NationStates Jolt Archive

First, you may find this odd, but I am a left-wing Anarchist. But even being a leftist, I oppose gun control. That may seem odd, but from my perspective, it seems that liberalism has been somewhat perverted, adding gun control. In other words, it's true that there is a difference between "modern liberalism" (democrats, liberal democrats) and "classical liberalism" (libertarians). But anyway...

In the two major studies on gun control, it's national effectiveness was undetermined. Both the Center on Disease Control and the United Nations did studies on it, and both came to the same conclusion. So, from a scientific standpoint, gun control should not be implemented, but should start being studied (and possibly implemented) locally and continuing being studied nationally (and internationally) to determine its overall effectiveness. And if it's implemented at all, it should never be implemented nationally. Thus far, the CDC study and the U.N. study both showed that although gun control is usually implemented in reaction to crime, it's overall effectiveness is undetermined.

The foundation of Liberalism is that liberty should only be restricted when such restriction serves a positive goal (or utility). But if national gun control's effectiveness is undetermined, isn't it fallacious and hypocritical for Liberals to claim that it is good?

Historically, all of the renowned Conservative Fascists, Hitler, Mussolini, and so on, implemented gun control and none of the liberal founding fathers supported it, but rather, they said we should be allowed to bear arms and even form militias. This makes me continue to wonder why "gun control" is a liberal issue.

Without a scientific basis, Liberals sometimes fall back on fallacious reasoning, although Conservatives are equally guilty. But even after I mention that it's irrational to tie murder rates with gun control effectiveness or that "school shootings" are anecdotal evidence attributed to other societal causes, people continue to use these horrible arguments.

To demonstrate the societal causes, take a look at this chart...

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000) for Young Males in Selected Countries - 1993
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif

And that's not the total murders. That's the murder rate. Even in Israel, where there are suicide bombings, there are less deaths by firearms.

And even claiming that people would be "accidentally" shot in the cross-fire of a person defending themselves, is false.

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR114.gif

But I digress, in order for a murder to be committed, there needs to be both the will and the opportunity. With gun liberty, there is certainly the opportunity, but is there the will? That's yet unproven, though the previous chart severely discredits it. So, there needs to be another study, which asks the question: How many criminals and people in general, even when having access to guns, would kill? In Britain, a store can be robbed with a dagger. That doesn't mean it's going to be used. A gun does not need to be fired to be used to commit crime. And on suicide, within liberal philosophy it's better for a person to have the right to be able to irrationally end their lives and irrationally defend themselves, than for them to be forced to live and be defended by an unnecessary authority. Because Liberty should be restricted unless it is clearly for the common, utilitarian good.

The CDC Study:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

The U.N. Study:
http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf

Facts about Gun Control:
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm (A fair amount of fallacious reasoning, but hopefully, you can pick through it.)

The NRA's Factsheet on Gun Control:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

One final thing I'd like to add, though, is that although gun ownership should be de-regulated nationally (if not completely), gun shows and individual sales of guns may need to be further regulated, because they have a proven tendency to support illegal gun-trafficking.

A Study on Gun Shows:
http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/gun_show.pdf

That's actually a view I haven't heard before. You're actually into this from the practical side, saying that gun control is working like prohibition, is that kinda accurate? That's actually some reasonable logic. However, you ignore the fact that gun control doesn't have to be banning guns, it can just be requring registration, giving warnings, etc. that seems to be working with smoking in the US and with slightly different methods in sex in Europe. Gun control of that style might actually work. A similar strategy would probably help with pot.

Why is this such a controversial issue in America? (I'm from the UK). Guns are dangerous and specifically designed to cause harm. What possible arguments could there be in favour of them?

I don't think Gun Control is a liberal issue. I think it's an issue of common sense.
If being libertarian, or being an anarchist, means you have the freedom to do whatever you want, then I'd choose the freedom not to be shot over the freedom to shoot others.
Guns are more deadly weapons than knives, or stones or sticks. So even if someone wants to kill me, I'd rather have him try with a kitchen knife than with an assault rifle.
And the Government needs to have the monopoly on violence, since anything else will lead to chaos, people killing each other at will, and it will make it impossible to arrest and punish criminals.
And rather than accepting that as normal, and carrying a gun around ready to shoot before I can get shot, I would prefer a control being placed on people who for whatever reason feel like they need to be able to kill me, should the need come into their head.

Why is this such a controversial issue in America? (I'm from the UK). Guns are dangerous and specifically designed to cause harm. What possible arguments could there be in favour of them?

Yes yes yes, lets ban guns. :p Seriously though, I will not turn this into the usual arguement. For the record I own a few rifles and I just use em to plink at paper targets. I also use em for competitions. Misery, if you are ever in the states around the Ohio area, I will invite you to go shooting with us sometime and see what you think of it. Oh, and interesting thought from shrub.

Different strokes for different folks. Americans can keep their guns as far as I'm concerned; they've grown up in a culture where gun ownership is natural and practical. The same is not true in the UK, so we probably ought not to have liberal gun laws.

I wish people would stop seeing this in such a morally absolutist way. I have very little time for extremists, libertarian or authoritarian. Societies are heterogeneous and, on this issue at least, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to accept the differences and move on.

Snip

Hate to tell you this, but most criminals carry illegaly gotten handguns. Sorry to bust your theory chief.

snip

Excellent idea!

Yesh, here we go again. :rolleyes:

I think the big difference being that one person, with one gun, has a better chance to kill more people than one person with a knife. A knife you have to get in close with (Yes, I know you can throw them, but movies aside, killing with one thrown knife is extreamely hard) whereas a gun does not. There's also the argument that such distance killing makes it more remote than knifing someone than having to get in close, but I've never really bought that as well.

The problem I have is one of safety. These are objects meant to kill and harm, you cannot ever say it is not so unless you remove its inner workings (like dulling the blade of a sword). I don't object to gun ownership, I do object to non-safe ownership and see no reason why manditory safety classes and a license system cannot be instituted.

BUT gun owners go bananas when this is suggested (even when stating that they support safe ownership) just as anti-gun folks go bananas when you suggest letting ANY gun go.

I figure we license and test drivers, and we license and test SCUBA divers, why not things that are meant to kill and harm?

I think however you are correct in saying that this issue needs to be looked at more, and divorsed from the politics that surrounds it.

(I know I'm going to get flamed for this one and get slapped silly with slippery slope arguments that any restriction will mean the loss of guns in the future)

snip

On the slipery slope comment, you said it yourself that pro gunners aren't going to quit until there is no gun control vs. anti-gunners who want every gun out of civilian hands. Nither side is going to quit anytime soon. This is where the slippery slope comes in as if one gets control it just goes there way from here on out. Britian's gun control laws are a great example of this. Just a gradual strengthening of gun control.....

Why is this such a controversial issue in America? (I'm from the UK). Guns are dangerous and specifically designed to cause harm. What possible arguments could there be in favour of them?

Just random interpretation of the entirety of American culture: From the beginning the US was looking for a historical legitamacy that they thought they needed to compete with europe. To get this they looked to their history and religion and interpreted both literally so as to feel like they were doing something that was undoubtedly correct. In the field of religion this produced the bible literalism that is almost unique to the US, and in law it produced what basically amounts to constitution worship. Taking the constitution literally, anyone can have a gun. So this becomes an important principle. Eventually both ideas float around so much that people start to adapt them to more reasonable positions.

Actually, we do licence, test, and register in California.

However, black market dealers care for none of those things.

Does this mean that there should be no licencing, testing, or registering?

Not exactly. Licencing and testing reduces the number of incompetent and problematic citizens getting their hands on a firearm, and anyone with a firearm who ISN'T licenced can be brought in.

