that I disagree with you that they have no effect on the criminals. Again, I point to my own country as an example. Where are all the shooting deaths? The ones that happen here (in m y province, it's Vancouver that has the bulk of the shooting deaths) appear to be all done with handguns smuggled in from elsewhere (mostly the US). Where are all the ones being done with Canadian guns? Where are all the Canadians defending themselves from evildoers with their vast personal arsenal of guns (which we have but don't shoot people with)? Why are our stats so much lower than yours?

We've got criminals too you know. They're always ripping off our dogsleds. ;)

Ah yes, the famous (random anti-gunner number) of deaths caused in the home arguement.

Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.

Dr. Kellermann`s dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns?in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means.

Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.

Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected?not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature?A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)

Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck`s 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, a number much smaller, obviously, than the number of criminals killed or wounded. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)

Kellermann`s "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses.

..and the fact that guns are used to prevent crimes between 1.5-2.5 million times/year.

But you're wrong, so wrong.

Here in Canada, just try and get a handgun. This doesn't apply to criminals of course. Somehow us defenseless citizens end up with a way lower murder rate than you guys with all the guns for "protection". Explain it if you can.

All I'm saying is that you guys have easy access to guns NOW and you seem to be LESS safe than those of us from places with tighter restrictions. Don't you see that?
RWS, you keep using Canada as your source for crime rates vs gun ownership. Places here in the US have shown statistically that an increase in legal gun ownership reduces violent crime. Legal, responsible gun ownership makes people safer... to use your own phrase "Don't you see that?". A town in Georgia once passed a law saying the head of each household was required to keep a loaded gun in the house. Home breakin rates dropped to nil. "Don't you see that?" If a criminal had to choose between a house that he knew had no guns and a house that he felt just might have guns, he would choose the house without guns out of sheer self-preservation. "Don't you see that?"

And your perception of Canada is I feel a bit flawed for several reasons:
1. Guns are not an underlying cause of crime or murder.
2. I don't believe ciminals differentiate between handguns and long guns.
3. Canadian citizens are hardly defenseless.

I'm new to nationstates

Welcome aboard. Don't mind those of us that foam at the mouth. :) <wipes chin>

I live in Colorado (in the US) and have relatives that must hunt for food, not for sport. They're poor enough that simply going to the grocery store to buy meat all the time isn't an option. Hunting for a few elk or deer a year keeps the family fed. In that regard, I find the argument to keep hunting "sportsmanlike" and "fair to the animal" moot. I also why a semi-auto rifle or shotgun wouldn't possibly be much more humane (strange term) for the animal in question. What if the first shot missed, especially with a bow? Take time to reload, re-aim, or even close the distance and fire again. With a semi, you just quickly try for another kill shot.

I too have a relative that supplements their groceries by hunting, primarily deer, moose, and caribou. Works for me.

And a semi-automatic weapon isn't any more humane since you don't have to reload after every shot with something that isn't semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means that you fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. "Regular" rifles just mean you have to eject the cartridge and throw the bolt manually.

A pump-action shotgun is also not semi-automatic, but you can fire at a good clip.

As to someone posting about semi-autos being used in Columbine and not being able to do the same damage without, I have to strongly disagree. I can fire off 3 kill shots a second (within a 6" scatter) at 50 meters with a revolver, and about 2 per second at 150 meters with a bolt action rifle. All you need to do is have spare clips on hand or a speed loader to keep that kind of speed coming. Most men and women in my family could do the same.

2 rounds per second with a bolt action rifle? That seems awfully quick to me. You buggers must practice a lot. ;)

As to banning pistols, yes, they're used for protection primarily, but not always against people. I myself have been hiking through deep forest in this nation and been approached by wild dogs and mountain lions. A simply 357 mag or .45 that's easy to carry and lightweight provides all the protection I need against any crazy animals as well as humans in those situations. Keep in mind Ted Bundy didn't use a gun and was fond of finding his victims in yellowstone national park (am I getting the right serial killer?).

There's no doubt that there are practical and valid uses for any sort of gun. Those aren't the uses those of us in favour of tighter gun control are worried about.

And yes, the government has exactly as much power as we give them to exercise, which is why it's important to become involved politically. If you choose not to become involved, but instead simply wish this country was like (pick your favorite ... the particular one I saw in these posts was the UK), moving has become much cheaper and more practical, and most of Europe is anxious to have immigrants at this point in time.

Ugh. "If you don't like America, why don't you leave"?

Forgive me for saying so, but that's a horrible way to look at things. You can love being an American and not like the way something about it works. Much better to stay in the place you want to stay and work to change the things that you don't like. Isn't that what anybody who doesn't think the place is a total write-off would do?

Um, not to be more of an idiot than necessary, but I don't know what a straw purchaser is. :P

A straw purchaser buys a gun legally from a dealer and then sells it illegally to a criminal.

[/QUOTE]So what point am I trying to make when I agree with you that the most common source of illegal guns is stolen guns? Well, I am trying to say that even if that option(eg, there were no legal guns in the USA) criminals would still be able to get their guns(for not much more cost).

From where? Where are the guns coming from that aren't from the US to begin with?

A nice little country called Mexico.



[/QUOTE]
Which is what would make it far less profitable to run guns the way drugs are run. But again, nobody's talking about banning guns. Why does everybody always equate regulation with banning?[/QUOTE]

Regulation leads to banning. Look at the UK. They went from regulation, to banning, to now trying to outlaw hunting.



[/QUOTE]But you're wrong, so wrong.

Here in Canada, just try and get a handgun. This doesn't apply to criminals of course. Somehow us defenseless citizens end up with a way lower murder rate than you guys with all the guns for "protection". Explain it if you can.[/QUOTE]

Population density. Compare the violent crime rate of Vancouver to a city n the U.S of similar size.

[/QUOTE]All I'm saying is that you guys have easy access to guns NOW and you seem to be LESS safe than those of us from places with tighter restrictions. Don't you see that?[/QUOTE]

No I don't. In every area that has tighter restrictions in the U.S, crime has risen and is proportionally higher than the rest of the country.

Ah yes, the famous (random anti-gunner number) of deaths caused in the home arguement.

Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.

I've never read anything or even heard of kellermann until now. And I didn't quote any numbers.

Specifically I was responding to the "having guns at home to protect myself and my family" statement where it was said (in essence) that "restricting the availability of guns harms people and their families".

So in response (in many posts, not just the one you quoted) I said that here in Canada you'll find that getting a handgun is pretty tough. And we don't get to carry weapons either. It's also not legal to keep a loaded weapon in your home, guns must be stored unloaded and in a secure (read: locked) area with trigger guards.

And somehow, with all of that, we don't get slaughtered as some people imply would happen if not everybody had access to guns to protect themselves with.

And I expressed doubt that anybody is necessarily safer for owning a gun.

[snipped bunch of stuff by this Kellermann character that doesn't say what I said]

..and the fact that guns are used to prevent crimes between 1.5-2.5 million times/year.

If guns prevented crimes, then nobody was arrested because no crimes had been committed in these cases, right? So does that mean this 1.5-2.5 million cases are people who just say, after a couple of beers, "Oh yeah, some guy was trying to rape my wife but I pulled my glock on him and he ran off!"? Or what?

When someone is going to quote specific numbers, it would be nice if they linked to their source.

I've never read anything or even heard of kellermann until now. And I didn't quote any numbers.

Specifically I was responding to the "having guns at home to protect myself and my family" statement where it was said (in essence) that "restricting the availability of guns harms people and their families".

So in response (in many posts, not just the one you quoted) I said that here in Canada you'll find that getting a handgun is pretty tough. And we don't get to carry weapons either. It's also not legal to keep a loaded weapon in your home, guns must be stored unloaded and in a secure (read: locked) area with trigger guards.

And somehow, with all of that, we don't get slaughtered as some people imply would happen if not everybody had access to guns to protect themselves with.

And I expressed doubt that anybody is necessarily safer for owning a gun.

[snipped bunch of stuff by this Kellermann character that doesn't say what I said]

If guns prevented crimes, then nobody was arrested because no crimes had been committed in these cases, right? So does that mean this 1.5-2.5 million cases are people who just say, after a couple of beers, "Oh yeah, some guy was trying to rape my wife but I pulled my glock on him and he ran off!"? Or what?

When someone is going to quote specific numbers, it would be nice if they linked to their source.
Now RWS, you need to be honest with yourself... I've quoted the 2.5 million defensive gun uses many times, and earlier posted the source with it. You were involved in the debate at the time.

Nobody was arrested, but police reports are still filled out. So no, it's not as simple as anyone saying anything over a couple of beers.

I thought I'd respond quickly before I head off to bed (early morning tomorrow)

... a semi-automatic weapon isn't any more humane since you don't have to reload after every shot with something that isn't semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means that you fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. "Regular" rifles just mean you have to eject the cartridge and throw the bolt manually.

A pump-action shotgun is also not semi-automatic, but you can fire at a good clip.

Yes, of course you're right. I simply meant that with a semi-auto, you /are/ able to pull off multiple shots quicker than with a bolt action, pump, or revolver (especially as you don't even have to move your hands to sight in again). Maybe it wasn't enough of a point to say anything about.

2 rounds per second with a bolt action rifle? That seems awfully quick to me. You buggers must practice a lot.

Hehe, well, when it means food on the table, provides a nice competition between family and friends, and isn't a terribly expensive way to spent part of an afternoon, then practice makes perfect!

There's no doubt that there are practical and valid uses for any sort of gun. Those aren't the uses those of us in favour of tighter gun control are worried about.

I suppose my question would then be how you separate the "practical and valid" uses from those which are not. If someone had the intention of buying a pistol for protection in the woodlands as I have, how do you tell him apart from the guy who wants a pistol to mug people when they both could claim the same thing?

Ugh. "If you don't like America, why don't you leave"?

Forgive me for saying so, but that's a horrible way to look at things. You can love being an American and not like the way something about it works. Much better to stay in the place you want to stay and work to change the things that you don't like. Isn't that what anybody who doesn't think the place is a total write-off would do?

Sorry I came off that way (and this is the main reason I'm responding tonight ... I saw this and had to correct myself). Granted, there's certainly times I feel that way, but what I meant is to take that thought in context with the previous. "If you aren't willing to get involved in politics and are just complaining because this country isn't like your favorite one, then just move" was what I meant with all that.

And I liked what someone said here, that the real fear should be against a government that doesn't think the people it governs are responsible enough to own weapons. If we aren't responsible or mature enough to own weapons, then is the government which is pulled from the citizen body any better? Are they responsible enough to control the entire military and the liberties of the citizens they govern?

RWS, you keep using Canada as your source for crime rates vs gun ownership. Places here in the US have shown statistically that an increase in legal gun ownership reduces violent crime. Legal, responsible gun ownership makes people safer... to use your own phrase "Don't you see that?". A town in Georgia once passed a law saying the head of each household was required to keep a loaded gun in the house. Home breakin rates dropped to nil. "Don't you see that?" If a criminal had to choose between a house that he knew had no guns and a house that he felt just might have guns, he would choose the house without guns out of sheer self-preservation. "Don't you see that?"

I use Canada because it's where I live and what I'm familiar with.

I only said "Don't you see that" the one time, no need to hammer me with it. :P

And all of your examples are wonderful, but according to the stats quoted by someone several pages ago when we were comparing gun deaths in Canada and the US, deaths by guns in the US were way higher per capita, and on the rise. So unless there's a single location somewhere in the US where the bullets are as thick as the rain, that's showing a pretty alarming trend. So no, it doesn't look like you're safer by having so many guns available.

And as for a criminal choosing to bypass a house with guns... many people in this thread have said that they don't advertise that they're armed, and would rather carry concealed than carry openly. How's a criminal supposed to know whether a house is armed or not? Zaxon could explain this better than me, since he's the one that introduced me to it.

You say "Places here in the US have shown statistically that an increase in legal gun ownership reduces violent crime.", but what about the US as a whole? Does this work overall, or only in a few places?

And your perception of Canada is I feel a bit flawed for several reasons:
1. Guns are not an underlying cause of crime or murder.
2. I don't believe ciminals differentiate between handguns and long guns.
3. Canadian citizens are hardly defenseless.

In reverse order:

3. I know we're not. I was saying that facetiously in one post in response to someone saying that taking guns away from people made them defenseless against those that have them.

2. They do, because you can't walk very far down the street with a rifle in your breast pocket. People notice, and call the cops. And we're awash with long guns here. And yet so few people get shot by them.

1. You're right, guns are not an underlying cause of crime or murder. But they seem to be the instrument of choice for commiting murder. Physical things you can legislate nearly instantly. Social change takes longer. When the social change has taken effect, hand out guns to kids on their first day of school if your people have got to the point where that's safe. Until that happy day, something's got to be done in the meantime to reduce the body count.

I thought I'd respond quickly before I head off to bed (early morning tomorrow)
Yes, of course you're right. I simply meant that with a semi-auto, you /are/ able to pull off multiple shots quicker than with a bolt action, pump, or revolver (especially as you don't even have to move your hands to sight in again). Maybe it wasn't enough of a point to say anything about.

Have to comment on this... I saw a demonstration by the "fastest gun in the world" once. He shot 5 shots into a playing card at a distance of about 10 feet. When the film was viewed... the shots occured during 3 frames of film, with 2 shots being acutally inbetween the frames. He used a single action revolver btw, because he could pull the trigger with his finger faster than a semi-automatic blowback could opperate the action.

He was also able to shoot out the bottom of a bottle, through the neck when it was thrown in the air.

Now RWS, you need to be honest with yourself... I've quoted the 2.5 million defensive gun uses many times, and earlier posted the source with it. You were involved in the debate at the time.

Nobody was arrested, but police reports are still filled out. So no, it's not as simple as anyone saying anything over a couple of beers.

Damn, you beat me to it.

How about this?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

Personally, this nation would probably be a lot safer without firearms being sold rampantly in our convinience stores and shoppingmalls. Yes, we'd then have a black market for them, but would that really make any difference?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

The problem is, this nation is far, far too linient.

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

ya it would make a difference on the black market because that means more crimanals would own them than reasponsible gun owners!!! Further more (columbine)whatever no those kids werent checked because they got them from home were their parents should have been more responsible for keeping them secured were children could not get them. if our so great goverment would make examples out of a few people for their gun crimes we wouldnt be dealing with this issue as much

A straw purchaser buys a gun legally from a dealer and then sells it illegally to a criminal.

Thank you. :) Now why "straw"?

A nice little country called Mexico.

And now the million peso question - are there any formal statistics available for the percentage of guns that are seized from criminals that are from domestic sources versus foreign sources?

Regulation leads to banning. Look at the UK. They went from regulation, to banning, to now trying to outlaw hunting.

We've regulated the hell out of guns since the beginning up here. There's no move to ban anything. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Population density. Compare the violent crime rate of Vancouver to a city n the U.S of similar size.

I can't, because Stats Canada doesn't break such things down by city, and neither the Vancouver City Police nor the RCMP seem to publish such stats either.

All I have to go on are national rates, and some dubious rates for Ontario (most populous province).

But while we have a lower overall population in Canada than the US does, our cities are comparable in population density for the size of them. People still don't get shot every day, or even every week.

No I don't. In every area that has tighter restrictions in the U.S, crime has risen and is proportionally higher than the rest of the country.

Crime in general, or the death rate?

According to the stats that someone posted for the US before compared to Stats Canada, we have a higher rate of property crime and a way higher rate of what would be called grand theft auto in the US, per capita. But our people getting shot rate is down despite the tight restrictions on guns.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Ofcourse it does! In much the same way you go out and brutally murder innocent animals for your own ego and fun the government can easily come in and murder you and take your guns.. seems fair...

Now RWS, you need to be honest with yourself... I've quoted the 2.5 million defensive gun uses many times, and earlier posted the source with it. You were involved in the debate at the time.

Nobody was arrested, but police reports are still filled out. So no, it's not as simple as anyone saying anything over a couple of beers.

But how could such a thing possibly be quantified? Anybody could easily say they stopped a crime by chasing off the would-be perpetrator by waving a gun.

I could say I just did that now, and you could add one to that number. Where's the validity?

I only said "Don't you see that" the one time, no need to hammer me with it. :P
Sorry, I forget you are one of the reasonable people on these boards... my appologies.

And all of your examples are wonderful, but according to the stats quoted by someone several pages ago when we were comparing gun deaths in Canada and the US, deaths by guns in the US were way higher per capita, and on the rise. So unless there's a single location somewhere in the US where the bullets are as thick as the rain, that's showing a pretty alarming trend. So no, it doesn't look like you're safer by having so many guns available.
Actually, Im afraid that in some places, bullets are "as thick as rain".

And as for a criminal choosing to bypass a house with guns... many people in this thread have said that they don't advertise that they're armed, and would rather carry concealed than carry openly. How's a criminal supposed to know whether a house is armed or not? Zaxon could explain this better than me, since he's the one that introduced me to it.
The criminal knows because of local gun restrictions. Chicago, NYC, DC... all examples that criminals know that a house is unarmed with firearms.
You say "Places here in the US have shown statistically that an increase in legal gun ownership reduces violent crime.", but what about the US as a whole? Does this work overall, or only in a few places?
I used this point to counterpoint your assertion that Canada has lower per capita gun murder rate. Something else is in the works. You said you were going to find it ;)
In reverse order:

3. I know we're not. I was saying that facetiously in one post in response to someone saying that taking guns away from people made them defenseless against those that have them.

2. They do, because you can't walk very far down the street with a rifle in your breast pocket. People notice, and call the cops. And we're awash with long guns here. And yet so few people get shot by them.

1. You're right, guns are not an underlying cause of crime or murder. But they seem to be the instrument of choice for commiting murder. Physical things you can legislate nearly instantly. Social change takes longer. When the social change has taken effect, hand out guns to kids on their first day of school if your people have got to the point where that's safe. Until that happy day, something's got to be done in the meantime to reduce the body count.
As for #2, I was talking about a criminal differentiating between a house defended with a shotgun vs a house defended with a handgun. Not whether a criminal prefers to use a hand gun vs a long gun.

Ofcourse it does! In much the same way you go out and brutally murder innocent animals for your own ego and fun the government can easily come in and murder you and take your guns.. seems fair...
:rolleyes:

Yes. I believe he has a right to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They kill people. They kill animals. They are used in war. There is aboslutely no benefit for guns. Even when testing drugs on rats...though I still don't like it...at least there is benefit in finding cures by doing such. But guns...all they can do is kill.

- Asylum Nova

IYes, of course you're right. I simply meant that with a semi-auto, you /are/ able to pull off multiple shots quicker than with a bolt action, pump, or revolver (especially as you don't even have to move your hands to sight in again). Maybe it wasn't enough of a point to say anything about.

Ah. If it was just a matter of stating that you can shoot faster with a semi, then I think you'll find little in the way of argument. :)

Hehe, well, when it means food on the table, provides a nice competition between family and friends, and isn't a terribly expensive way to spent part of an afternoon, then practice makes perfect!

I certainly don't think I paintball as fast as you shoot. Note that if you can really shoot as fast as you say, I want you defending my flag.

I suppose my question would then be how you separate the "practical and valid" uses from those which are not. If someone had the intention of buying a pistol for protection in the woodlands as I have, how do you tell him apart from the guy who wants a pistol to mug people when they both could claim the same thing?

And of course you can't. You can do the checks to see if they've misused weapons before, or whatever other criteria are part of the check, but that's it. Everybody who abuses a gun has to do it the first time, and no check is going to catch that ahead of time. So what do you do?

Aside from the social aspect, where you (this is just me talking, not me advising you on how your country ought to think, although I'd be glad if it did) try to instill the idea that life, any life is too precious to be destroyed except as an ABSOLUTE last resort, all I can think of to do is make the country less awash in guns, and maybe shift away from the gun culture.

I truly truly don't want to ban guns. I really don't. But I do want people to stop getting shot by them. There's no reason why if the mentality that lets so many people get shot disappears that you can't loosen up gun controls again, after all.

Sorry I came off that way (and this is the main reason I'm responding tonight ... I saw this and had to correct myself). Granted, there's certainly times I feel that way, but what I meant is to take that thought in context with the previous. "If you aren't willing to get involved in politics and are just complaining because this country isn't like your favorite one, then just move" was what I meant with all that.

Ahhhhh, this is a much different spin. And a much better one, in my opinion. But of course you're leaving out the usual option, that of just sitting back and complaining bitterly about how things suck. ;)

And I liked what someone said here, that the real fear should be against a government that doesn't think the people it governs are responsible enough to own weapons. If we aren't responsible or mature enough to own weapons, then is the government which is pulled from the citizen body any better? Are they responsible enough to control the entire military and the liberties of the citizens they govern?

Are Americans responsible enough to own weapons? At least with how things currently are?

Have to comment on this... I saw a demonstration by the "fastest gun in the world" once. He shot 5 shots into a playing card at a distance of about 10 feet. When the film was viewed... the shots occured during 3 frames of film, with 2 shots being acutally inbetween the frames. He used a single action revolver btw, because he could pull the trigger with his finger faster than a semi-automatic blowback could opperate the action.

He was also able to shoot out the bottom of a bottle, through the neck when it was thrown in the air.

Dear God. Where do I get steroids that let me do THAT?

Thank you. :) Now why "straw"?


Honestly have no idea....



And now the million peso question - are there any formal statistics available for the percentage of guns that are seized from criminals that are from domestic sources versus foreign sources?


Haven't seen any but drug/gun smugglers being caught were on the news regularly when I lived in San Diego. That's one thing I'll have to research.



We've regulated the hell out of guns since the beginning up here. There's no move to ban anything. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Your populace and some local gov'ts has had the sense to keep it in check. I seem to recall a fiasco over a nat'l register that went way overbudget and some local gov't's refused to support it.




But while we have a lower overall population in Canada than the US does, our cities are comparable in population density for the size of them. People still don't get shot every day, or even every week.



Crime in general, or the death rate? Both

According to the stats that someone posted for the US before compared to Stats Canada, we have a higher rate of property crime and a way higher rate of what would be called grand theft auto in the US, per capita. But our people getting shot rate is down despite the tight restrictions on guns.

Less people dying is good. The majority of deaths from firearms occur in hgh density urban areas in the U.S. Most cities don't have a death/pay(week) These occur mostly in cities w/ ultra-high densities and strict gun control (i.e. Chicago, LA, Wash. D.C. )

Yes. I believe he has a right to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They kill people. They kill animals. They are used in war. There is aboslutely no benefit for guns. Even when testing drugs on rats...though I still don't like it...at least there is benefit in finding cures by doing such. But guns...all they can do is kill.

- Asylum Nova
You didn't read any of the 100+ pages in this thread did you?

Gun ownership and possession are basic human rights:
Humans have the right to self defense.
Guns are a tool of self defense.

Guns are designed for things other than killing. Smith and Wesson Model 52 is designed for the sole purpose of target shooting. It shoots bullets called wad cutters. Wad cutters do significanly less bodily damage than a standard round. They do however cut nice clean holes in paper targets.

Deaths from gun shots are not absolutes... not even close. More often than not people survive from gun shot wounds.

Damn, you beat me to it.

How about this?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

From that page:

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

Believed? This is what makes such things highly subjective, especially since you sound like more of a hero to say that you prevented a crime.

I'm sure there are in fact many cases where this happens just as you say they do, but I just don't see how it's possible to collect any reliable stats. It's going to be primarily hearsay.

I'm not trying to be difficult on this, but it's reminding me of all the people that say they've not only seen a flying saucer, but been abducted and returned as well. Sure, it's possible, but just not confirmable.

Sorry, I forget you are one of the reasonable people on these boards... my appologies.

lol

Please, you guys never need to apologise to me. And I get on my high horse too, since I have to take up the slack on the "more legislation" side. ;)


Actually, Im afraid that in some places, bullets are "as thick as rain".

That does it, you guys need someone to invent those shield from Dune. :)

The criminal knows because of local gun restrictions. Chicago, NYC, DC... all examples that criminals know that a house is unarmed with firearms.

Being an outsider, can you give me a general idea of what the deal is with those places? No guns at ALL, or no handguns, or what?

I used this point to counterpoint your assertion that Canada has lower per capita gun murder rate. Something else is in the works. You said you were going to find it ;)

I'm still working at unraveling the average American psyche to see how it differs from my own. So far, all I've got is that you guys don't eat as much maple stuff as we do. That'll be an interesting experiment to run, eh? ;)

As for #2, I was talking about a criminal differentiating between a house defended with a shotgun vs a house defended with a handgun. Not whether a criminal prefers to use a hand gun vs a long gun.

You know, I thought that seemed like kind of a weak point. Turns out the only weak thing was my interpretation of what you said. :P

From that page:



Believed? This is what makes such things highly subjective, especially since you sound like more of a hero to say that you prevented a crime.

I'm sure there are in fact many cases where this happens just as you say they do, but I just don't see how it's possible to collect any reliable stats. It's going to be primarily hearsay.

I'm not trying to be difficult on this, but it's reminding me of all the people that say they've not only seen a flying saucer, but been abducted and returned as well. Sure, it's possible, but just not confirmable.
Like I've said about the statistic before... it's been reported as 80,000 defensive gun uses (from a marked anti-gun/pro-ban activist) to 3.5 million (very pro-gun activist). I choose 2.5 million as inbetween. Would you prefer 1.5 million? 1 million? That's still substantially higher than the number of gun shootings.

Those 3 cities I stated, no guns period. (Im pretty sure, I haven't studied their local ordinances completely)

From that page:



Believed? This is what makes such things highly subjective, especially since you sound like more of a hero to say that you prevented a crime.

I'm sure there are in fact many cases where this happens just as you say they do, but I just don't see how it's possible to collect any reliable stats. It's going to be primarily hearsay.

I'm not trying to be difficult on this, but it's reminding me of all the people that say they've not only seen a flying saucer, but been abducted and returned as well. Sure, it's possible, but just not confirmable.

Oh, yes you are. That's why this is so much fun. You're being difficult but reasonable, I'm being difficult but reasonable. Neither of us are going (slobber, slobber) guns are bad/good (slobber)

Anywhoo..

"used" does not necessarily mean fired. Someone breaks into my home, I take it for granted they are going to harm me and my family. I don't assume they'll by happy w/ my DVD player. Not w/ today's criminal.

It might just be ours are nastier than yours. :)

Honestly have no idea...

Okay, so it's just one of those colloquialisms. Gotcha.

Haven't seen any but drug/gun smugglers being caught were on the news regularly when I lived in San Diego. That's one thing I'll have to research.

I actually find it pretty odd that there would even be much of a market for gun smugglers there, since compared to what I'm used to, guns are everywhere.

Your populace and some local gov'ts has had the sense to keep it in check. I seem to recall a fiasco over a nat'l register that went way overbudget and some local gov't's refused to support it.

Ah yes, that pissed everybody off.

To those that aren't aware, Canada doesn't currently have a national gun registry. One was proposed a while back, and was eventually funded. It cost waaaaaaaaaaay more money (several times the quoted price) by the time we shut it down, and it was never really implemented.

This was less of a flaw with the system than completely inept administration. But it has left a pretty foul taste in Canada's mouth for trying it again anytime soon.

As for local governments, our provinces don't run like states do. They can't run counter to anything that's been setup federally. But you're right, several provincial governments pointed out in no uncertain terms that they didn't like the idea of the registry, and that criticism only got louder and more pronounced as the stupid thing was bungled. As criticism should be - pointed in the direction of things that are screwed up. ;)

Less people dying is good. The majority of deaths from firearms occur in hgh density urban areas in the U.S. Most cities don't have a death/pay(week) These occur mostly in cities w/ ultra-high densities and strict gun control (i.e. Chicago, LA, Wash. D.C. )

Assuming it's true that the majority of firearm deaths occur in urban areas with strict gun control, then the obvious difference between such places in Canada and the US is that there isn't a place in Canada you could go to with lax gun control, pick up such a firearm, and head to the more tightly restricted places.

But in the US, because it's not a consistant standard, any place can fall victim when guns + travel to and from a less controlled place is possible. Interesting.