Registering firearms doesn't serve as anything BUT control, however. It serves expressly to limit the acquisition and use of firearms by formally licenced citizens, and as a side effect gives a nice clean list of people to neutralize to anyone who has totalitarian designs on the government, while leaving unregistered persons entirely in the clear.

That's actually a view I haven't heard before. You're actually into this from the practical side, saying that gun control is working like prohibition, is that kinda accurate? That's actually some reasonable logic.
No, that's not what I'm saying. That's what Conservatives claim and it's irrational. The studies so far point that national gun and international gun control's effectiveness is "undetermined." Therefore, it should not be implemented until proven effective. In some local territories, though, like a study in Florida I read (the British probably have their own studies like this), gun control has been shown to work in certain local areas. But even then, it might not be entirely clear.


However, you ignore the fact that gun control doesn't have to be banning guns
No, I don't. The two major studies, by the CDC and the U.N., assessed a variety of different types of gun control, not simply banning them.

Why is this such a controversial issue in America? (I'm from the UK). Guns are dangerous and specifically designed to cause harm. What possible arguments could there be in favour of them?
The same could be said of knives, tanks, and bombs.

REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT PEOPLE FALLING BACK ON IRRATIONAL REASONING, BECAUSE THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THEIR CLAIMS?

WATCH THIS! ;)


I don't think Gun Control is a liberal issue. I think it's an issue of common sense.
Appeal to Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief)


If being libertarian, or being an anarchist, means you have the freedom to do whatever you want, then I'd choose the freedom not to be shot over the freedom to shoot others.
If-by-whiskey Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey)


Guns are more deadly weapons than knives, or stones or sticks. So even if someone wants to kill me, I'd rather have him try with a kitchen knife than with an assault rifle.
Irrelevant Conclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion)

And the Government needs to have the monopoly on violence, since anything else will lead to chaos, people killing each other at will, and it will make it impossible to arrest and punish criminals. And rather than accepting that as normal, and carrying a gun around ready to shoot before I can get shot, I would prefer a control being placed on people who for whatever reason feel like they need to be able to kill me, should the need come into their head.
Appeal to Consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequence)

snip

Hail Shrub! ;)

Good stuff.

Different strokes for different folks. Americans can keep their guns as far as I'm concerned; they've grown up in a culture where gun ownership is natural and practical. The same is not true in the UK, so we probably ought not to have liberal gun laws.
I do agree that society needs to be taken into account. Gun control has been shown to work in some areas, but not others. That's partially the basis for why the major studies' results are "inconsistent."

I'm in favor of gun control. Controling power is always important. I'm not in favor of banning guns, banning power just makes it illicit, not non-existant.

Gun control, in the sense of comprehensive safety measures, widespread education available for gun owners, registrations for guns, etc, seems very reasonable. Totally unregulated gun ownership leads to difficulty, misuse, accidents, etc. That's not something I can support.

I believe that if gun lobby groups would stop working against sensible gun control options, and start working towards finding a way to create a culture of safety within their lobby, they would encounter an increase in support.

Above all, they need to find allies in the gun-control group; ie, those who do NOT want to ban guns, and create a middle ground to work towards. Those totally in favor of banning guns would of course be iced out by this new alliance.

First, you may find this odd, but I am a left-wing Anarchist. But even being a leftist, I oppose gun control. <snip>

The foundation of Liberalism is that liberty should only be restricted when such restriction serves a positive goal (or utility). But if national gun control's effectiveness is undetermined, isn't it fallacious and hypocritical for Liberals to claim that it is good? <snip> This makes me continue to wonder why "gun control" is a liberal issue.
<study Snips>
Good on ya Shrub. Not that anyone will listen. I've said multiple times on multiple threads that there is no statistically causal basis for either the Pro or Anti positions, therefore the only Just position is the one that allows for the most Freedom.

Here's an interesting article called the TAO of GUN (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/tao.asp), originally hosted at a New Age site called starscreedcreations.com (no longer exists) but has fortunately been saved by the folks at KABA. It's all about being a New Age Liberal and coming to grips with Guns.

Another very interesting take on the psychology of Anti-Gun activists and their arguments comes from Dr Sarah Thompson, MD. (http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

Things to make you go HMMMMM....

Define 'sensible gun control options'.

"culture of safety within their lobby"

From the NRA:

NRA Gun Safety Rules (http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp)

Not only the rules, but links to Training, Instructors, Training Counselors, Coaches etc.

A guide to Parents who own firearms is also there:

NRA - Safety Information for Parents (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp)

"registrations for guns"

Which are ineffective in controlling crime, are always subject to budget blow-outs, and are usually a precursor to bans.

The only requirement is licensing, and by that I don't mean the sort that is normal, of the applicant having to prove to the police that he/she has a need for a gun (South Africa ran such a system during Apartheid, try to calculate a black's chance of getting a licence), it should be more like driver's licensing, i.e. you must pass a basic safety test, showing that you instinctively know basic firearms knowledge, basic safety rules, and procedures upon taking up a weapon, handing one over, or receiving one.

"Gun control has been shown to work"

The point is for whom. One can say that someone always benefits from gun control. Criminals usually benefit, whether they are of the state, or individuals.

This is fun... does anybody know who the current President of the NRA is?...

For those of you who don't know, it's Sandy Froman -- a Jewish native of San Francisco, graduate of Stanford undergrad and Harvard law. She said she gets this reaction a lot: "What's a nice girl like you doing involved with guns?"

And she admits she might not have been involved with guns had a 3 a.m. break-in not forced her to get involved. Froman was a 20-something lawyer in L.A. when she woke up to a strange noise at her front door. She looked through the peephole and saw a strange man crouched with a screwdriver at her lock. She pounded on the door and screamed, thinking surely he would leave once he knew someone was home.

To her horror, she saw him stand up, look through the peephole back at her, and bend back down to go to work. She called both her nextdoor neighbors. No one answered. She called 911 and they told her to lock herself in her bedroom until the police got there. She told them she had no lock on her bedroom door. She ran around the house turning on every light, the stereo, the TV to draw attention to the house. She checked the peephole--he was still there. Between the last time she looked and the time the police got there, the man finally fled, unable to bust the lock.

"The next day, I was a woman on a mission," she said. She said she went to a gun store, which was quite an achievement for this West Coast-dwelling, Ivy League-educated lawyer, she said. She told the gun store guy (what are they called? 'Clerk' sounds too delicate.) she needed a gun. When he asked which gun, she said "any gun." He promptly suggested she get some firearms training first, which she did.

"I found that shooting a gun wasn't that hard, and it was fun when I hit the bullseye," she said. She became a great shot pretty quick, practicing every weekend. After diving into her new firearm hobby, she noticed people she knew (some of whom were her fellow lawyers) thought anyone who owned a gun was a dangerous criminal. After asking some of her range-friends why some of her lawyer-friends thought that way, they suggested she join the NRA to learn about the politics of the 2nd Amendment.

Since then, she has served as a board member (in an organization of mostly men, she got a higher vote total from members around the country than any other board member ever has), Second Vice President, First Vice President, and now NRA president (the second woman to hold the job).

Froman, elected in April, said her two big issues for the year are encouraging the NRA's self-defense classes, particularly for women. The Second Amendment was written for the preservation of liberty-- when it is threatened by a foreign power, a domestic faction, or by a criminal on the street, she said.

"Every woman is entitled to such security," she said. "Everyone is safer when the criminals don't know who's armed."