So assuming my conclusion is true, what to do about it? Tighten control to match those of whichever of those cities has the most stringent restriction on firearms, or open up the entire country to whatever the loosest regulation is?

Those 3 cities I stated, no guns period. (Im pretty sure, I haven't studied their local ordinances completely)

Chicago is no handguns. Long guns are to be locked etc. The CPD are to the point that when they stop people on the interstate they will confiscate a locked handgun that is being legally transported.

LA is effectively no guns. DC is no handguns definate (not sure on long guns have to look that up)

Gun ownership and possession are basic human rights:

Not yet accepted by even your own country, nevermind the world at large. Or by me! :D

Like I've said about the statistic before... it's been reported as 80,000 defensive gun uses (from a marked anti-gun/pro-ban activist) to 3.5 million (very pro-gun activist). I choose 2.5 million as inbetween. Would you prefer 1.5 million? 1 million? That's still substantially higher than the number of gun shootings.

I just don't see how it's empirically possible to collect such stats with any measure of veracity.

Those 3 cities I stated, no guns period. (Im pretty sure, I haven't studied their local ordinances completely)

Wow, there sure is a lot of variation for important things down there in the States. :)

Oh, yes you are. That's why this is so much fun. You're being difficult but reasonable, I'm being difficult but reasonable. Neither of us are going (slobber, slobber) guns are bad/good (slobber)

No no no, I'm not being difficult. I'm being... firm. Stalwart. <insert positive-sounding synonym for stubborn here>. ;)

"used" does not necessarily mean fired. Someone breaks into my home, I take it for granted they are going to harm me and my family. I don't assume they'll by happy w/ my DVD player. Not w/ today's criminal.

I realize what you mean, but like I said in my previous reply I just don't see how that's even a statistic that you can collect with any measure of accuracy. So I'm going to disregard it entirely.

Again, not to be difficult, but it seems like such a subjective thing to me.

It might just be ours are nastier than yours. :)

There's a thought! Clearly you don't hug your children enough before you tell them that not everybody grows up to be an astronaut. ;)

Chicago is no handguns. Long guns are to be locked etc. The CPD are to the point that when they stop people on the interstate they will confiscate a locked handgun that is being legally transported.

LA is effectively no guns. DC is no handguns definate (not sure on long guns have to look that up)

LA? Really?

Sheesh, I had no idea! Certainly not the impression I had!

LA? Really?

Sheesh, I had no idea! Certainly not the impression I had!
well... effectively no legal guns... does that fit better with the impression you had?

But in the US, because it's not a consistant standard, any place can fall victim when guns + travel to and from a less controlled place is possible. Interesting.

So assuming my conclusion is true, what to do about it? Tighten control to match those of whichever of those cities has the most stringent restriction on firearms, or open up the entire country to whatever the loosest regulation is?

Most states (37) have some form of concealed carry. They have all had reductions in gun crime.

The three cities in case tightened their measures and crime increased. It became a measure of disarming the law abiders and leaving the criminals armed.

There are laws on the books. Many of which I support. What they need to do is enforce the laws they have now w/o further infringement on LAC rights.

Chicago went from regulation, registration, confiscation and is now following the UK's policy of cameras. DC is just FUBAR. They have no clue. Their court actually ruled the police are not obligated to protect you. Must be the bad Karma overflowing from the politicians. :)

well... effectively no legal guns... does that fit better with the impression you had?

No actually. I didn't know there was much in the way of restrictions in California at all.

No actually. I didn't know there was much in the way of restrictions in California at all.
Local governments often have much tighter restrictions than on the state level.

No no no, I'm not being difficult. I'm being... firm. Stalwart. <insert positive-sounding synonym for stubborn here>. ;)





See there you go, being difficult again. :)

Most states (37) have some form of concealed carry. They have all had reductions in gun crime.

The three cities in case tightened their measures and crime increased. It became a measure of disarming the law abiders and leaving the criminals armed.

There are laws on the books. Many of which I support. What they need to do is enforce the laws they have now w/o further infringement on LAC rights.

I'm not sure what LAC means offhand, I'm sorry. :P

I was basically saying that perhaps the difference between Canada and the US is that there is no consistant legislation on guns. So even if Chicago has tight gun laws (cities can really do that, eh?) you can just go to Detroit, pick up a piece, and drive easily over to Chicago and do your thing.

Chicago went from regulation, registration, confiscation and is now following the UK's policy of cameras. DC is just FUBAR. They have no clue. Their court actually ruled the police are not obligated to protect you. Must be the bad Karma overflowing from the politicians. :)

So what's left for the police to do, exactly? Daffy buggers.

I forget which comedian said it, although I suspect it might have been Chris Rock. Whoever it was, they said "Want to see gun control laws? Remove the metal detectors at the white house / senate." ;)

Local governments often have much tighter restrictions than on the state level.

Incredible! And yet somehow the entire manages to function. I'm at a loss to say how. Is this really the country that brought us McDonald's, where no matter where you are the plastic seats and menu are the same? ;)

See there you go, being difficult again. :)

Until I get some sleep, I'm going to stick with my "maple-makes-us-more-peaceful-towards-our-fellow-humans" theory.

With that, the only difficult part is waiting for the sap to boil. ;)

But you're wrong, so wrong.

Here in Canada, just try and get a handgun. This doesn't apply to criminals of course. Somehow us defenseless citizens end up with a way lower murder rate than you guys with all the guns for "protection". Explain it if you can.

All I'm saying is that you guys have easy access to guns NOW and you seem to be LESS safe than those of us from places with tighter restrictions. Don't you see that?

Look, you and me have touched upon the underlying reasons before. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem. Overall crime wise, The USA is comparable to anywhere else in the world(except Japan where crime is scarce). In fact, overall crime wise the USa has less crime than most of Europe.

where America takes the blowout lead(amongst industrialised countries) is murder and rape.

Regarding rape I have no answer, except that reporting and statistical collection methods differ between countries. Whether this accounts for the differance or not, I have NO IDEA.

With regards to murder.
If you are of any race other than black, the murder rate in the USA is no differant than in the UK, France or Germany. What does this mean? I dont know, but I am not black so I have no more fear of of being killed than if I was living here or in the UK or France or wherever. In fact, while I have a similar level of murder fear, I have less fear of overall victimization than those in Europe.

So, what does this this have to do with guns? Well, it seams pretty clear to me. There are countries with more gun ownership yet less crime. there are countries with less ownership and more crime. There are even demographics in this country that are on both side of the gun ownership and crime issues.

To me this means that gun ownership is not a significant determinate factor with regards to crime. So maybe we should be looking at more important things instead of focusing on whether guns cause crime. I mean, the goalisnt to block guns, the goal is to reduce crime. Right?

I'm not sure what LAC means offhand, I'm sorry. :P

I was basically saying that perhaps the difference between Canada and the US is that there is no consistant legislation on guns. So even if Chicago has tight gun laws (cities can really do that, eh?) you can just go to Detroit, pick up a piece, and drive easily over to Chicago and do your thing.



So what's left for the police to do, exactly? Daffy buggers.

I forget which comedian said it, although I suspect it might have been Chris Rock. Whoever it was, they said "Want to see gun control laws? Remove the metal detectors at the white house / senate." ;)

Sorry LAC=Law Abiding Citizen

The police there pretty much refuse to go into the seedier areas of DC. They protect the politicians from unruly school groups/tourists.

Incredible! And yet somehow the entire manages to function. I'm at a loss to say how. Is this really the country that brought us McDonald's, where no matter where you are the plastic seats and menu are the same? ;)

True but Mcdonalds is a Corporation, not a country (yet). I think it was R Heinlein that said "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committe/beaurocracy"

The general rule is local gov'ts can make stricter laws than the feds (as long as they don't violate the constitution) but can't make them more lax. The thing w/ gun control is that the Supreme Court has never accepted a case that deals w/ the state regulations in regard to the 2nd amendment.

Until I get some sleep, I'm going to stick with my "maple-makes-us-more-peaceful-towards-our-fellow-humans" theory.

With that, the only difficult part is waiting
the sap to boil. ;)

So you admit that you're a bunch of saps!?

You didn't read any of the 100+ pages in this thread did you?

As a matter of fact, I did.

Gun ownership and possession are basic human rights:
Humans have the right to self defense.
Guns are a tool of self defense.

More like 'shoot now' and worry about the consequences later. Dumb cowboy movies. XP

Guns are designed for things other than killing. Smith and Wesson Model 52 is designed for the sole purpose of target shooting. It shoots bullets called wad cutters. Wad cutters do significanly less bodily damage than a standard round. They do however cut nice clean holes in paper targets.

Point.

Deaths from gun shots are not absolutes... not even close. More often than not people survive from gun shot wounds.

Again, true. But the dangers of having them regardless is immense. How can one be sure they will not find their way into the wrong hands? People are easily moved by other's plights, regardless of how insane they can get. I know I am.

Just some thoughts.

- Asylum Nova

Look, you and me have touched upon the underlying reasons before. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem. Overall crime wise, The USA is comparable to anywhere else in the world(except Japan where crime is scarce). In fact, overall crime wise the USa has less crime than most of Europe.

where America takes the blowout lead(amongst industrialised countries) is murder and rape.

If America has a violence problem, then do you really want guns as easily available as they are to people with such a problem?

Regarding rape I have no answer, except that reporting and statistical collection methods differ between countries. Whether this accounts for the differance or not, I have NO IDEA.

I'm not sure what to do about reducing rape rates either, frankly. Other than telling people to grab the nuts, pull them as far as they'll go, and while they're stretched out to punch them really hard. Then run. ;)

With regards to murder.
If you are of any race other than black, the murder rate in the USA is no differant than in the UK, France or Germany. What does this mean? I dont know, but I am not black so I have no more fear of of being killed than if I was living here or in the UK or France or wherever. In fact, while I have a similar level of murder fear, I have less fear of overall victimization than those in Europe.

Is the murder rate truly linked to skin colour there, or is it linked to the economic level the victims and perpetrators are at, and that black people make up a fair percentage of the low-income earners?

To me this means that gun ownership is not a significant determinate factor with regards to crime. So maybe we should be looking at more important things instead of focusing on whether guns cause crime. I mean, the goalisnt to block guns, the goal is to reduce crime. Right?

My goal is to reduce people dying. And while it would be great to identify and deal with the social issues, reducing or better regulating the means by which such things happens can happen much faster, and then be relaxed when the underlying causes are dealt with.

Like I've said a few times, I've got no problem with people owning whatever weapons they want. It's when they're willing to use them against people that I get concerned.

Though i consider the idea that civilians should be allowed to possess military weapons ludicrous, I agree in full that civilians have a right (and responsibility) to own weapons.

The reasoning is simple:

If enough people have guns, the republicans will never be able to send the secret police out for a "knock in the night."

Sorry LAC=Law Abiding Citizen

Gah, all of this jargon. I'm going to start speaking in 10-codes in a minute. :P

The police there pretty much refuse to go into the seedier areas of DC. They protect the politicians from unruly school groups/tourists.

Don't the politicians keep their own bodyguards to protect them? All of those entourages can't be aides and concubines and such, can they? Some of those big burly buggers must be bodyguards.

True but Mcdonalds is a Corporation, not a country (yet). I think it was R Heinlein that said "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committe/beaurocracy"

Yes it was, and it's a beautiful quote. :)

The general rule is local gov'ts can make stricter laws than the feds (as long as they don't violate the constitution) but can't make them more lax. The thing w/ gun control is that the Supreme Court has never accepted a case that deals w/ the state regulations in regard to the 2nd amendment.

That's the federal supreme court you're talking about I assume, not whatever you call your individual state's supreme court, right?

And so states can make stricter laws than the feds... and cities and towns can follow that same pattern?

Again, true. But the dangers of having them regardless is immense. How can one be sure they will not find their way into the wrong hands? People are easily moved by other's plights, regardless of how insane they can get. I know I am.

Just some thoughts.

- Asylum Nova

Define "immense" . I've been around guns my entire life,spent 9 years in the military, and presently own several guns. Neither myself nor any member of my family has ever been harmed by a gun. I have used a gun in self defense. Nobody was hurt. The thief surrendered when he saw my w/ a pistol.

I have one friend who was hurt by a firearm. The dumbass didn't check to see if it was loaded and shot himself in the leg. (w/ a .22) Ironically, had it been a larger round, he would have been fine. Since it was so small, it bounced off a bone and cut an artery. He lost the leg. He now travels the state giving gun SAFETY lectures and still actively target shoots.

I know a lot more people who have been hurt in farming/driving accidents and they also own guns.

As to how can you be sure? You can't. The only definate things are death and taxes.

So you admit that you're a bunch of saps!?

It's a bit of a sticky situation I've got myself into I see. :P

Gah, all of this jargon. I'm going to start speaking in 10-codes in a minute. :P



Don't the politicians keep their own bodyguards to protect them? All of those entourages can't be aides and concubines and such, can they? Some of those big burly buggers must be bodyguards.

Secret Sevice agents. All the rest are lackeys (aides and concubines and such).

Yes it was, and it's a beautiful quote. :)



That's the federal supreme court you're talking about I assume, not whatever you call your individual state's supreme court, right?

And so states can make stricter laws than the feds... and cities and towns can follow that same pattern?

Yes and yes. As long as they don't violate the constituition.

It's a bit of a sticky situation I've got myself into I see. :P

And w/ that groan inducing pun, I'm off to sleep.

Secret Sevice agents. All the rest are lackeys (aides and concubines and such).

Ah, I forgot about the unfortunately acronymed SS. :)

Yes and yes. As long as they don't violate the constituition.

And, presumably, federal statutes.

There are many complicated layers to American society that aren't readily apparent to an untrained Canadian eye. ;)

And w/ that groan inducing pun, I'm off to sleep.

It could have been worse, I could have launched into fish puns.

Here, have this bouquet of flounders to make up for it. ;)

Is the murder rate truly linked to skin colour there, or is it linked to the economic level the victims and perpetrators are at, and that black people make up a fair percentage of the low-income earners?
.

While I am sure hat poverty rates play a significant role, I think the more significant factor is the victim mentality in certain segments of American society. I am way out on a limb here, but it is what I think, right or wrong. There are a whole slew of political "leaders" who make their living by telling people that they are victims. Telling people that no matter what they do they will still be victims. Is it any surprise when these so called "victims" decide to act outside the laws of society?

Honestly, if you grow up being told that despite how you do in school you will never be part of mainstream society, will you then be willing to be a responsible member of society?

edit: as to your point, , YES it is linked to skin color. I dont think it is linked to black people from other countries such as Africa, but it is pertinent to black people that grew up here. Skin color isnt the exact factor, culture is. Black people here are repeatedly told by their leaders(eg al sharpton/jessee jackson) that they are viewed as second rate. What type of impact do you think this will have on someone growing up? This isnt the message that Martin Luther King espoused. It is the message that scumbags exploiting race for their own gain use.

That's like saying that if you publish your phone number, you'll be automatically harassed and targeted for telephone fraud.

If you have a $15000 anything that's easily portable and you keep it at home, you'd better have a damn secure place for it, or you're being a bit foolish, imho.

So what? That doesn't negate my point.


And, frankly, I'd like to see just about anything that the federal government (yours or mine) keeps tabs on available publicly. It might be pure drudgery to know how many people have licensed red 1999 Dodge Neons, but I'd want the option. I'd really like to see transparency be the default, and some justification given for why something is kept confidential.


You're nuts. Nobody owes you a reason for keeping secrets from you.


Obviously I wouldn't want to apply this to things such as medical histories or those that are the victims of crimes, or anything that could adversely affect you if it wasn't your fault.

Why not? Wouldn't you like to know if your neighboor's psychotic? Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate, but why aren't you more consistant in your hatred of privacy?


I would want to include anything that the IRS (that's the only taxation department you have, right?) has on you. I've never understood why it's such a touchy subject how much money you make.

I should probably add at this point that the above opinion is very atypical for a Canadian - we're traditionally very privacy-oriented, much more so than you folks to the south.

Thank God.

I'm not sure what LAC means offhand, I'm sorry. :P

I was basically saying that perhaps the difference between Canada and the US is that there is no consistant legislation on guns. So even if Chicago has tight gun laws (cities can really do that, eh?) you can just go to Detroit, pick up a piece, and drive easily over to Chicago and do your thing.


What cities can do depends on what their state's laws. Cities in Arizona aren't allowed to ban handgun carry. The city of Tempe, where the Presidential debates where just held, had a ban in the area near the ASU campus, but it was struck down. Although, state law bans guns on the campus itself.

If America has a violence problem, then do you really want guns as easily available as they are to people with such a problem?


What I want is irrelevant, the people with a penchant for violence and lawlessness will find a find a way to arm themselves. The question is whether the law abiding people hwo only want to protect themselves will be able to do so or become victims.

I can see the thought of such information being publicly available has gone right up your nose. lol

Frankly I can't see the harm in people knowing. You ought to know what your government knows about you, after all.

Sure, I don't have a problem knowing what the government has in my "file", but I don't like the idea of someone in New York going through my records, "just because". If it's only me that has access to whatever is listed, I'm okay with that. But then again, I don't like the government having much of ANY information about me or my life.

Yup, having my life publicly available for everyone to see bugs the crap out of me. If I wanted that kind of fame, I would have gone into acting, music, or politics.

If there's no victim or potential victim (just because you didn't hit anybody when you firing your homemade mortar at the schoolyard doesn't mean you're innocent), makes no sense to jail you. Perhaps a fine if you were annoying enough.

It'll save you guys a fortune too, although I don't know how much cheaper those private prisons can keep people in for.

You're preaching to the choir (at least as far as I'm concerned) on this topic, Wild.

Ah, this is what I sort of thought the default condition is. When you said that people could get it started, I was surprised. :)

So how does one go about being a SIG if you don't have deep pockets? ;)

Ya make one: The NRA and the Brady Campaign, for examples. You get enough people together, collect enough money, and hire lobbyists. That's how it tends to get done at the state and federal levels.

And as for a criminal choosing to bypass a house with guns... many people in this thread have said that they don't advertise that they're armed, and would rather carry concealed than carry openly. How's a criminal supposed to know whether a house is armed or not? Zaxon could explain this better than me, since he's the one that introduced me to it.


You don't. The point is to get the idea of firearms ownership back to being "okay", so the ownership actually becomes pervasive enough to where criminals would actually have to take the potential of someone owning a firearm into account, before breaking in to a house.


You say "Places here in the US have shown statistically that an increase in legal gun ownership reduces violent crime.", but what about the US as a whole? Does this work overall, or only in a few places?


It's worked everywhere that gun laws have been relaxed, or where the government "allowed" people to carry concealed. It's the places that keep restricting ownership and carrying ability that are experiencing the increases, and bringing the average up.


1. You're right, guns are not an underlying cause of crime or murder. But they seem to be the instrument of choice for commiting murder. Physical things you can legislate nearly instantly. Social change takes longer. When the social change has taken effect, hand out guns to kids on their first day of school if your people have got to the point where that's safe. Until that happy day, something's got to be done in the meantime to reduce the body count.

But it doesn't work like that--When something has been banned for a long period of time, it's taboo to bring in back. You get rid of guns it might be permanently. I'm not willing to risk something like that.

Hmmmm. How practical is it to bring suit against someone in this case? Like.. against the military for secret bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam era?

I was unaware that you as citizens there had a shot at taking someone in (or formerly in) office for something they did.
Yes, sort of. Provided you can point to a specific person or group, yes, you can. What happens is that an ALIVE aggrieved party (ie: Japanese Americans interned in camps during WW2) can make a case and the government will pay to shut them up. They're still alive, they are CITIZENS, and someone definitely gave the order to have them "rounded up".

Now, if the plaintiffs (or wronged party) is dead, and/or so is the defendant, it's no longer a legal matter and the case is groundless/dead as well.

This is why, BTW, there will never be "slavery reparations" in the US. Not only are the slaves dead, but they weren’t citizens of the US while they were enslaved.

Now, as for the military question:
Foreigners have no right to sue our military. Nor yours, for that matter. Even if they *did* it would be a World Court matter, where US law wouldn't (mostly) apply.
Issues like say, a rape in Okinawa is normally resolved by the host country (Japan, in that case) asking for them to be reprimanded or turned over, which happens depending on the case.
Secret bombings in Cambodia? You would have no case, as you’re not a representative of Cambodia. The world can’t be tried on your conscience. :)
If Cambodian Government could prove it happened, then they might be able to do something about it. Given the Khmer Rouge, I doubt you’ll have any evidence… and even if they did, you’d also need a specific US Government group or person to prosecute in World Court. Good luck on that one! *And* you’d need to World Court to say it was illegal, which would be a shady issue at best.
I’d bet on it never making it to trial.

Yes. I believe he has a right to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They kill people. They kill animals. They are used in war. There is aboslutely no benefit for guns. Even when testing drugs on rats...though I still don't like it...at least there is benefit in finding cures by doing such. But guns...all they can do is kill.

- Asylum Nova

Then you don't have a clue about firearms. Ever shot one? Yeah, they kill animals, but guess what? HUMANS ARE OMNIVORES. I'd rather take an animal out as quickly and painlessly as possible, than to run it down and stab it ten times, and watch it bleed to death. Or worse, set a trap and have its leg be broken and have it die from exposure and dehydration.

They're also used for sport--target shooting is an olympic sport--accepted the world over.

You get more self-defense uses where a bullet is NOT fired than fired, and still stops a crime.

Just because you don't approve of hunting and don't feel like defending yourself in the most efficient way possible doesn't give you the right to limit someone else's right to do so.

No actually. I didn't know there was much in the way of restrictions in California at all.

Dear god! They're one of the worst states for regulation. They have a list of legal handguns that can be purchased in the state. If it's not on the list, you can't have it--doesn't even matter if it's just a newer model replacing another.

For instance, the Dan Wesson Razorback. Nifty name, however, it's just a 1911 style pistol that shoots 10mm rounds, instead of .45 rounds. And you can't have one in Cali. Same capacity in number of rounds (7 or 8)--only difference is caliber--and the 10mm is a smaller bullet!

They have the most wacked laws there.

But the dangers of having them regardless is immense.
- Asylum Nova

No they're not. They're blown completely out of proportion by the sensationalist media outlets.

Pretty much everyone in my extended families own a firearm of some sort. They have yet to have ANY issues with a firearm.

It's a bit of a sticky situation I've got myself into I see. :P



THE PAIN!!!!



$&%ing editing tools.... :mad:

What cities can do depends on what their state's laws. Cities in Arizona aren't allowed to ban handgun carry. The city of Tempe, where the Presidential debates where just held, had a ban in the area near the ASU campus, but it was struck down. Although, state law bans guns on the campus itself.

We've only recently (about 5 years ago) got *state* gun permits here in Connecticut. Before that, you had to have a town license!
My town (which I won't name here) had this process:
1) Take a gun safety class
2) Fill out the paperwork, notarize it, etc.
3) Come down to the station to get fingerprinted.
4) Wait for the Chief of Police to review your paperwork, and sign off or decline it. The law said no more than 2 months. In reality, some applications sat for nearly 2 years. Mine took 3 months.
During this process, the Police of my town can go talk to your family & neighbors to see "if you were the type of person who should have a gun". Imagine!!

These days, it is much better. You do have to get the town permit, but only to get the state license. And all the police to besides the fingerprinting is check to see if you have a record. If not, your license is issued in 2 months.

Everyone I know at the range and the police officers I know said that the old "town license" laws would never have been scrapped had the Republicans not taken the governorship in 95' for the first time since '80.

I found this short quote in a book full of things famous people have said; "One day our neighborhoods will be safe as the police will strictly patrol them, and guns will no longer be on any streets.."...Adolf Hitler.
"One day our government will have all our kids on Ritalin, and try to take away our guns."..Pentagon official autobiograpy written in the eighties.


Remember, brothers, Fear the Government whom Fears your Guns!

While I am sure hat poverty rates play a significant role, I think the more significant factor is the victim mentality in certain segments of American society. I am way out on a limb here, but it is what I think, right or wrong. There are a whole slew of political "leaders" who make their living by telling people that they are victims. Telling people that no matter what they do they will still be victims. Is it any surprise when these so called "victims" decide to act outside the laws of society?

Well, kind of. I'm unfamiliar with this mindset, but since you asked me I'd say that offhand I'd expect that anybody who buys in to the idea that they're a victim would just roll over and take it. I'd hope that people don't buy into it when others tell them that they're victims.

Honestly, if you grow up being told that despite how you do in school you will never be part of mainstream society, will you then be willing to be a responsible member of society?

I really don't know. Probably, because I'm stubborn enough and contrary enough to want not stay in the mold that others have cast me in.

edit: as to your point, , YES it is linked to skin color. I dont think it is linked to black people from other countries such as Africa, but it is pertinent to black people that grew up here. Skin color isnt the exact factor, culture is. Black people here are repeatedly told by their leaders(eg al sharpton/jessee jackson) that they are viewed as second rate. What type of impact do you think this will have on someone growing up? This isnt the message that Martin Luther King espoused. It is the message that scumbags exploiting race for their own gain use.

Again, I just really don't know. I don't know of any comparable leaders here, so I don't have a feel for the effects these demagogues have on people.

You're nuts. Nobody owes you a reason for keeping secrets from you.

Why not? Wouldn't you like to know if your neighboor's psychotic? Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate, but why aren't you more consistant in your hatred of privacy?

Hmmmm, I think I may have misrepresented myself somewhat.

I'm talking about whatever your government knows about you, you should know as well.

Then, assuming that happened, I was sort of speculating on making all of that information open and available by default to everybody, unless the people (as a whole, not individuals) decide that a particular type of information shouldn't be open. Also, things that are currently considered confidential probably wouldn't lose that status.

To expand on that last point, whoever you register with when you get a firearms permit (that's at the state level only, right?) doesn't so much keep it confidential as they simply don't have anything in place to make such information available. I don't think it's considered protected information, is it?

Personal medical information is currently considered confidential however, in a way that firearms registry (or car ownership, or whatever) isn't.

I don't know if I'm clarifying things here or not. :P

However, I think you mischaracterize me when you say I hate privacy. I hate nothing of the sort, and I currently enjoy a wider range of privacies that you guys do. And I would prefer to keep them rather than lose them.

However, I don't think things have to be automatically private. An example:

When you're out at a restaurant and you're talking to your dinner companion, you tend to feel quite free in doing so, despite being surrounded by other people.

I myself, as I'm sure you can, can easily hear what diners around me are saying, without even paying any attention to them. I've heard all sorts of snippets of things, often of a fairly personal nature.

So why then if someone is going to speak in a place where they can (and will) be easily overheard, would the same person be upset if someone who overheard them speaking in a public place later dictated the contents of the innocently overheard conversation into their blog, for all to see?

Similarly, if you have a car of a particular type and colour and you drive it around in public, get into and out of it in public... where's the problem with the fact that you own such a car being made publicly available?

If you legally own a firearm and you take it to the range (where you may not know everybody), people are going to see you have a gun. Where's the problem with making that already-known-by-many fact more totally public?

Understand I'm just speculating, I'm not proposing that all the databases be flung open to any and all. As I said when this first came up, I said "I'd be interested in seeing something like this..." or words to that effect.

Well, kind of. I'm unfamiliar with this mindset, but since you asked me I'd say that offhand I'd expect that anybody who buys in to the idea that they're a victim would just roll over and take it. I'd hope that people don't buy into it when others tell them that they're victims.


Unfortunately, they do. That's one of the main reasons why we have so much litigation in the US--people think they've been victimized and are owed something. :mad: We are a nation of victims. People have to learn that they have to work for things, instead of getting that windfall in some law suit. Doesn't stop me from buying the occasional lottery ticket, though. :D I could handle that particular type of windfall.


I really don't know. Probably, because I'm stubborn enough and contrary enough to want not stay in the mold that others have cast me in.


Always a good thing, in my opinion.

What cities can do depends on what their state's laws. Cities in Arizona aren't allowed to ban handgun carry. The city of Tempe, where the Presidential debates where just held, had a ban in the area near the ASU campus, but it was struck down. Although, state law bans guns on the campus itself.

And what do you think about the law restricting people from exercising their second amendment rights on the campus? Do students, professors, and anybody else have less of a right to bear arms than others?