She points out statistics that show concealed-carry permit holders are, on average, some of the most law-abiding of any citizens. Her second big issue is the federal judiciary. Judges who understand the 2nd Amendment are crucial because all the good legislative work that is done for gunowners can be undone by an activist judge's one ruling, she said. And Supreme Court justices are the ultimate guardians of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Froman urges young women to give firearms a shot and decide for themselves if they like them. They're not necessarily for every woman, she said, but it's senseless to decide how you feel about them before you even touch one. She also encourages college women to bring together like-minded women on their college campuses for shooting clinics and safety classes. Froman said she finds many more women are curious about firearms than are hostile toward them, regardless of their political beliefs.

You Go Girl.

Good on ya Shrub. Not that anyone will listen. I've said multiple times on multiple threads that there is no statistically causal basis for either the Pro or Anti positions, therefore the only Just position is the one that allows for the most Freedom.
Nope. The just position is the one that society is most comfortable with. Hence Brits not having guns. This is perfectly reasonable.

Nope. The just position is the one that society is most comfortable with. Hence Brits not having guns. This is perfectly reasonable.An awful lot of people can be comfortable with injustice. The UK position may be Reasonable given the historical & sociocultural paradigm, but it is not Just.

An awful lot of people can be comfortable with injustice. The UK position may be Reasonable given the historical & sociocultural paradigm, but it is not Just.
It's not injustice. Freedom is not an absolute. Cultures are different; what works for us is not unjust simply because it doesn't conform to your worldview. There are more fundamental rights than whether or not one should be allowed to own instruments of violence.

Gun control seems to work in Europe, but not in America. I think this is because of America's traditional pro-gun culture.

Gun control seems to work in Europe, but not in America. I think this is because of America's traditional pro-gun culture.

It's not just a matter of a pro-gun culture.

The majority of violent crime in the US is perpetrated without a gun or weapon of any kind. 76 percent.

89 percent of rapes are committed by brute strength alone - no weapon.

I don't know how Europe does things, but since the 1960s, there was a government-led effort to concentrate poor people in subsidized housing. It's been demonstrated through studies that this creates increases in violent crime.

Huge areas of the cities where we concentrate these people.

If you're being robbed in the US, the criminal is likely to physically abuse you just for fun - even if you are extremely cooperative.

Culturally, I believe that's a big difference. We've essentially grown violent people on massive "farms" where our social programs which started in the 1960s have created generations of people who feel "entitled" to permanent government support - indeed, they feel entitled to whatever you have.

It's not the guns.

In the U.S. there's also the matter of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms.

Theres a really really big difference between arms now and when the constitution was made

Theres a really really big difference between arms now and when the constitution was made

They didn't have computers or fax machines or telephones or television or movies when the constitution was made, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to them either.

It's not injustice. Freedom is not an absolute. Freedom is Bondage. Weakness is Strength. War is Peace. :rolleyes:

Freedom, like Justice must be an absolute if it is to have any meaning at all. We may culturally or politically choose to abrogate freedoms, but we cannot then say we are Free. That may very well be an acceptable state of affairs, but it is not Free. (No human living in society is Free, as all societies abrogate some Freedoms. Some societies are more Free than others, but they are still not Free.)

Just: Conforming or conformable to rectitude or justice; not doing wrong to any; violating no right or obligation; upright; righteous; honest; true; -- said both of persons and things. Not transgressing the requirement of truth and propriety; conformed to the truth of things, to reason, or to a proper standard; exact; normal; reasonable; regular; due; as, a just statement; a just inference. Rendering or disposed to render to each one his due; equitable; fair; impartial; as, just judge.

Free: Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
Freedom: The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence.

To be Legally Prohibited from owning a Thing is to be subjected to the will, controll or constraint of others. (not free) Legal Prohibitions of Things are always inequitable. If any citizen in the UK is permitted to possess firearms, for whatever reason, not permitting others to own them is inequitable and therefore injust. It may be legal, it may be accepted and acceptable, but it is still injust and an abrogation of Freedom. By definition.

Cultures are different; what works for us is not unjust simply because it doesn't conform to your worldview. There are more fundamental rights than whether or not one should be allowed to own instruments of violence.Like the fundamental (animal) right to defend oneself and ones progeny from predation? I have lousy claws, and pretty tame teeth. That's what weapons, "instruments of violence", are for. I think Survival of the Fittest (most prepared) is about as fundamental a Right as imaginable.

Perhaps you should read Dr. Thompson's article. That some people seem incapable of seeing a tool as a tool, rather preferring to see it only as an implement of sociopathy says more about the person fearing the thing than the person using the thing. It's called Projection and/or Reaction Formation. Look into it.

The debate is all very much simpler than that.

I, for one, am willing to kill and to die to keep my guns, to kill and die for a PRINCIPLE. I have harmed none unless defending myself. I am no danger to anyone who does not endanger me first. Anyone who disarms me is endangering me, therefore I must defend myself, I must strike at them.

Are those of you who want to deny me this Right going to risk your life or the lives of others to take them away? Are you not promoting the very violence you seek to eliminate if you force my hand?

Historically, Religion has been a great source of danger to people. If I decided to ban certain (or ALL) religions, would you not oppose me by arguing that you should have the freedom to choose REGARDLESS OF THE OBVIOUS DANGER? If this seems outrageous to you, I will remind you that right now Muslim children are being raised to commit mass murder in the name of Allah... That religion is incredibly dangerous, far more than guns...

The Framers were WAY, WAYYY smarter than modern Liberals. They understood that Free Speech, Free Religion, FREE GUNS and so one were all equally important to maintaining a free people.

If only the Jews had fought for their guns... They were complying with the laws of the fearful and ended up being slaughtered for their obedience to "democracy" and "reasonable gun control".

Nope. The just position is the one that society is most comfortable with. Hence Brits not having guns. This is perfectly reasonable.
AFAIK the British were never asked whether they wanted guns or not. Their government told them they couldn't have them.


It's not injustice. Freedom is not an absolute. Cultures are different; what works for us is not unjust simply because it doesn't conform to your worldview. There are more fundamental rights than whether or not one should be allowed to own instruments of violence.
Which particular rights are you referring to?

I may be wrong, but I don't think the supreme court has ever heard a case on the second amendment. If anyone knows of a case, let me know.

The issue with the amendment is how it is worded.

it reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, the issue is not with the second half of it, but the first. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Today, we don't have a militia. The closest we have in a police force. Since we don't have a militia, do we still have the right to own a gun?

This is exactly why the supreme court has not heard cases regarding the matter. Who can say? We all have our opinions, but the constitution provides no clarity.

Personally, I think there needs to be gun control, but not a ban. License the owners and make them register the guns. Ban the most dangerous (There is NO need for a civilian to own an assult rifle or machine gun) but allow people to choose to own a gun for protection, hunting, or just simple collecting. Oh, and make safeties...well...safer.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the supreme court has ever heard a case on the second amendment. If anyone knows of a case, let me know.

The issue with the amendment is how it is worded.

it reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, the issue is not with the second half of it, but the first. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Today, we don't have a militia. The closest we have in a police force. Since we don't have a militia, do we still have the right to own a gun?

This is exactly why the supreme court has not heard cases regarding the matter. Who can say? We all have our opinions, but the constitution provides no clarity.

Personally, I think there needs to be gun control, but not a ban. License the owners and make them register the guns. Ban the most dangerous (There is NO need for a civilian to own an assult rifle or machine gun) but allow people to choose to own a gun for protection, hunting, or just simple collecting. Oh, and make safeties...well...safer.

The Militia is the people. As long as there are citizens, there will be a militia.

In the US, registration leads to confiscation. Banning the "most dangerous" leads to banning "most/all". Licensing leads to beaurocratic stoppages.

Assault Rifles & Machine guns have been heavily regulated since 1934. There has not been a single case of a licensed weapon being used in a crime.

Why is this such a controversial issue in America? (I'm from the UK). Guns are dangerous and specifically designed to cause harm. What possible arguments could there be in favour of them?