And what do you think about the law restricting people from exercising their second amendment rights on the campus? Do students, professors, and anybody else have less of a right to bear arms than others?
but schools do have the rights to ban guns on their property for safety sake, private area, not public

And what do you think about the law restricting people from exercising their second amendment rights on the campus? Do students, professors, and anybody else have less of a right to bear arms than others?

Can't answer for Battery, but I don't think they have any less of a right to bear arms there.

However, ask the students and faculty, and most seem to be just fine not being able to carry on campus....colleges seem to be liberal bastions. :D

What I want is irrelevant, the people with a penchant for violence and lawlessness will find a find a way to arm themselves. The question is whether the law abiding people hwo only want to protect themselves will be able to do so or become victims.

What you want is most certainly not irrelevant.

And when you were describing the victim mentality in an earlier post, this is what a victim mentality sounds like to me: "people with a penchant for violence and lawlessness will find a way to arm themselves..." which leaves unsaid but clearly indicates the thought "and there's nothing we can do about it so why try?".

Let me ask you a question, and yes I'm going to compare you to Canada again. Bear with me, eh? ;)

Instead of having such uneven standards for something as important as this, how would you feel about a blanket law/judgement about gun ownership, restrictions, the works?

So that whether you're in California or New York, Arizona or Maine things would be the same?

I understand that in reality, most of you would either find the conditions you're used to locally changing for the better or for the worse. For purposes of this question, assume that you get whatever conditions are most favourable for yourself.

but schools do have the rights to ban guns on their property for safety sake, private area, not public

Yah, for safety's sake. Think of the children! I really hate that fallback.

It's not a private area--at least publicly funded universities aren't.

What you want is most certainly not irrelevant.

And when you were describing the victim mentality in an earlier post, this is what a victim mentality sounds like to me: "people with a penchant for violence and lawlessness will find a way to arm themselves..." which leaves unsaid but clearly indicates the thought "and there's nothing we can do about it so why try?".

Let me ask you a question, and yes I'm going to compare you to Canada again. Bear with me, eh? ;)

Instead of having such uneven standards for something as important as this, how would you feel about a blanket law/judgement about gun ownership, restrictions, the works?

So that whether you're in California or New York, Arizona or Maine things would be the same?

I understand that in reality, most of you would either find the conditions you're used to locally changing for the better or for the worse. For purposes of this question, assume that you get whatever conditions are most favourable for yourself.


I kind of like the blanket statement in the second amendment--no restrictions.

Sure, I don't have a problem knowing what the government has in my "file", but I don't like the idea of someone in New York going through my records, "just because". If it's only me that has access to whatever is listed, I'm okay with that. But then again, I don't like the government having much of ANY information about me or my life.

Yup, having my life publicly available for everyone to see bugs the crap out of me. If I wanted that kind of fame, I would have gone into acting, music, or politics.

Ah, so what I meant did come out somewhat clearly. That's good. I was worried I was raving incoherently instead of raving somewhat clearly. ;)

However, a post or two ago I tried to expand on my reasoning for someone in New York being able to know what car you drive despite you being in a different state and them not knowing you, for instance.

Just out of curiousity, are you listed in whatever passes for your local phone book/directory? Here that can include not just your name and phone number, but your street address, mailing address, postal code, etc.

You're preaching to the choir (at least as far as I'm concerned) on this topic, Wild.

Even though I don't think the right to bear arms is one of them, some things are universal. ;)

Ya make one: The NRA and the Brady Campaign, for examples. You get enough people together, collect enough money, and hire lobbyists. That's how it tends to get done at the state and federal levels.

lol

You guys suck sometimes. ;) This is an example of where it could only be considered personal defense if you discharged your weapon several times into someone who's a hired lobbyist. :P

Just out of curiousity, are you listed in whatever passes for your local phone book/directory? Here that can include not just your name and phone number, but your street address, mailing address, postal code, etc.

No, sir. I specifically do what I can to keep me out of the phone book, on do-not-call-lists, etc.

lol

You guys suck sometimes. ;) This is an example of where it could only be considered personal defense if you discharged your weapon several times into someone who's a hired lobbyist. :P

Once again, preaching to the choir.

You don't. The point is to get the idea of firearms ownership back to being "okay", so the ownership actually becomes pervasive enough to where criminals would actually have to take the potential of someone owning a firearm into account, before breaking in to a house.

Ack, I feel like it's something I can almost see, but not quite. You guys have as many guns per household as we do. But we're not getting shot as much nor are we having to shoot to defend ourselves in our homes. AND property crime (mostly car theft) is somewhat higher on average than the average in the US. So what's the key difference here? Why aren't the guns you already are allowed to own (because there's no place that says you can't own a gun, is there? I think someone mentioned that even in places like DC and Chicago and such that's just a ban on carrying, not ownership, right?) acting as a deterant?

It's worked everywhere that gun laws have been relaxed, or where the government "allowed" people to carry concealed. It's the places that keep restricting ownership and carrying ability that are experiencing the increases, and bringing the average up.

<shakes head ruefully> Maybe that other poster was right when he said that perhaps America has a problem with violence. Because we get by fine with the restrictions on carrying ability, but you tell me that it's the places in the US that curtail carrying that have the higher incident rates. What am I to think?

But it doesn't work like that--When something has been banned for a long period of time, it's taboo to bring in back. You get rid of guns it might be permanently. I'm not willing to risk something like that.

Again, I don't don't don't want to ban. Trying to keep all the factors you guys have brought up straight in my head is like herding cats, I swear. :P

Yes, sort of. Provided you can point to a specific person or group, yes, you can. What happens is that an ALIVE aggrieved party (ie: Japanese Americans interned in camps during WW2) can make a case and the government will pay to shut them up. They're still alive, they are CITIZENS, and someone definitely gave the order to have them "rounded up".

No no, that's not what I meant at all. I'm not talking about some sort of civil suit in which you get a payoff in the end, I'm talking about bringing criminal charges against either the government as a whole, a department, or an individual who was in office when the events took place.

Is that possible?

Now, if the plaintiffs (or wronged party) is dead, and/or so is the defendant, it's no longer a legal matter and the case is groundless/dead as well.

This is reasonable, unless descendants or heirs of the wronged party is still suffering effects from what happened originally.

This is why, BTW, there will never be "slavery reparations" in the US. Not only are the slaves dead, but they weren’t citizens of the US while they were enslaved.

Personally, I don't think the citizenship should make any difference, but if there's nobody around who's been a slave, then there don't seem to be anybody to make reparations to. This seems reasonable on the face of it.

Foreigners have no right to sue our military. Nor yours, for that matter. Even if they *did* it would be a World Court matter, where US law wouldn't (mostly) apply.

Sure they do. Remember a few years ago when it turned out that Belgiam had laws on the book that let their citizens charge people in other countries with war crimes? So there was that guy that brought charges against Bush for war crimes? ;)

Of course, that law has since been amended. :)

As for the world court, you guys opted out of being a part of that. Not the best way to show that you're on the up and up about not looking to screw anybody over, in my opinion.

Secret bombings in Cambodia? You would have no case, as you’re not a representative of Cambodia. The world can’t be tried on your conscience. :)

Well, I just brought that up as an example of the sort of thing I was wondering about. I didn't mean that I personally would want to try to bring criminal charges against the US government for that. :)

Look at the voting text:

Does the goverment really have the right to ban semi-auto shotguns/rifles?

Yes. Remember: "The government" is not an evil institution on the top. It is elected by all citizens, including you (or did you vote, if not, then you don´t have a very big right to complain). They can in the long term only do what the majority of the people want, otherwise they won´t be elected again.

Ack, I feel like it's something I can almost see, but not quite. You guys have as many guns per household as we do. But we're not getting shot as much nor are we having to shoot to defend ourselves in our homes. AND property crime (mostly car theft) is somewhat higher on average than the average in the US. So what's the key difference here? Why aren't the guns you already are allowed to own (because there's no place that says you can't own a gun, is there? I think someone mentioned that even in places like DC and Chicago and such that's just a ban on carrying, not ownership, right?) acting as a deterant?


It seems that due to the puritanical nature of this country and the "dirty evilness" of firearms, we may have them, but we're never supposed to <gasp!> USE them. I don't know what's so screwed up in the general populace's head. If you're a gun owner, you're a nut of some sort. It's not "proper" to own a gun anymore. It's all perception-based control. It's the criminals using the guns violently, not the law-abiding citizen gun owner.


<shakes head ruefully> Maybe that other poster was right when he said that perhaps America has a problem with violence. Because we get by fine with the restrictions on carrying ability, but you tell me that it's the places in the US that curtail carrying that have the higher incident rates. What am I to think?


Well, I would hope you'd come to your own conclusions. :D But seriously, it's those cities and states that are adopting "progressive" laws that are having the issues. I've been saying all along, gun control in the US causes the crime rate to go up. It may not work like that in Canada, but that's how it really is here. If we're going to have a problem with violence, I would like to be able to defend myself from it.


Again, I don't don't don't want to ban. Trying to keep all the factors you guys have brought up straight in my head is like herding cats, I swear. :P

I know you don't want to ban. You want the government to regulate and control--and I understand your reasons behind wanting that. It's just not enough to counter-balance or override my freedom-hugging. :D

Look at the voting text:



Yes. Remember: "The government" is not an evil institution on the top. It is elected by all citizens, including you (or did you vote, if not, then you don´t have a very big right to complain). They can in the long term only do what the majority of the people want, otherwise they won´t be elected again.

With the current machines in place, no, individual voters can't do anything yet. They're too busy voting for the lesser of two evils. The government does control our actions at this time, we don't control it. Early on, for the first 100 years or so, we were on it, but since the Civil War, the government has been firmly in control.

Yes, government is a necessary evil--but still evil. Power corrupts, and it sure as hell shows in Washington D.C.

Dear god! They're one of the worst states for regulation. They have a list of legal handguns that can be purchased in the state. If it's not on the list, you can't have it--doesn't even matter if it's just a newer model replacing another.

For instance, the Dan Wesson Razorback. Nifty name, however, it's just a 1911 style pistol that shoots 10mm rounds, instead of .45 rounds. And you can't have one in Cali. Same capacity in number of rounds (7 or 8)--only difference is caliber--and the 10mm is a smaller bullet!

They have the most wacked laws there.

Hmmmm. Is there anything written behind the reasoning of these laws? Like, why some handguns are okay and others aren't? On the face of it, the logic eludes me.

Thanks to you btw, and everybody else, who have contributed to my education of America in this thread. ;)

My town (which I won't name here) had this process:
1) Take a gun safety class
2) Fill out the paperwork, notarize it, etc.
3) Come down to the station to get fingerprinted.
4) Wait for the Chief of Police to review your paperwork, and sign off or decline it. The law said no more than 2 months. In reality, some applications sat for nearly 2 years. Mine took 3 months.
During this process, the Police of my town can go talk to your family & neighbors to see "if you were the type of person who should have a gun". Imagine!!

To tell you the truth, this all sounds pretty reasonable. When I've had to get clearances for working at government sites or sites that do sensitive work (usually for the government as well), fingerprinting (to check if I've been convicted of a crime) isn't unusual. Note that in Canada your fingerprints aren't kept unless you've been convicted of a crime. After the check, the prints are destroyed.

And people do in fact talk to my family and friends, and former friends and associates to suss out what sort of person I am before they give me clearance. This happens every time - just because I've had the same (or other) clearance levels in the past doesn't matter.

You think that all of that is excessive before you can get a firearm? Wouldn't you prefer to know that the people licensed to own guns/carry concealed had to pass those measures rather than simply seeing if the name they give flashes up on a quick search?

These days, it is much better. You do have to get the town permit, but only to get the state license. And all the police to besides the fingerprinting is check to see if you have a record. If not, your license is issued in 2 months.

Why is this better? Forgive me if I'm being too personal, but would you have not passed the original test that you mentioned?

I found this short quote in a book full of things famous people have said; "One day our neighborhoods will be safe as the police will strictly patrol them, and guns will no longer be on any streets.."...Adolf Hitler.
"One day our government will have all our kids on Ritalin, and try to take away our guns."..Pentagon official autobiograpy written in the eighties.

Oh sheesh, another quote from Hitler.

Hitler was right, he did make the streets safe. The part that you didn't mention is that the people didn't have their guns taken away, they gave them away, and gladly. This drawn from my family and their friends (mostly dead now, unfortunately) who lived in Germany at the time.

Remember, brothers, Fear the Government whom Fears your Guns!

Fear the people that fear the government that's made up of the people.

Unfortunately, they do. That's one of the main reasons why we have so much litigation in the US--people think they've been victimized and are owed something. :mad: We are a nation of victims. People have to learn that they have to work for things, instead of getting that windfall in some law suit. Doesn't stop me from buying the occasional lottery ticket, though. :D I could handle that particular type of windfall.

I've been known to participate in the 6/49 myself. ;)

And I think you and I are on the same page, by and large, about the majority of lawsuits that get filed looking for money.

If the money they were awarded was more in line with the damages they suffered, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Or if it was paid out in a more appropriate form, such as directly paying the medical bills or replacing the car or whatever.

As for whatever excess is tacked on to "punish" the person/company being sued, that ought not to go to the plaintiff in my opinion. Require that it go to a charity of the defendant's choice, or else punish them by yanking away their license to do the sort of business that caused the problem in the first place.

but schools do have the rights to ban guns on their property for safety sake, private area, not public

I suppose. Who "owns" a school in the US that makes such areas private property?

Can't answer for Battery, but I don't think they have any less of a right to bear arms there.

However, ask the students and faculty, and most seem to be just fine not being able to carry on campus....colleges seem to be liberal bastions. :D

Isn't it interesting that centers of learning are less inclined to be on the pro-carry-anything side? Zaxon, can you open a beer with your teeth? ;)

I was just asking Battery about why schools (we're talking colleges and universities, right?) would restrict something that's legal in the area they're in.

I kind of like the blanket statement in the second amendment--no restrictions.

Damn, Mr. Jones down the block has a cruise missile in his backyard. I guess I'd better finish this implosion trigger so I can get mine in place.