Its only a controversial issue in states like California where ultra-libs and soccer moms don't think when they vote. Also the Americans who are pro-gun control are some of the most uneducated Americans in American Revolutionary history.

"An armed public, is a public that stays free"
"Those who would chose security over liberty, deserve neither liberty nor security"

For any REAL argument to be given against gun rights by an American, a person has to live in Mexico for more than a year where you can NOT own a gun.

See how quickly their stance will change.

We also have LESS criminal behavior in places that have more guns per household than others. In my home area, we don't really have to worry about having robberies as much. The reason we lock the doors is mostly to not give honest citizens the opportunity to consider breaking the law. When we are at home though, the fact that most people here are armed really deters a lot of crime.

The problem is that a lot of youths are uneducated in gun handling ettiqutte that ends up causing a lot of accidents. Its to be expected due to the fact most people have more training in driving a car by the time they get their hands on one than they do with gun handling when they can buy a gun.

Guns don't kill people, gothy neo-nazis in trenchcoats kill people. As do other assorted criminals.

Gun control all depends on what country you're looking at - it sure won't fly in the United States, where the right to own a gun (or several guns) has been guarded since the earliest days of the Constitution. And there's no way in hell you'll separate a Texan from his/her gun - hell, it's legal to concealed carry a pistol in public down here (old law from the cowboy days, never was repealed).

Plus you need to consider other things. Simply taking guns away from people doesn't help. If a deranged lunatic can't find a gun, he will find something else to kill with. I seem to remember hearing about a madman who went chop-suey on a Catholic church in England with a katana.

I agree that guns should not be in the hands of violent, deranged killers. But there are plenty of good people out there who can and should be trusted to own and use a gun. Guns are recreational tools and items of self-defense. To ban them is to take away the favorite passtime of a good portion of the American population - a breach of American freedoms - and to sentence many more innocents to death at the hands of a madman where, had they owned a gun, they could have defended themselves.

Now, maybe in other nations across the world gun control is well and good, but not so in the United States. Ban guns in the US, and all hell will break loose.

I think that Gun control is a lot like prohibition. If people are told not to touch the Big Red Button, they feel drawn to doing it. It's just like drinking in the US. Other countries with no drinking age don't have the teenage drinking problems we have, US teens just want to rebel. I also think that extreme left wing ideas and extreme right wing ideas reach around the back to each other. They really aren't that different.

It's not the guns that kill it's the people. We need much tighter regulations on guns worldwide. Perhaaps if you have some sort of criminal record we can not allow you to own one? also you have to take into consideration how many of those are accidental. Hmm... well that's all i have to say.

I don't mind doing away with gun control, provided that we enforce actual standards of responsibility on gun owners. For instance, if a child is injured or killed in an accident involving your gun then you go to jail for the same length of time you would if you pulled the trigger. If you choose to keep a dangerous weapon around then you should be expected to take full and complete responsibility for your choice.

In the U.S. there's also the matter of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In regards to a well regulated militia. The amendment was written when the sovereignty of US soil was still in question (i.e. threat of invasion). Consider the minutemen for instance. That's a clear case of when your right to keep a gun is imperative. But, really, after the War of 1812 (or, I suppose, the Civil War at the latest) there was really little threat to our national borders, and so our "security" did not really require gun ownership except for those who keep the peace (police).

I don't mind doing away with gun control, provided that we enforce actual standards of responsibility on gun owners. For instance, if a child is injured or killed in an accident involving your gun then you go to jail for the same length of time you would if you pulled the trigger. If you choose to keep a dangerous weapon around then you should be expected to take full and complete responsibility for your choice.

Well, if you have it locked up and put away and the child STILL manages to get it because he's family and took the time to figure out how to get it opened, then you really can NOT be penalized like that. I mean, you can't penalize someone for someone else's stupidity even though he took the proper precautions to have his gun locked up in a gun case and etc.

But I agree this is more of the common sense approach. We DO need to hold people liable for recklessly not knowing how to store and handle guns. We also need to promote the idea that gun owners seek education in gun ettiquette. Hell, if an accident happens, but it is shown that the owner took classes for gun education, I think they should be rewarded for some benefit of the doubt in such the case of an accident like that.

Because child stupidity is bound to happen and really can't be prevented, but we DO want to curb adult stupidity and that can be prevented with instilling them with a good sense of responsiblity to the second ammendment and to the people that live around them.

Well, if you have it locked up and put away and the child STILL manages to get it because he's family and took the time to figure out how to get it opened, then you really can NOT be penalized like that. I mean, you can't penalize someone for someone else's stupidity even though he took the proper precautions to have his gun locked up in a gun case and etc.

Why can't you penalize them? I think that if a person chooses to keep a deadly weapon in their home (which is, in my opinion, their right) then they must accept ALL THE CONSEQUENCES of that choice. If a gun owner is prepared to accept the risk that his child--or someone elses--might be injured or killed due to a gun being in the house, then why would he be unwilling to accept the legal repercussions of making that choice? He knows that having a gun in the house means there is a chance, however small, that such an accident may occur. I think holding him legally responsible in the event of such a tragedy would provide even more incentive for him to ensure it never happens.

The Militia is the people. As long as there are citizens, there will be a militia.

The problem here is the inclusion of the words "well regulated", which implies some kind of organization.

I am of the belief that the Second Amendment provides no right to own a firearm, but I also believe it should.

In the US, registration leads to confiscation. Banning the "most dangerous" leads to banning "most/all". Licensing leads to beaurocratic stoppages.

Well now, you're a bit paranoid. No one has come along and banned driving, yet we license that. You're forced to register your car, but no one has come along to confiscate anyone's car for no reason.

Firearms are dangerous in anyone's hands, but doubly so in the hands of someone who is inexperienced in their use. We must license them.

Assault Rifles & Machine guns have been heavily regulated since 1934. There has not been a single case of a licensed weapon being used in a crime.

Is this not a good thing? Does it not show that registration stands as a deterent against commiting a crime with your weapon?

Citing that violent crimes are commited with illegal weapons says nothing about the registration system itself, just that we need to crack down on dealers.

In regards to a well regulated militia. The amendment was written when the sovereignty of US soil was still in question (i.e. threat of invasion). Consider the minutemen for instance. That's a clear case of when your right to keep a gun is imperative. But, really, after the War of 1812 (or, I suppose, the Civil War at the latest) there was really little threat to our national borders, and so our "security" did not really require gun ownership except for those who keep the peace (police).

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions";

Notice the first part of what the Militia is for. to execute the laws of the union. That includes self-defense against criminals.

Nearly every state has a RCBA clause in their constitution and most of those were written after 1812.

In regards to a well regulated militia. The amendment was written when the sovereignty of US soil was still in question (i.e. threat of invasion). Consider the minutemen for instance. That's a clear case of when your right to keep a gun is imperative. But, really, after the War of 1812 (or, I suppose, the Civil War at the latest) there was really little threat to our national borders, and so our "security" did not really require gun ownership except for those who keep the peace (police).

Wrong. Why? For two reasons: One, because your opinion does not take into the concept that in the future an invasion can STILL happen. Either from China, or another nation who rose to power. If in the future such a threat presents itself, WHO is the militia? It is STILL the people. That is why in Iraq, insurgents OR citizen volenteers against the insurgents are still called militia members. The National Guard tends to serve as the currently trained state miliita, but they are also the reserves. In the event they are already at war such as today, WE are still the milita. If say things with N. Korea went bad, and for some odd reason China also got into it, we would have forces in Iraq that need to transfer and we STILL would need home defenders. WE are that militia.

Two, look up milita in the dictionary. It is ANY ARMED ABLED BODIED MEN of a country. That is what militia meant back then, and it means it now. The armed citizens of a populace in any country.