Keeping up with the Joneses is going to be a bugger. :P

No, sir. I specifically do what I can to keep me out of the phone book, on do-not-call-lists, etc.

Fair enough.

I'm also not in the book, but mostly because I dropped the landline and went all-cellphone instead. Costs me less per month and I pay a flat rate for 24/7 use. We don't have phone books for cellular customers. YET. ;)

Hmmmm. Is there anything written behind the reasoning of these laws? Like, why some handguns are okay and others aren't? On the face of it, the logic eludes me.


Not really. This is why many of us react the way we do to the phrase, "gun control". These are the examples we envision--because it's happening in the US. Someone gets a bug to enhance their political career, and the make silly laws. Unfortunately, this is where Ms. Feinstein hails from--so this kind of control is "normal" to her (in case you don't know who she is, she's a senator from California that's a HUGE proponent of gun control--she's even admitted she'd like to see total bans on firearms for citizens).


Thanks to you btw, and everybody else, who have contributed to my education of America in this thread. ;)

Hey, thanks for the Canuck perspective (sorry, X-men and Wolverine comic book influences)! ;)

Fair enough.

I'm also not in the book, but mostly because I dropped the landline and went all-cellphone instead. Costs me less per month and I pay a flat rate for 24/7 use. We don't have phone books for cellular customers. YET. ;)

There's talk of it down here, too.

Damn, Mr. Jones down the block has a cruise missile in his backyard. I guess I'd better finish this implosion trigger so I can get mine in place.

Keeping up with the Joneses is going to be a bugger. :P

It already is! :D

It seems that due to the puritanical nature of this country and the "dirty evilness" of firearms, we may have them, but we're never supposed to <gasp!> USE them. I don't know what's so screwed up in the general populace's head. If you're a gun owner, you're a nut of some sort. It's not "proper" to own a gun anymore. It's all perception-based control. It's the criminals using the guns violently, not the law-abiding citizen gun owner.

Don't worry dude, you all look like nuts to those of us on the border looking into your cage. ;)

Hmmmm, puritanical. What an interesting description. And not without merit, either. I'll have to think on that and see if it adjusts my mental American model. :)

Well, I would hope you'd come to your own conclusions. :D But seriously, it's those cities and states that are adopting "progressive" laws that are having the issues. I've been saying all along, gun control in the US causes the crime rate to go up. It may not work like that in Canada, but that's how it really is here. If we're going to have a problem with violence, I would like to be able to defend myself from it.

I'm telling you, hugging your children more and consuming vast quantities of maple products will calm everybody down. ;)

I know you don't want to ban. You want the government to regulate and control--and I understand your reasons behind wanting that. It's just not enough to counter-balance or override my freedom-hugging. :D

Makes things freer for those that don't want to be shot, though. lol

Yes, government is a necessary evil--but still evil. Power corrupts, and it sure as hell shows in Washington D.C.

I'm pretty sure this came out of one of the Dune books, but no matter since I like it and I think it's closer to the truth:

"It's not that power corrupts, it's that power attracts the corruptable. And absolute power of course attracts the absolutely corruptable."

I also like that line by someone that I don't know that says "Anybody who'd run for office is clearly unfit to lead." :)

Isn't it interesting that centers of learning are less inclined to be on the pro-carry-anything side? Zaxon, can you open a beer with your teeth? ;)


I DO have a titanium post under one of my incisors, but I don't think I want to jeopardize the $2000 investment in it. :) I like bottle openers, thanks. Like I said, liberal bastions--they'll fight to do the gun-control thing.

I used to think like that when I was in college as well. I thought the government was great, trying to do everything for the populace of this nation. Then I saw what the money was being spent on. How much of my hard-earned cash was going to useless and corrupt programs.

Perspectives change when you are the one working, making a decent living, and then being forced to pay for people who don't or won't work. No one was taking anything from me when I was in college because I didn't have anything. Now that I have things of my own, I really dislike the idea of having to give them up for people that won't work for it.

Yeah, it's a generalization. And yes, not everyone who's unemployed or under-employed choose that path. And then there are those with unfortunate circumstances. I keep saying that I don't want to get rid of all government, just the wasteful 70%+ of it.



I was just asking Battery about why schools (we're talking colleges and universities, right?) would restrict something that's legal in the area they're in.

Because it's for the children....or some other emotional-based rhetoric. ;)

Not really. This is why many of us react the way we do to the phrase, "gun control". These are the examples we envision--because it's happening in the US. Someone gets a bug to enhance their political career, and the make silly laws. Unfortunately, this is where Ms. Feinstein hails from--so this kind of control is "normal" to her (in case you don't know who she is, she's a senator from California that's a HUGE proponent of gun control--she's even admitted she'd like to see total bans on firearms for citizens).

The name rang a bell, but I'm just as glad you saved me having to look her up.

Not that it would be especially practical, but do you think that if politicians weren't treated like celebrities, you'd get less of this flashy-but-empty legistlation down there?

Hey, thanks for the Canuck perspective (sorry, X-men and Wolverine comic book influences)! ;)

We call ourselves Canucks too. Sadly, we also often call ourselves "not Americans". You'd think we could find a less-negating identity. :P

There's talk of it down here, too.

It would have to be an online book, there's no way you could keep up with it on paper.

It already is! :D

And up here all we have to do is build a better bark canoe to gain status. ;)

When a sizeable chunk of your economy comes from lumber, money really does grow on trees! :D

Makes things freer for those that don't want to be shot, though. lol

Only if you're willing to play by a very restrictive set of rules. I don't think it'd work so well here, given the nature of our criminal element. But it sounds like a nice place. I could handle fewer shootings of law-abiding citizens.

And up here all we have to do is build a better bark canoe to gain status. ;)


You guys BUILD things???? We just buy them. Everything comes from the store, ya know. :D :D :D


When a sizeable chunk of your economy comes from lumber, money really does grow on trees! :D

Ours grows on cotton plants. :) At least, that's where the "paper" for our money comes from. How about Canada's? What's it made out of?

It would have to be an online book, there's no way you could keep up with it on paper.

I have no idea how they'd do it. But, yeah, it'd be quite the handful. "Here's your mobile phone PDA, with database." Oog.

Not that it would be especially practical, but do you think that if politicians weren't treated like celebrities, you'd get less of this flashy-but-empty legistlation down there?


You bet I do. Everyone seems to forget that they elected a citizen like them to the office. Those elected don't get an intelligence or morality boost from winning an election.


We call ourselves Canucks too. Sadly, we also often call ourselves "not Americans". You'd think we could find a less-negating identity. :P

We could have the common identity of being, "No longer British colonists". :D

I DO have a titanium post under one of my incisors, but I don't think I want to jeopardize the $2000 investment in it. :) I like bottle openers, thanks. Like I said, liberal bastions--they'll fight to do the gun-control thing.

What are you, some sort of cyber vampire-bot? ;)

I used to think like that when I was in college as well. I thought the government was great, trying to do everything for the populace of this nation. Then I saw what the money was being spent on. How much of my hard-earned cash was going to useless and corrupt programs.

I'm a big fan of dumping money into research of pretty much anything, since most of the discoveries or advances we now enjoy didn't come from research specifically directed at achieving that particular result, but as a totally unexpected side effect or alternate result. That's worked out pretty well for people thus far, so I'm happy to pay to continue in that vein.

I used to think that our tuitions up here were getting ridiculously high (and they are), but then I look over at your tuitions... yikes!

I'd dump more money into education generally, post secondary to drop the tuition and keep the equipment fairly up to date, as well as to offer tenure to professors. Pre secondary to make sure that all of the children in the public schools actually do get educated, and especially so they can learn how to learn.

Healthcare of course, but I know that works differently in the US.

We don't like wasting money either, but it works a bit differently here since we tend to have less of a huge surplus than you guys do. So it's easier for even an average citizen to see where most of the money goes.

On the other hand, waste of money hurts us more immediately than it does you guys.

Perspectives change when you are the one working, making a decent living, and then being forced to pay for people who don't or won't work. No one was taking anything from me when I was in college because I didn't have anything. Now that I have things of my own, I really dislike the idea of having to give them up for people that won't work for it.

Like I said before, I'm willing to pay for welfare or whatever regardless of the number of cheats as long as it means that someone who needs it can get it. Yes, work to reduce the loopholes and cheats, but never make it such than someone in geniune need can't get it.

Yeah, it's a generalization. And yes, not everyone who's unemployed or under-employed choose that path. And then there are those with unfortunate circumstances. I keep saying that I don't want to get rid of all government, just the wasteful 70%+ of it.

Wow, that is pretty wasteful. Maybe I should hire some lobbyists to bug senators to push a "Dollar Bill Drop Into Canada" program. You know, as long as you're wasting money anyway... :D

Because it's for the children....or some other emotional-based rhetoric. ;)

Children are important of course, but why do I hear Reverend Lovejoy's wife when I read that? lol

Only if you're willing to play by a very restrictive set of rules. I don't think it'd work so well here, given the nature of our criminal element. But it sounds like a nice place. I could handle fewer shootings of law-abiding citizens.

It's not la-la land, but you do worry much less about being hurt.

There's a shortage of chairs though... ;)

You guys BUILD things???? We just buy them. Everything comes from the store, ya know. :D :D :D

So I hear. That must be convenient. :P

Ours grows on cotton plants. :) At least, that's where the "paper" for our money comes from. How about Canada's? What's it made out of?

Beats me. Pressed leaves I think. We're a bit behind in technology.

I hear the Egyptians are doing interesting things with papyrus though... ;)

I have no idea how they'd do it. But, yeah, it'd be quite the handful. "Here's your mobile phone PDA, with database." Oog.

Who was it that said that you should have one number for everything? Your national ID, your phone number (both home and cellular), your license plate, etc.

NOW try to be a big old jerk! :D

It's not la-la land, but you do worry much less about being hurt.

There's a shortage of chairs though... ;)

With all that wood up there???

You bet I do. Everyone seems to forget that they elected a citizen like them to the office. Those elected don't get an intelligence or morality boost from winning an election.

I wonder how you'd actually go about changing the current perception then? Maybe by freezing the assets of whoever is elected to office for the duration of their term, then returning them afterwards with interest based on either the prime rate, or however the rate was in the area that they were in power over.

We could have the common identity of being, "No longer British colonists". :D

That might work for you, but we've got a noisy and easily-irritated "No longer France colonists" sector to consider. <sighs>

With all that wood up there???

After hauling the trees by hand through the snow, do you think we've got the strength to make furniture?!

I own a shotgun and noone will ever take it from me.

I own a shotgun and noone will ever take it from me.

You wait until you fight an electomagnet, and see how you do. lol

No no, that's not what I meant at all. I'm not talking about some sort of civil suit in which you get a payoff in the end, I'm talking about bringing criminal charges against either the government as a whole, a department, or an individual who was in office when the events took place.

Is that possible?
Bring a criminal suit against an individual might be possible, but it would take an awful lot of evidence/public outcry to do it. If you’re talking about stuff besides the Clinton impeachment or the sending of soldiers to the stockade, it is just this side of impossible.
Against the government as a whole? What did they do now?!? :o



This is reasonable, unless descendants or heirs of the wronged party is still suffering effects from what happened originally.
I don't think it matters, as long as they aren't the ones suffering. The injured must be alive, IMHO.
Otherwise, the whole world owes somebody something. I doubt the modern Egyptians or Babylonians will want to pay the Jews for several generations of servitude, eh?


Personally, I don't think the citizenship should make any difference, but if there's nobody around who's been a slave, then there don't seem to be anybody to make reparations to. This seems reasonable on the face of it.
Exactly. But that cancels out what you said above about decedents. It has to be one or the other… either you can go back in time, or you can't.


Sure they do. Remember a few years ago when it turned out that Belgiam had laws on the book that let their citizens charge people in other countries with war crimes? So there was that guy that brought charges against Bush for war crimes? ;)

Of course, that law has since been amended. :)
Right, but that was Belgian law. Non-binding in the US… Otherwise, I'd be temped to get similar legislation passed here and go after Belgium for that little tiff they had in the Congo back in the late 50's and 60's.


As for the world court, you guys opted out of being a part of that. Not the best way to show that you're on the up and up about not looking to screw anybody over, in my opinion.
Yep. True, but as we’ve debated the point before: the US government is of the opinion that the World Court at this time has yet to prove that it is worth it’s salt. The time being taken in the Sarajevo trials is not helping the WC's prestige.


Well, I just brought that up as an example of the sort of thing I was wondering about. I didn't mean that I personally would want to try to bring criminal charges against the US government for that. :)

I’m happy to hear that, as down on the US military as you usually are. ;-)

To tell you the truth, this all sounds pretty reasonable. When I've had to get clearances for working at government sites or sites that do sensitive work (usually for the government as well), fingerprinting (to check if I've been convicted of a crime) isn't unusual. Note that in Canada your fingerprints aren't kept unless you've been convicted of a crime. After the check, the prints are destroyed.

And people do in fact talk to my family and friends, and former friends and associates to suss out what sort of person I am before they give me clearance. This happens every time - just because I've had the same (or other) clearance levels in the past doesn't matter.

You think that all of that is excessive before you can get a firearm? Wouldn't you prefer to know that the people licensed to own guns/carry concealed had to pass those measures rather than simply seeing if the name they give flashes up on a quick search?

Why is this better? Forgive me if I'm being too personal, but would you have not passed the original test that you mentioned?

Up to point #4, sure, it's fine and what they still do.
That's fine for getting special or "secret" clearance. They do that here too. But not to assume your Constitutional right to own a gun. The police don't question my neighbors when I got my driver's license, or for a gathering permit.

Yes, I'm fine with it all so long as it is universal across the state. The Police Chief should never have had the power to "sit on" permits like he did before.

It's better because now, as no matter where I move to in CT I'm licensed -- I don't have to go to a new townhall within 30 days of moving into a new place to get ANOTHER town permit. It's also good for 5 years (like drivers licenses) and is a photo-id, unlike the almost "hand drawn" form they used to issue.
Further, it'd be better if every state's licenses were valid like driver's licenses are.

Bring a criminal suit against an individual might be possible, but it would take an awful lot of evidence/public outcry to do it. If you’re talking about stuff besides the Clinton impeachment or the sending of soldiers to the stockade, it is just this side of impossible.
Against the government as a whole? What did they do now?!? :o

Just feeling out the options available to you guys when you're being oppressed by your government. :)

Frankly, I'm okay with your court system - your supreme court FINALLY ruled on Canada's side that you've been illegally stopping us from selling you our wood for the past several years. It turns out it was a bid by your own lumber industry to keep prices up to enrich themselves. And they were getting higher subsidies than our guys do. Go fig. :P

I don't think it matters, as long as they aren't the ones suffering. The injured must be alive, IMHO.
Otherwise, the whole world owes somebody something. I doubt the modern Egyptians or Babylonians will want to pay the Jews for several generations of servitude, eh?

I was thinking along the lines of if toxic waste was secretly being dumped in a town, and several generations of kids were raised there, and the dumping ended 40 years ago but the effects linger on even for the kids that were born since then, I think some sort of recompence is in order, even though those kids weren't around when the actual dumping was taking place. Know what I mean?

Exactly. But that cancels out what you said above about decedents. It has to be one or the other… either you can go back in time, or you can't.

It doesn't cancel it. I said "This is reasonable, unless descendants or heirs of the wronged party is still suffering effects from what happened originally.". I see no ambiguity. :)

Right, but that was Belgian law. Non-binding in the US… Otherwise, I'd be temped to get similar legislation passed here and go after Belgium for that little tiff they had in the Congo back in the late 50's and 60's.

You're right not every country can afford to, let's say, kidnap the leader of a country and run off with him somewhere instead of turning him over to the UN. cough*Saddam*cough

:D

Yep. True, but as we’ve debated the point before: the US government is of the opinion that the World Court at this time has yet to prove that it is worth it’s salt. The time being taken in the Sarajevo trials is not helping the WC's prestige.

I would submit to you that the US government is far more worried that they've left a trail of atrocious human rights violations and war crimes in their wake, and don't want to be held accountable for it. Who cares if a case takes a long time in the World Court? It takes as long as it takes.

I’m happy to hear that, as down on the US military as you usually are. ;-)

Oh, I'm not down on the military per se - I'm down on general US foreign policy. Just because that often includes military action... ;)

Up to point #4, sure, it's fine and what they still do.
That's fine for getting special or "secret" clearance. They do that here too. But not to assume your Constitutional right to own a gun. The police don't question my neighbors when I got my driver's license, or for a gathering permit.

Pardon my ignorance again, but... a "gathering" permit?

I guess they just decided that a weapon merits special consideration. Does it bother you that they asked people about you?

Yes, I'm fine with it all so long as it is universal across the state. The Police Chief should never have had the power to "sit on" permits like he did before.

I'm a little surprised it isn't universal across the state. Of course, I'm more used to such things being universal across the country, so maybe that's where my bias is.

And you're right, that sort of decision shouldn't rest on a single person. You can't expect impersonal objectivity like that.

It's better because now, as no matter where I move to in CT I'm licensed -- I don't have to go to a new townhall within 30 days of moving into a new place to get ANOTHER town permit. It's also good for 5 years (like drivers licenses) and is a photo-id, unlike the almost "hand drawn" form they used to issue.

Photo ID is good. I'm unsure about the duration on it. Five years is as good as anything else I suppose.

Further, it'd be better if every state's licenses were valid like driver's licenses are.

Well... Not if each state has different standards.

The driver's tests you have from state to state are pretty much the same, right? And the laws about how you're to use a motor vehicle are pretty consistant too? That works for driver's licenses.

But if things are really as variable about firearms as you guys are telling me, one state's license wouldn't even qualify you to have a gun in another state.

You can use your driver's license to drive across the border into Canada, but just try to bring your handgun. ;)

I was thinking along the lines of if toxic waste was secretly being dumped in a town, and several generations of kids were raised there, and the dumping ended 40 years ago but the effects linger on even for the kids that were born since then, I think some sort of recompence is in order, even though those kids weren't around when the actual dumping was taking place. Know what I mean?

Yep... Love Canal would probably be the closest thing, or the GE dumping into the Hudson. Either way, that'd be a town vs. corporation thing, though both got started by individuals.


It doesn't cancel it. I said "This is reasonable, unless descendants or heirs of the wronged party is still suffering effects from what happened originally.". I see no ambiguity. :)

I do. Who still suffers? For how long? Are the Jews still suffering from the Egyptians (or the Germans)? How about the Poles from the Russians (or Germans, or Austrians, or Mongols...)? The Native Americans? No, that's a whole kettle of fish that's best left alone, IMHO. My family came to the US in 1970, and I get enraged when I hear that I own anybody anything. :(


You're right not every country can afford to, let's say, kidnap the leader of a country and run off with him somewhere instead of turning him over to the UN. cough*Saddam*cough.

Right. And we likes it that way, we does!


I would submit to you that the US government is far more worried that they've left a trail of atrocious human rights violations and war crimes in their wake, and don't want to be held accountable for it. Who cares if a case takes a long time in the World Court? It takes as long as it takes.
Who would? And remember, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It all boils down to self preservation. I hold that the US does the world a lot more good than, say, Sudan.
I do. It has been 5 and it could be another 5 before Slobodan gets sentenced! It is a disgrace!

Oh, I'm not down on the military per se - I'm down on general US foreign policy. Just because that often includes military action... ;)

Only because few others will do anything to right the obvious wrongs in the world. :)

What's the point of banning any kind of small arm? If you ban them, criminals will still get them by illegal means. It's the same with drugs. Just by making it illegal doesn't make it dissappear. Example? At Columbine in 1999 one of the shooters used a TEC-DC9, which is expressly banned by the Brady Bill. I doubt any of those kids said "hey, don't you know that's an illegal gun"

Pardon my ignorance again, but... a "gathering" permit?

Yes. If you want to hold a public demonstration, you need a permit to do so. A one-day license to assemble for a cause.

I guess they just decided that a weapon merits special consideration. Does it bother you that they asked people about you?

Which is wrong.
No, but the point is that if I lived a town over, they didn't have that requirement. Fortunately, that's moot now as the can't do it anymore.

I'm a little surprised it isn't universal across the state. Of course, I'm more used to such things being universal across the country, so maybe that's where my bias is.


It is, now.
And mine. I'd prefer it to be nationwide reciprosity.

And you're right, that sort of decision shouldn't rest on a single person. You can't expect impersonal objectivity like that.

Thanks.


Well... Not if each state has different standards.


But that's the point. Each state *shouldn't* have seperate standards, as it is a national right!

The driver's tests you have from state to state are pretty much the same, right? And the laws about how you're to use a motor vehicle are pretty consistant too? That works for driver's licenses.

Exactly.

But if things are really as variable about firearms as you guys are telling me, one state's license wouldn't even qualify you to have a gun in another state.

And that's why we need it to change. Right now, my CT license is good in about 11 other states -- not one of which borders CT! I know a gun shop owner who has 5 licenses (he is also a gunsmith). Yet he can't get a license in Massachusettes.

You can use your driver's license to drive across the border into Canada, but just try to bring your handgun. ;)

What are you going to do? Sic the squirrels on me?
(NO, WAIT!! I TAKE IT BACK!!)

What does it matter if a type of gun is banned, if people are intent on killing of innocents, they will do it.
the holding of firearms in this country are illegal without liscences. You also have to state you purpose for wanting/need of a firearm.
still people are being gunned down for petty reasons no reason and mistaken identity. We live in a world where our governments believe might is right and they tell us, the baddies will come.
How can we expect to evolve when we allow ourselves to live in fear. :eek: :sniper: :headbang:

Guns for hunting should be allowed. End of story.

Guns for hunting should be allowed. End of story.

Please read the thread before posting. It is NOT about hunting!

What does it matter if a type of gun is banned, if people are intent on killing of innocents, they will do it.
the holding of firearms in this country are illegal without liscences. You also have to state you purpose for wanting/need of a firearm.
still people are being gunned down for petty reasons no reason and mistaken identity. We live in a world where our governments believe might is right and they tell us, the baddies will come.
How can we expect to evolve when we allow ourselves to live in fear. :eek: :sniper: :headbang:

The simple fact is that whatever you outlaw or restrict there will always be someone to break it. Being pessimistic about this will get us nowhere. We can't simply throw up our hands saying "the hell with it" and start legalizing things better off banned.

Yep... Love Canal would probably be the closest thing, or the GE dumping into the Hudson. Either way, that'd be a town vs. corporation thing, though both got started by individuals.

Even if it was a government agency doing it?

I do. Who still suffers? For how long? Are the Jews still suffering from the Egyptians (or the Germans)? How about the Poles from the Russians (or Germans, or Austrians, or Mongols...)? The Native Americans? No, that's a whole kettle of fish that's best left alone, IMHO. My family came to the US in 1970, and I get enraged when I hear that I own anybody anything. :(

It's (in this case) America the country that owes. Regardless of when you came to that country, if you're a citizen then part of that is taking up the burden.

You think you got a raw deal? When Canada formed, we took on all the debts of honour and treaties of the Hudson's Bay Company along with those of Britain and possibly France. The Hudson's Bay Company, from hundreds of years before.

We've been shameful in our responsibilities to the aboriginal people we made deals with and then broke, and even in our subsequent behavior with the First Nations peoples.

Slowly, slowly we're trying to address that. Some things no amount of money can redress. It doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and deny our responsibilities. But it should definitely be a guide to what we do in the future.

Who would? And remember, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It all boils down to self preservation. I hold that the US does the world a lot more good than, say, Sudan.

That doesn't give more leeway for bad behavior. Bombing dams so that farmers don't have enough water for their rice paddies and thus their government has to divert resources away from the war in their own country is shameful regardless of the amount of good you feel you've done.

Ask the countries the US has dabbled in in the last 20 or 30 years and see if they agree with your assessment of America doing more good than otherwise.

I do. It has been 5 and it could be another 5 before Slobodan gets sentenced! It is a disgrace!

So what? He's not currently commiting any atrocities. If he's in trial for the rest of his life, what does it matter?

Only because few others will do anything to right the obvious wrongs in the world. :)

Make sure you remember that when we come to save you from your own president. We'll start by bombing the Baldwin's house. ;)

Yes. If you want to hold a public demonstration, you need a permit to do so. A one-day license to assemble for a cause.

Ah. We have something similar here, but just with a different name.

Heh. What jumped into my mind at first was some poor bugger having to flash his permit to a cop while he picked apples or something. lol

Which is wrong.
No, but the point is that if I lived a town over, they didn't have that requirement. Fortunately, that's moot now as the can't do it anymore.

I don't see what's so wrong about it.

But I think we're on the same page that inconsistant "standards" isn't really that great.

But that's the point. Each state *shouldn't* have seperate standards, as it is a national right!

I think you'll be in for a world of disagreement, since it's my impression that people in the US (based on this thread) want less power in the hands of the federal goverment.

And that's why we need it to change. Right now, my CT license is good in about 11 other states -- not one of which borders CT! I know a gun shop owner who has 5 licenses (he is also a gunsmith). Yet he can't get a license in Massachusettes.

Why can't he get a license in Mass? Do you have to be a resident there? I assume that your CT license is valid in those other states because they all use similar standards to license people, right?

What are you going to do? Sic the squirrels on me?
(NO, WAIT!! I TAKE IT BACK!!)

Do I even have to mention they'll go for your nuts?

Guns for hunting should be allowed. End of story.

Please read the thread before posting. It is NOT about hunting!

It's also worth noting that nobody has said anything about restricting hunting, really. A couple of people who are a bit squeamish about it, but that's about it.

while i would really love to read through all 133 pages of this thread, i wont.

"i believe in gun control, i have a gun, im in control"

i dont see whats so wrong with people having guns. now bombs and grenades and so fourth... yeah thats different (and off topic). americans are naturally pussies. we really only get attacked by terrorists and then the news always says "the national defense says small towns may be next" and all the soccer moms freak and all that. if people had guns to defend themselves, by lets say the concealed weapons laws like we have here in ohio, people would feel more safe and would also be trained with those weapons. so let say you go to 7 11 to get condoms... or whatever.... and a guy is holding the place up. you draw your gun and either somebody gets shot or somebody surrenders. brings your odds to 50-50 instead of 0-100.

for hunting, i think guns are fine. why not just sell weapons semi-auto weapons that have small magazines that take time to reload?

also, what about katanas? bring back the way of the samurai and everything is good :)

Even if it was a government agency doing it?

Yep. And it has happened in the past. Mostly things like the Army Corp of Engineers having to fix the mess they made of the Everglades, or some of the Superfund sites.

It's (in this case) America the country that owes. Regardless of when you came to that country, if you're a citizen then part of that is taking up the burden.
You think you got a raw deal? When Canada formed, we took on all the debts of honour and treaties of the Hudson's Bay Company along with those of Britain and possibly France. The Hudson's Bay Company, from hundreds of years before.

Owes who for what? I don't understand. If you mean for slavery, then no. It was a pre-existing condition when the nation was formed. The Native Americans? Not in my opinion. The UN (!) and the World Court both acknowledge conquest as a means of acquiring territory. The Native Americans lost. Sorry, but so did Poland, many times. You've got to fight to survive. Simply, I don't acknowledge debts older than a generation. I really, really doubt that the Habsburgs are going to pay my family for 350 years of serfdom.

We've been shameful in our responsibilities to the aboriginal people we made deals with and then broke, and even in our subsequent behavior with the First Nations peoples.

I disagree. We treated them no worse than the other nations have treated each other since Grog hit Og over the head with a club. It's not pretty, but it's the way it's been. We just keep getting better tailors.

Slowly, slowly we're trying to address that. Some things no amount of money can redress. It doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and deny our responsibilities. But it should definitely be a guide to what we do in the future.

I don't see any responsibilities for that.

That doesn't give more leeway for bad behavior. Bombing dams so that farmers don't have enough water for their rice paddies and thus their government has to divert resources away from the war in their own country is shameful regardless of the amount of good you feel you've done.

That's GOOD behavior. At least we didn't set the farmers on fire by napalming whole counties at once! Their gov't chose one course of action. Since WW1, the people are considered the gov't in "total war". Taking away another country's food supply is a valid tactic.