Third, what you say would still infringe on my constitutional right. Therefore, shut up since you are anti-bill of rights. Therefore you are against natural rights as well.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions";

Notice the first part of what the Militia is for. to execute the laws of the union. That includes self-defense against criminals.

Nearly every state has a RCBA clause in their constitution and most of those were written after 1812.

what are you quoting from?

*Looks at rabid gun nuts arguments* :rolleyes:
*Looks at rabid anti-gun nuts arguments* :rolleyes:
See? Told ya so.

Why can't you penalize them? I think that if a person chooses to keep a deadly weapon in their home (which is, in my opinion, their right) then they must accept ALL THE CONSEQUENCES of that choice. If a gun owner is prepared to accept the risk that his child--or someone elses--might be injured or killed due to a gun being in the house, then why would he be unwilling to accept the legal repercussions of making that choice? He knows that having a gun in the house means there is a chance, however small, that such an accident may occur. I think holding him legally responsible in the event of such a tragedy would provide even more incentive for him to ensure it never happens.

Because certain cases ARE just accidents. Its like a car accident. You chose to have a car which can be deadly. You can train to drive, drive well and follow laws, and you can STILL end up in an accident.

Citizens who follow the laws and apply good ettiqutte in handling can NOT be penalized for excercizing their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I'm sorry. But you have to be reasonable and constitutional at the same time.

Wrong. Why? For two reasons: One, because your opinion does not take into the concept that in the future an invasion can STILL happen. Either from China, or another nation who rose to power. If in the future such a threat presents itself, WHO is the militia? It is STILL the people. That is why in Iraq, insurgents OR citizen volenteers against the insurgents are still called militia members. The National Guard tends to serve as the currently trained state miliita, but they are also the reserves. In the event they are already at war such as today, WE are still the milita. If say things with N. Korea went bad, and for some odd reason China also got into it, we would have forces in Iraq that need to transfer and we STILL would need home defenders. WE are that militia.

Two, look up milita in the dictionary. It is ANY ARMED ABLED BODIED MEN of a country. That is what militia meant back then, and it means it now. The armed citizens of a populace in any country.


Again, you're ignoring two words:

"Well regulated"

Which implies some kind of cohesion and organization.

The problem here is the inclusion of the words "well regulated", which implies some kind of organization.

I am of the belief that the Second Amendment provides no right to own a firearm, but I also believe it should.



Well now, you're a bit paranoid. No one has come along and banned driving, yet we license that. You're forced to register your car, but no one has come along to confiscate anyone's car for no reason.

Firearms are dangerous in anyone's hands, but doubly so in the hands of someone who is inexperienced in their use. We must license them.



Is this not a good thing? Does it not show that registration stands as a deterent against commiting a crime with your weapon?

Citing that violent crimes are commited with illegal weapons says nothing about the registration system itself, just that we need to crack down on dealers.

Paranoid? Can you own a gun in Washington DC? No and it started w/ registration. Chicago? Nope. NY? Very few. In every case in the US, registration let to ourwright bans.

There has also never been national organizations and politicians attempting to place outright bans on automobiles. There are for firearms.

Firearms are not dangerous in "everybody's" hands. Only those who have no idea what they're doing and those who wish to do harm w/ them in the first place. We MUST NOT license them.

It is not a good thing. All it showed is that those who followed the laws would have done so in the first place. Criminals still get their hands on them and commit crimes w/ them. They get them by smuggling and stealing them from the authorities.

We do need to crack down on those who sell guns to criminals. The majority of gun laws, however, do no such thing. They merely restrict the rights of those who, once again, follow the laws in the first place.

Gun Control (whether it is done or not) would not stop people from killing eachother. I say we leave it as is. Canada, for example, has so many less firearms murders then the US, but Canada loves guns more then the US.

Again, you're ignoring two words:

"Well regulated"

Which implies some kind of cohesion and organization.

"regulated" in the 18th century also meant "equipped". Which implies ownership of effective firearms and materials

You're ignoring two words :.

"the people" which implies the people.

what are you quoting from?

The US Constitution.

Again, you're ignoring two words:

"Well regulated"

Which implies some kind of cohesion and organization.

And again, you are ignoring the actual definition of "militia".

I AND my heirs have the right to bear arms in the event the nation of America is under threat or in the case we find ourselves under possible threat by criminals. We also have the right not to subject ourselves to an autocratic organization such as the Army or reserves to defend our country, repubic, or ourselves in the case of threat.

You are against the concept of natural rights. Therefore, you should realize your opinion is not valid in this country.

Good luck getting my guns from me without a couple of dead bodies blocking the doorway. As far as a militia goes, who says that people are not in a militia? There are many militias in the USA, with many members of them. So I guess that means I get to keep my guns then since I am in a militia group. And what about the people that work with firearms for a living? I know I make alot of my money doing gunsmithing, I know people who are pro shooters and rely on that for money.


As far as someone said about keeping criminals from buying them, in the USA if you have a felony or any violent crime record, you can not legally buy a firearm.

-snip-
One of the more detailed and logical arguements I have ever seen on this forum.

The US Constitution.

could you be more vague, please?? :rolleyes:

It's not just a matter of a pro-gun culture.

The majority of violent crime in the US is perpetrated without a gun or weapon of any kind. 76 percent.
It is funny, how my friend Kecibukia always says I play with numbers, and here we have a classic example of someone playing with numbers.

What is THE most violent crime? Murder.

What is the percentage of muders in the US that are committed with firearms?

67%

Yet in gun friendly Virginia, what is the murder rate with firearms?

72%

BTW, 52% of robberies in Virginia involved the use of a firearm in 2003. I don't know what the US National average is, but I am willing to bet that the Virginia number is higher?

could you be more vague, please?? :rolleyes:

OK, one of the most important documents in American history.

It is funny, how my friend Kecibukia always says I play with numbers, and here we have a classic example of someone playing with numbers.

What is THE most violent crime? Murder.

What is the percentage of muders in the US that are committed with firearms?

67%

Yet in gun friendly Virginia, what is the murder rate with firearms?

72%

BTW, 52% of robberies in Virginia involved the use of a firearm in 2003. I don't know what the US National average is, but I am willing to bet that the Virginia number is higher?


Do you really want to get this started again?

Fine. What's the percentage of murders committed w/ firearms in gun banning DC? Near 100%.

How many of those murders were committed w/ legally owned firearms?

One state a nation does not make.

Now comes the other five or so states that "prove" his point.

I always have to add this, because everytime, somewhere in the numerous gun control threads, someone or several someone's say that guns are only designed to kill.

Not all guns are designed to kill. Smith and Wesson Model 52 is but one example. It's designed for target shooting, and target shooting only. The very design that makes it ideal for shooting paper targets minimized the damge it does to human tissue.

It is funny, how my friend Kecibukia always says I play with numbers, and here we have a classic example of someone playing with numbers.

What is THE most violent crime? Murder.

What is the percentage of muders in the US that are committed with firearms?

67%

Yet in gun friendly Virginia, what is the murder rate with firearms?

72%

BTW, 52% of robberies in Virginia involved the use of a firearm in 2003. I don't know what the US National average is, but I am willing to bet that the Virginia number is higher?
CanuckHeaven, please think rationally!

If there are more guns available, more murders will have been committed with guns. That is not to say that there would be MORE MURDERS, just that a higher percentage of them would be committed with a firearm.

So really, what IS your point?

I also draw your attention to the shooting of four RCMP officers in Alberta. It was done with *shudder* an assault weapon that is specifically banned in Canada; an HK91. The laws in place did not prevent him from getting it, now did they?

In case your wondering, the laws have seriously inconvenienced me. They have prevented no murders, saved no lives, and have wasted billions.