Ask the countries the US has dabbled in in the last 20 or 30 years and see if they agree with your assessment of America doing more good than otherwise.

Actually, I know most Poles and Czechs like that the US beat the USSR in the Cold War. Yugoslavia got peace by the US taking action. Kuwait was liberated, and South Korea maintained.
I can't speak for say, Panama or Vietnam, though. But how would the world have turned out if the US *had* intervened in Hungary in '56?

So what? He's not currently commiting any atrocities. If he's in trial for the rest of his life, what does it matter?

Didn't he do enough? Should he not suffer for his past actions? Or is him just being in confinement enough? If so, can the US hold the inmates in GitMo (Guantanamo Bay) and Saddam Hussein forever?

Make sure you remember that when we come to save you from your own president. We'll start by bombing the Baldwin's house. ;)

If you start with Bette Midler and Susan Sarandon, then we're Talkin'!! :)

I don't see what's so wrong about it.
But I think we're on the same page that inconsistant "standards" isn't really that great.

Is is okay if the police asked your neighbors if it is okay if you spoke your mind? Or took out a certain library book? Or voted in an election?
All Amendments are equal, and must be defended/used on an equal footing.


I think you'll be in for a world of disagreement, since it's my impression that people in the US (based on this thread) want less power in the hands of the federal goverment.

Ah, but it's not power in the hands of the gov't. It is simply doing for guns what was already done for automobiles, trains, television... by having it all standardized, you actually gain freedom because you can exercise your right anywhere. Imagine if you had to follow each state's Supreme Court rulings instead of the Supreme's for Miranda Rights!! :o


Why can't he get a license in Mass? Do you have to be a resident there? I assume that your CT license is valid in those other states because they all use similar standards to license people, right?

He doesn't know. They always just return it with "rejected". When he's gone to talk to someone about it, he gets the "you're not a resident of this state" runaround.
I don't know, but probably. I know that Alaska & New Hampshire have *no* licenses.

Do I even have to mention they'll go for your nuts?
I have to bet it's still better than being rochambeaud by a moose... :cool:

I think guns are neat, and I think hunting and target shooting is a fine activity, however, I know that you don't need an automatic machine gun, or a pistol, or semi-automatic shotgun to kill most game. There really is no need for some of the guns that are available to us. I'm all for hunting and shooting, but if that's really what it's all about, than i say that people should only be allowed to have bolt action rifles. I think this would help against gun violence (harder to do a drive by with) and would be better for the hunting community, kill less animals, and save ammunition. This day and age, I don't NEED a gun, The british aren't coming, and I can get meat at the grocery store. If you want to hunt and shoot, don't use an M-16 or a 9mm Handgun.

Um, not to be more of an idiot than necessary, but I don't know what a straw purchaser is. :P

A straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun in a store with the intention of giving it someone who would not pass a background check.



From where? Where are the guns coming from that aren't from the US to begin with?

There are many countries where guns are readily available. chinese versions of the AK rifles sell for the equivilent of pocket change. In Iraq, they are turning them in in return for $50.



That said, you don't see a lot of slaves being moved into the US from elsewhere, and it's forbidden too. Why not?

a) there is little demand in the USA
b) there is a healthy global slave trade



Drugs that are brought in from outside the US are as cheap as they are because there are lots and lots of buyers. If guns were regulated more tightly (this is why I think the guns/drugs comparison falls apart, because nobody's trying to ban guns) do you think there'd be millions of constant customers for outside guns? It's not like you smoke a gun once and it's used up. And guns are worth far less by weight and size than any drug is. So less incentive to set up gun cartels.


Drugs are cheap because there is a huge supply in the US relative to the buyers..basic economics.

If you regulate guns heavily, the people who want guns but dont qualify might go to the black market.
The whole damn point of this exercise is to keep guns out of the hands of bad people and in the hands of good people. Since we cannot prevent the bad people from getting guns, what is the point of making it harder for the good people?



Again, drugs are a consumable commodity and there's a huge customer base. And since your population keeps increasing, that increases the number of customers. No reason for the price of drugs to skyrocket.


you have got this backwards. increase demand raises prices, increased supply lowers prices. You dont really want to argue with me on this.


Which is what would make it far less profitable to run guns the way drugs are run. But again, nobody's talking about banning guns. Why does everybody always equate regulation with banning?

because given the amounts of regulation already on the books, asking for more is IN FACT starting to border on defacto bans. We already check criminal and mental health backgrrounds. We already(effectively) prohibit full auto weapons. We license concealed carry.



But you're wrong, so wrong.

Here in Canada, just try and get a handgun. This doesn't apply to criminals of course. Somehow us defenseless citizens end up with a way lower murder rate than you guys with all the guns for "protection". Explain it if you can.

All I'm saying is that you guys have easy access to guns NOW and you seem to be LESS safe than those of us from places with tighter restrictions. Don't you see that?

And there are countries with more gun ownership and less crime than the USA. SO WHAT???

Havent you figured it out yet that the availability of guns doesnt CAUSE the higher rate of murder in the USA. We have other issues here.

Those 3 cities I stated, no guns period. (Im pretty sure, I haven't studied their local ordinances completely)

state by state list of permit requirements. slightly outdated
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

DC has a virtual ban on handguns. And I believe long arms must be stored dissassembled

To get a carry permit in NYC or Chicago you need to donate to a politicians or a police chiefs campaign.

Assuming it's true that the majority of firearm deaths occur in urban areas with strict gun control, then the obvious difference between such places in Canada and the US is that there isn't a place in Canada you could go to with lax gun control, pick up such a firearm, and head to the more tightly restricted places.

But in the US, because it's not a consistant standard, any place can fall victim when guns + travel to and from a less controlled place is possible. Interesting.

So assuming my conclusion is true, what to do about it? Tighten control to match those of whichever of those cities has the most stringent restriction on firearms, or open up the entire country to whatever the loosest regulation is?

You know, this argument has been used when people talk about the different crime rates of washington DC and Richmond Virginia. They are very close to each other but while DC has a gun ban, Richmond is pretty liberal with guns.

The problem with this argument is this. Why would a criminal come back to DC to commit his crime? Why not just commit the crime in Richmond. Well, possibly because he knows that in Richmond, the person he decides to victimize might be armed. It is much safer for the criminal to go back to DC where he knows that a law abiding person will not have a gun.

Even if there were no guns(pure hypothetical), the criminal would still have tthe advantage. A criminal picks the time and place of the crime. More importantly, the criminal picks the victim. He can pick an old lady instead of a big bodybuilder to mug. A gun levels the field somewhat. It allows the old lady to have the same level of protection as a young strong guy.

You also have to understand that there is little incentive for a criminal to get into a shootout with a victim, he would rather just leave. Why? because if he gets into a shootout 1) the cops are going to look for him more enthusiastically than if it was just a property crime 2) he might get shot or killed 3) if he gets shot he is likely to be caught when he seeks medical aid 4) it is less likely that he will be able to get what he came for e.g. money 5) it is easier + smarter to find an unarmed victim

That is why crimes are easly detered simply by showing a weapon.

Most states (37) have some form of concealed carry. They have all had reductions in gun crime.

The three cities in case tightened their measures and crime increased. It became a measure of disarming the law abiders and leaving the criminals armed.

There are laws on the books. Many of which I support. What they need to do is enforce the laws they have now w/o further infringement on LAC rights.

Chicago went from regulation, registration, confiscation and is now following the UK's policy of cameras. DC is just FUBAR. They have no clue. Their court actually ruled the police are not obligated to protect you. Must be the bad Karma overflowing from the politicians. :)


The house has passed a bill allowing Law abiding DC residents to own/carry a handgun. Lets see what happens in the Senate.

And, presumably, federal statutes.

There are many complicated layers to American society that aren't readily apparent to an untrained Canadian eye. ;)

Dont worry, they arent readily apparant to a trained American eye either

Originally Posted by <b>Really Wild Stuff</b>
I certainly don't think I paintball as fast as you shoot. Note that if you can really shoot as fast as you say, I want you defending my flag.

Well I was defending /my/ country ... but thank God they don't give the US Armed Forces bolt action rifles to work with anyway. Well ... maybe if this guy TheOneRule was talking about could show us how to do it, we should all use single action revolvers ;).

But you made me think about it, and I don't think I honestly can fire more than about 1 shot a second with a bolt action rifle accurately, but the 2 accurate shots per second on the revolver claim stands.

Originally Posted by <b>Really Wild Stuff</b>
Aside from the social aspect, where you (this is just me talking, not me advising you on how your country ought to think, although I'd be glad if it did) try to instill the idea that life, any life is too precious to be destroyed except as an ABSOLUTE last resort, all I can think of to do is make the country less awash in guns, and maybe shift away from the gun culture.

I truly truly don't want to ban guns. I really don't. But I do want people to stop getting shot by them. There's no reason why if the mentality that lets so many people get shot disappears that you can't loosen up gun controls again, after all.

And that's why I think education should be the primary goal. Gun safety, when correctly taught, should include the laws that govern the use and misuse of firearms. For example, in Colorado, the law is that (rough quote) when your life is being threatened, you are authorized to use only enough force to stop that threat. I think that's a fair law. The example that is always used over here was about a bank robbery. The robber was shot by 3 people in the bank after he threatened the teller. Another teller shot him once, a biker shot him 3 times, and a woman shot him 9 times. When asked where their bullets went and why they shot so many, the teller and biker said they fired only enough times to hit him and see if he went down (the biker missed twice, but cleanly). The woman said she kept shooting until her clip was empty. She was sent to jail.

I'm not terribly fond of the idea of people carrying guns in populated areas myself, but I also don't believe there's a reasonable way to limit guns without damaging liberties and livlihoods. Instead, education in gun safety seems a reasonable method to try.

Originally Posted by <b>Really Wild Stuff</b>
<i>Are</i> Americans responsible enough to own weapons? At least with how things currently are?

Are people in general responsible enough to own weapons, then? I would probably agree with you that they most likely aren't. People are generally idiots. Not all the time, but often enough for it to be noticed. Then is the government built from that general public responsible enough to be in charge of the military? Probably not. This has been true for all time and for all countries. People with power tend to use that power irresponsibly. Does that mean we should take away power? Wouldn't that simply created the notorious power vaccuum which always seems to allow the mad dictator to take charge?

All kidding aside, if people are growing up morally, they're changing so slowly that I don't think even Darwin could spot it. In my opinion, you can't help the situation without addressing the primary problem. Guns aren't that problem, as you note, the problem is the mentality behind the guns. That isn't changed simply by time, but by time and education. When a child knowingly steals something for the first time, you don't simply put back what they stole, whack them, and never let them in a store again. You sit them down, scold them, and teach them why what they did was wrong. You certainly don't lock them out of stores (well, until they've done it enough times to become a nuisance).

Originally Posted by <b>Really Wild Stuff</b>
I think you'll be in for a world of disagreement, since it's my impression that people in the US (based on this thread) want less power in the hands of the federal goverment.

Originally Posted by <b>Markreich</b>
Ah, but it's not power in the hands of the gov't. It is simply doing for guns what was already done for automobiles, trains, television... by having it all standardized, you actually gain freedom because you can exercise your right anywhere. Imagine if you had to follow each state's Supreme Court rulings instead of the Supreme's for Miranda Rights!!

I'm actually with RWS on this one. I don't mind having it all standardized, but that should be a choice that the state governments make individually or as a group (with the ability to withdraw if, for example, Texas starts going crazy). It shouldn't be a debate for the national government.

Originally Posted by <b>Pendragoon</b>
also, what about katanas? bring back the way of the samurai and everything is good

Actually, the concealed carry law in my state (Colorado) includes "any blade longer than 6".

This state has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, excepting maybe Wyoming and Montana and our death rate due to firearms (including suicides) is truly higher than most of the more regulated states but there is no mapping to violent crimes. In fact, these states have /less/ violent crimes than the regulated states. So ... slightly more people are dying to firearms, but there is less violent crime (by a substantial percentage). I wish I could pull suicide out of those numbers to get something even more relevant to this discussion (as I'm sure easier access to guns raises the suicide death rate due to guns), but to give some direct numbers, let's compare my state to California, which is rather regulated:

Colorado: Deaths to firearms / 100000: 10.7 - Violent Crimes per 100000: 352
California: 9.3 - 593

Not much difference in the deaths, but much different in crime rate.

Personally, I think it would be more relevant to include population density as a third factor, but I can't find those numbers. Can anyone find that?

I would be fine with more strict background checks or even getting a license like was mentioned in some states. I don't mind jumping through some hoops to exercise my freedoms, but I don't want those freedoms to be limited for no reason. So far, there is no solid reason to ban or even restrict the guns that are already legal. If you want to require a license, fine. If you want to require testing and background checks, fine. I'd rather not have a national database, especially one that is open to the public (as the public has no right to know what I own or why, and it's equally none of the business of the government). One thing we like over here is our privacy.

Guns aren't the problem, training is. Generally out here when I meet another gun owner who's carrying, he has his weapon saftied, doesn't have a bullet in the chamber, and certainly never points his weapon anywhere but downrange and at a specified target. Honestly, most of the people I've met who don't follow those rules out here tend to be visitors from California. They're much more regulated about who can own guns, but they certainly don't live with them, respect them, and understand any of the basic training that goes behind using them. It's like giving a 15 year old a car. He knows how to use it, but he's probably going to get in an accident because he hasn't actually learned anything else about it other than what he's seen in the movies.

Sorry, that was longer than I intended.

I think guns are neat, and I think hunting and target shooting is a fine activity, however, I know that you don't need an automatic machine gun, or a pistol, or semi-automatic shotgun to kill most game. There really is no need for some of the guns that are available to us. I'm all for hunting and shooting, but if that's really what it's all about, than i say that people should only be allowed to have bolt action rifles. I think this would help against gun violence (harder to do a drive by with) and would be better for the hunting community, kill less animals, and save ammunition. This day and age, I don't NEED a gun, The british aren't coming, and I can get meat at the grocery store. If you want to hunt and shoot, don't use an M-16 or a 9mm Handgun.

And that is your constitutionally protected choice.

The 2nd amendment has not a lot to do with what you just mentioned--well except that brief touch on invasion. It's about protecting us from our own government.