So I ask again, what is your point?

Oh, if anyone wants defininte proof in how firearms can be used to protect liberties, rights and ways of life, I'll give you a link; it even comes with pictures, video and radio broadcast:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-99/conflict_war/oka/

Wherever take you may have on this, whether you sympathize with the actions of the Mohawk Nation or not, remember: They were only able to protect their sacred land because they were armed.

*Also, before the issue of the dead police officer is brought up, policemen present at the scene have testified that he was killed by an accidental discharge.

How does it being an accident make it any different?

Because accidents are caused by negligent people.

Rarely are so-called "accidental" shootings true accidents.

An accident involves an actual mechanical failure and no negligence on the part of the operator.

99 percent of so-called "accidental" shootings are actually "negligent" shootings.

Oh, and Canuck, Part I Felonies are "violent crime". Murder is only a minority of violent crimes - I'm sure most would agree that you never want to be raped, assaulted, or robbed.

Since we passed concealed carry here in Virginia, our violent crime rate (and our murder rate) has gone down 65 percent.

And there are more legal guns than ever being carried openly now.

Are you going to still say that our crime rate went up, when in fact, even our murder rate has plummeted?

Are you going to say that the felons I talk to are lying when they say they're now afraid on the street, because they don't know who is armed?

Rarely are so-called "accidental" shootings true accidents.

An accident involves an actual mechanical failure and no negligence on the part of the operator.

99 percent of so-called "accidental" shootings are actually "negligent" shootings.

Oh, and Canuck, Part I Felonies are "violent crime". Murder is only a minority of violent crimes - I'm sure most would agree that you never want to be raped, assaulted, or robbed.

Since we passed concealed carry here in Virginia, our violent crime rate (and our murder rate) has gone down 65 percent.

And there are more legal guns than ever being carried openly now.

Are you going to still say that our crime rate went up, when in fact, even our murder rate has plummeted?

Are you going to say that the felons I talk to are lying when they say they're now afraid on the street, because they don't know who is armed?


He proved his own statement about selectively picking and presenting the numbers. With all his percentages that he threw out, he failed to state that violent crime in VA is half that of the national avg. and the murder rate is slightly below.

Gun bans in the UK and Australia actually increased violent crime significantly. In the US the crime rate in "right-to-carry" states has fallen faster than the national average.

"Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

• Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

• Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.

Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly."

Mr. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Presss, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AdpjX6ZwzpMJ:johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html+murder+rate+australia+increase+after+gun+ban&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Oh, and Canuck, Part I Felonies are "violent crime". Murder is only a minority of violent crimes - I'm sure most would agree that you never want to be raped, assaulted, or robbed.
I think I would rather be raped, assaulted, or robbed than murdered.

Why downplay THE most violent crime?

Since we passed concealed carry here in Virginia, our violent crime rate (and our murder rate) has gone down 65 percent.
What year did Virginia pass the concealed carry law? For some reason, I think this is going to get very interesting.

Question: Are you suggesting that concealed carry laws result in lower violent crime rates?


And there are more legal guns than ever being carried openly now.

Are you going to still say that our crime rate went up, when in fact, even our murder rate has plummeted?
Actually, Virginia's violent crime rate went up 3.6% in 2001.

Are you going to say that the felons I talk to are lying when they say they're now afraid on the street, because they don't know who is armed?
Raw numbers don't support your claim:

2000:

Violent crime: 19,943
Murders: 401
Forcible rapes: 1,616
Aggravated assault: 11,631
Robbery: 6,295

2003:

Violent crime: 20,375
Murders: 413
Forcible rapes: 1,773
Aggravated assault: 11,517
Robbery: 6,672

The ONLY crime that decreased was aggravated assault. The rest all increased.

Oh......and Richmond is in Virginia?

• Between 2001 and 2002, the national murder rate went up less than 1 percent. In cities the size of Richmond, it went up less than 3 percent. In Richmond, the murder rate jumped 20 percent. If current trends hold, it will be even higher this year.

• Richmond ranks eighth on the list of the “10 Most Dangerous Midsized Cities.”

• Last year, there were more murders in Richmond (population 200,000) than in Manhattan (population 1.5 million).

• After the National Night Out shooting on Church Hill, Chief Parker appeared on WRVA and took issue with my claim that such public shootings at high profile events resulting in no arrests was “typical Richmond.” That same weekend, a shootout took place in Carytown less than a block from the Watermelon Festival.

I guess if there was less guns floating around, there would have been a "stab out" instead of a "shootout"?

So now one city makes for the entire nation?

So where did you cutnpaste this from?

Same old same old from Canuck.

Paranoid? Can you own a gun in Washington DC? No and it started w/ registration. Chicago? Nope. NY? Very few. In every case in the US, registration let to ourwright bans.

And in all these cases you're looking at populations that generally don't fight the bans. However, imagine on a national level, which such organizations as the NRA and grass-roots movements fighting each and every attempt by the government to outright ban guns.

Licensing ensures people know how to use them, registration provides a deterent against using your gun in a violent crime and to identify weapons sold by illicit dealers.

There has also never been national organizations and politicians attempting to place outright bans on automobiles. There are for firearms.

But it remains a valid parallel. Both are tools that are exceedingly dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced and still capable of effective and often fatal assaults in the hands of those who are experienced. We license and register one but not the other.

Why?

Firearms are not dangerous in "everybody's" hands. Only those who have no idea what they're doing and those who wish to do harm w/ them in the first place. We MUST NOT license them.

Firearms are indeed dangerous in anyone's hands. Experience and understanding of a gun does not preclude the possibility of an accident or a mistake, it just makes it less likely and more easily preventable.

It is not a good thing. All it showed is that those who followed the laws would have done so in the first place. Criminals still get their hands on them and commit crimes w/ them. They get them by smuggling and stealing them from the authorities.

Which is why we must not simply pass laws against the legitimate gun owners and feel righteous, we must also crack down on the sources of illegal weaponry and encourage registration of one's firearms.

We do need to crack down on those who sell guns to criminals. The majority of gun laws, however, do no such thing. They merely restrict the rights of those who, once again, follow the laws in the first place.

Which is a major problem but, unfortunately, we live in a society which allows a near totalitarian government to hold sway, supressing new ideas in favor of those held by the old-guard of the political elite. We can raise awareness of this problem and attempt to sway the country's current direction by calling our congressmen and writing letters to various lobbyist organizations, but this is key, we must actually do this, not just sit back and complain.

Political activism is necessary to a healthy and free society.


"regulated" in the 18th century also meant "equipped". Which implies ownership of effective firearms and materials

You're ignoring two words :.

"the people" which implies the people.

Due to my lack of knowledge in the linguistic area, I must say I was unaware of this little quirk in the English language. A source that clarifies the difference would bring me to all due concessions.

Also, my interpretation of the inclusion of the words "the people" under my previous assumption was that the people needed only join some kind of state militia where they would recieve training, etc, and the 2nd Amendment would apply to them.

Of course, I did not agree with the meaning of this interpretation, but this is honestly what I thought it meant.

So now one city makes for the entire nation?
You didn't seem to object to WL posting (ad nauseum) his 2 county comparison.

So where did you cutnpaste this from?

Here ya go. (http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=7061)

Same old same old from Canuck.
Just carrying on the debate with WL. He threw out some numbers which I thought were misleading, so I threw some back, and he responded with yet more numbers, which I also think were misleading, and yes, true to form, I replied. :)

1.And in all these cases you're looking at populations that generally don't fight the bans. However, imagine on a national level, which such organizations as the NRA and grass-roots movements fighting each and every attempt by the government to outright ban guns.

2.Licensing ensures people know how to use them, registration provides a deterent against using your gun in a violent crime and to identify weapons sold by illicit dealers.



3.But it remains a valid parallel. Both are tools that are exceedingly dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced and still capable of effective and often fatal assaults in the hands of those who are experienced. We license and register one but not the other.

Why?



4.Firearms are indeed dangerous in anyone's hands. Experience and understanding of a gun does not preclude the possibility of an accident or a mistake, it just makes it less likely and more easily preventable.



5.Which is why we must not simply pass laws against the legitimate gun owners and feel righteous, we must also crack down on the sources of illegal weaponry and encourage registration of one's firearms.



6.Which is a major problem but, unfortunately, we live in a society which allows a near totalitarian government to hold sway, supressing new ideas in favor of those held by the old-guard of the political elite. We can raise awareness of this problem and attempt to sway the country's current direction by calling our congressmen and writing letters to various lobbyist organizations, but this is key, we must actually do this, not just sit back and complain.

Political activism is necessary to a healthy and free society.



.

1. "fight the bans"? These bans were opposed but got passed anyway. The NRA works w/ local organizations to combat gun grabs on the local as well as national level.

2. So to follow your analogy, everyone who has a drivers license is a good driver?

The only people who are going to register their firearms are the ones who are the least likely to commit crimes in the first place. Can you show me how any registration scheme in the US has led to a increase in police arrests of illegal users?

3. I disagree. Cars are very different from firearms. Once again, there are no organizations attempting to outright ban automobiles. There is also no federal or state right to own a vehicle w/o infringement.

4. Once again, I disagree. They are not dangerous in "everybody's hands". I goes w/o saying that experience makes one more adept at handling things.

5. But that is what the majority of "gun control" laws do and are designed for, to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

6. Now who's being paranoid? Do you really believe this is a "totalitarian" Gov't? I do write letters to my congressmen about many issues. I also vote and support/join organizations that hold values similar to my own.

You didn't seem to object to WL posting (ad nauseum) his 2 county comparison.



Here ya go. (http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=7061)


Just carrying on the debate with WL. He threw out some numbers which I thought were misleading, so I threw some back, and he responded with yet more numbers, which I also think were misleading, and yes, true to form, I replied. :)

You've still never been able to adequately explain the county comparison though.

Interesting to note that out of all of those "facts and figures" you left out this:

"And yet the fact remains that the Richmond Police Department is particularly incompetent, especially when compared to departments in other cities of similar size and makeup."

Due to my lack of knowledge in the linguistic area, I must say I was unaware of this little quirk in the English language. A source that clarifies the difference would bring me to all due concessions.

Also, my interpretation of the inclusion of the words "the people" under my previous assumption was that the people needed only join some kind of state militia where they would recieve training, etc, and the 2nd Amendment would apply to them.

Of course, I did not agree with the meaning of this interpretation, but this is honestly what I thought it meant.

It's through the OED. I don't have an online subscription.

" The people" is used multiple times throughout the constitution to mean the citizenry. It's in the very preamble. The only time people argue it as being "collective" is in the 2nd Amendment.

The FF's all meant for the RKBA to be individual.

You've still never been able to adequately explain the county comparison though.
I did explain it, and more than once, and I do believe that the county to county comparisons are not valid.

Interesting to note that out of all of those "facts and figures" you left out this:

"And yet the fact remains that the Richmond Police Department is particularly incompetent, especially when compared to departments in other cities of similar size and makeup."
Yes, progressive laws, and effective law enforcement, combined with effective gun control laws will reduce crime.

I did explain it, and more than once, and I do believe that the county to county comparisons are not valid.


Yes, progressive laws, and effective law enforcement, combined with effective gun control laws will reduce crime.

Right, by picking out one or two things that differentiate them and then comparing completely disparate areas yourself.

There is no such thing as an "effective gun control law", especially in the US The only purpose for them is disarming the public. No matter how many times you are shown that many areas that have relaxed laws can have lower crime, you still push for disarmament of the citizenry.

CanuckHeaven:

Obviously, the numbers went up (however slightly). However, this study is not controlled in any way; for example, here are some variables:

-Poverty
-Increase in population
-Increase in population density
-Gang/drug problems in comparison with other cities
-Number of crimes in which a firearm was used
-Whether use of a firearm can be linked to an increase in number of crimes
-Whether said firearms were legally owned

I used to think very much like you, and with good reason. At some point it is imprinted into our brains that "guns=bad", for better or for worse. Try to open yourself up to possibilities. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than you or anything like that, but rather encouraging you to look on both sides of the fence, and indeed try firing different firearms, particularly a handgun, before making up your mind.

You like to use statistics, but you never break them down. Challenge your pre-conceptions, or they will challenge you.

CanuckHeaven, please think rationally!
Oh I see, you are an intelligent fellow huh? Thanks for the warning. :rolleyes:

If there are more guns available, more murders will have been committed with guns. That is not to say that there would be MORE MURDERS, just that a higher percentage of them would be committed with a firearm.
The US muder rate is 3.2 times higher than Canada's. Do you think that if there were NO guns in the US, that the murder rate in the US would still be 3.2 times higher than Canada's rate?

So really, what IS your point?
My point is that a society that adheres to a poliferation of guns, without instilling a heavy sense of responsibility in the purchasers of these deadly weapons, then that society will inevitably end up with more people being murdered with them.

It is far easier to shoot someone rather than to stab someone?

You never hear of "drive by stabbings", or mass murders with knives?


I also draw your attention to the shooting of four RCMP officers in Alberta. It was done with *shudder* an assault weapon that is specifically banned in Canada; an HK91. The laws in place did not prevent him from getting it, now did they?
When did he get this gun?

How often are police officers shot and killed in Canada? Rarely.

Another comment from CBC News:

The killing of the four officers appears to be unprecedented in modern Canadian history. "You'd have to go back to 1885, to the Northwest Rebellion, to have a loss of this magnitude. It's devastating," said Sweeney.

In case your wondering, the laws have seriously inconvenienced me.
How so?

They have prevented no murders, saved no lives, and have wasted billions.
I await your rationale for this point.

Oh I see, you are an intelligent fellow huh? Thanks for the warning. :rolleyes:
I do not believe my comment was a mocking one, I apologize if it was percieved as one.

The US muder rate is 3.2 times higher than Canada's. Do you think that if there were NO guns in the US, that the murder rate in the US would still be 3.2 times higher than Canada's rate?
Probably not. But how much lower do you think it would be? The U.S. has social problems that arent as readily present in Canada; gangs, much higher population density, lower standards of education, etc.; which I believe to be much more relevant then firearms. If you want to take guns out of the hands of an ordinary citizen, start by reducing the risks to his person. Taking them away FIRST is doing things backwards, if indeed they should be done (against my beliefs, but there you go).
My point is that a society that adheres to a poliferation of guns, without instilling a heavy sense of responsibility in the purchasers of these deadly weapons, then that society will inevitably end up with more people being murdered with them.
Like Canada? Canada has plenty of guns and gun owners. If you want liscensing to be mandatory, great. But it should be like a drivers liscence, not a "whos allowed" thing.

It is far easier to shoot someone rather than to stab someone?
No, its easier to beat him to death. Most murders are committed with no weapon, they just aren't glorified like "gun crime", as though "gun crime" is particularly special.

You never hear of "drive by stabbings", or mass murders with knives?
Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/idaho.amber/index.html

When did he [Jim Roszko]get this gun?
After the new legistlation was in place, but would it have mattered? He wasn't allowed to have it whether or not the laws were in place because he was a felon, and he got it anyway.

How often are police officers shot and killed in Canada? Rarely.
No idea. Do you value the life of a police officer over that of an ordinary citizen? Such a point is moot. (Btw, have you ever wondered why this may be? I'll give you a hint - they were better trained and equipped then the people trying to kill them! Maybe ordinary people should be allowed to be the same. Trained, equipped policeman? I see a trained, equipped person. Good for them, I hope the rest of us are allowed to be at some point.)


Another comment from CBC News:

The killing of the four officers appears to be unprecedented in modern Canadian history. "You'd have to go back to 1885, to the Northwest Rebellion, to have a loss of this magnitude. It's devastating," said Sweeney.
Bear in mind we are talking about the killing of four RCMP officers at once, i.e. massacre. That doesnt happen very often in the states either, and they have very different factors in play there than just guns.

Since you asked, the new laws are a pain in the ass. I pay through the nose because of them. Prices have gone up, restrictions on how I keep my guns in a house with no children and no spouse have been imposed, the registration is a farce, does nothing and is a minor violation of privacy, and most importantly, the backround checks SERIOUSLY violate my right to privacy. they require that every spouse and room-mate that you have bunked with in the last 10 years sign papers saying they trust you with a gun, and this is for *non restricted* (hunting rifles) firearms. If they dont want to, too bad, your shit out of luck because of someone elses political beliefs. Also, two additional people must sign saying they trust you; these people cannot be spouses or room-mates. After all this your liscence can still be turned down.

I await your rationale for this point.
Because the guns that are used for criminal activities are obtained illegally anyway. All it does is keep guns out of the hands of hunters, collectors and target shooters, people who could put them to good, practical and peaceful use.

Because magazine caps serve no purpose. Because if one wants to suddenly become a murderer, and owns a rifle accepting detachable magazines, it takes exactly 30 seconds with a hacksaw (less if its sharp) to turn a legal magazine into an illegal one.

Because a registered gun is still just as capable of killing someone.

Because an "assault weapon" works the same way as many hunting rifles (many ARE hunting rifles), and is only truly different in weight, appearance, and the presence of a bayonette lug (and when have you ever heard of a person being bayonetted to death on the streets?).

Because "big bore super guns" like .50BMG rifles, have never been used to commit a crime to date, and yet people constantly rag on them.

I did explain it, and more than once, and I do believe that the county to county comparisons are not valid.


Yes, progressive laws, and effective law enforcement, combined with effective gun control laws will reduce crime.
Yes, progressive laws, and effective law enforcement will reduce crime... effective gun control laws would be irrelevent.

But that's not good enough for you is it.... you are simply scared of gun and want to live in a world free of those aweful things.

Yes, progressive laws, and effective law enforcement will reduce crime... effective gun control laws would be irrelevent.

But that's not good enough for you is it.... you are simply scared of gun and want to live in a world free of those aweful things.
I have never stated in all of these threads that I would like to see a complete ban on guns.

Please don't make assumptions about my likes and dislikes.

1. "fight the bans"? These bans were opposed but got passed anyway. The NRA works w/ local organizations to combat gun grabs on the local as well as national level.

What I meant was they were areas where the pro-gun lobby just wasn't powerful enough to prevent such a thing. On a national level, 2/3s all state congresses would need to agree to ban guns. Licensing and registration, however, changes really nothing but what happens after someone is already suspected of a crime.

2. So to follow your analogy, everyone who has a drivers license is a good driver?

No, but chances are certainly higher that they will be more experienced and better drivers than un-licensed ones.

The only people who are going to register their firearms are the ones who are the least likely to commit crimes in the first place.

Not if it is required.

Seriously, if it's something as simple as all guns having seriel numbers and, whenever someone walks into a store to buy one, they show their license, fill out a short registration form, and walk out of the store, it wouldn't change much at all. The form is sent off to some government database to be recalled when needed.

Can you show me how any registration scheme in the US has led to a increase in police arrests of illegal users?

What I'm trying to say is that any un-registered gun can automatically be known to be an illegally purchased one.] If you have a registered weapon with a seriel number on it, you are much less likely to risk using it in a violent crime.

I'm not trying to suggest some registration process that is a big hassle, I really do mean something as simple spending five minutes filling out a form when you first buy the gun. The store sends the form off to the government and voila, process over.

3. I disagree. Cars are very different from firearms. Once again, there are no organizations attempting to outright ban automobiles. There is also no federal or state right to own a vehicle w/o infringement.

Beh, all I'm trying to say is we could lisence and register guns without introducing any more than a half a day's worth of hassle for a single class on gun safety, a half an hour for a test, and then five minutes each new gun to register it. It wouldn't cost gun-owners too much at all but would greatly improve the ability of the police to find illegally purchased weaponry.

4. Once again, I disagree. They are not dangerous in "everybody's hands". I goes w/o saying that experience makes one more adept at handling things.

Of course but, as with cars, mistakes and accidents can happen to the most experienced and professional handlers.

5. But that is what the majority of "gun control" laws do and are designed for, to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Which I agree with.

6. Now who's being paranoid? Do you really believe this is a "totalitarian" Gov't? I do write letters to my congressmen about many issues. I also vote and support/join organizations that hold values similar to my own.

Do you know what totalitarianism is? It's a democracy with only one party. Our current system isn't much better.

I do not believe my comment was a mocking one, I apologize if it was percieved as one.
Apology accepted thanks.

Now I have to apologize to you, in that I didn't have enough time today to respond to your post, but I will try to do so on Thursday.

Since we passed concealed carry here in Virginia, our violent crime rate (and our murder rate) has gone down 65 percent.


What year did Virginia pass the concealed carry law? For some reason, I think this is going to get very interesting.


Since you didn’t answer my question, I discovered that Virginia passed the concealed carry law in 1995.

Virginia’s violent crime rate in 1995 was 361.5, and in 2003, it was 275.8, which works out to a decline of 23.8%, NOT the 65% that you have claimed. Also it hasn’t been a steady decline. In 1995, the year that the CCW was passed, the VCR actually increased 3%, and there was a further increase in 2001 of 3.6%.

Meanwhile, for comparison, New York State experienced a 44.7% decline between 1995 and 2003.

I can see why you avoided answering my question.

<<Once again, I disagree. They are not dangerous in "everybody's hands". I goes w/o saying that experience makes one more adept at handling things.>>

And sooner or later you have some prick not take care and BANG! injury or death. To continue the car analogy, my mother is about the safest driver I have seen and she ran down a kid who ran out in front of her. Shit happens, and shit kills.

Personally I don't mind guns with a legitimate use. A hunting rifle, if used for hunting or a target pistol for target shooting is fine. Carrying a target pistol for self-defence I could live with because they aren't very lethal (at least, according to someone on this thread).

It's when I see people discussing the merits of a gun with the pure intention of killing I get worried. I don't care who you are killing, it is wrong. No exceptions.

I live in the UK and I'm glad of it.

"Personally I don't mind guns with a legitimate use. A hunting rifle, if used for hunting or a target pistol for target shooting is fine. Carrying a target pistol for self-defence I could live with because they aren't very lethal (at least, according to someone on this thread)."

Absolutely fine, provided you only apply this to yourself, rather than turning dictator and insisting everyone follow your preference.

I can see why you avoided answering my question.Pot, Kettle, Black.

Maybe you can respond to some Canadians with a slightly different perspective than yours...

Fraser Institute
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New
Study
Contact(s):
Gary Mauser, Professor
Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-xxxx
Email: mauser@xxx.ca

Click here for the complete publication.

Release Date: November 27, 2003

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to
reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain.
The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure,
according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control
and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales,
released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief
that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and
more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be
reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser,
author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser
University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries
that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser
notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm
regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not
just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for
assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic
drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example,
the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991.
This is particularly significant when compared with the rest
of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the
British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.


The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those
in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference
is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry
concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few
decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws
allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In
2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a
permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any
country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming
the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter
productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up
expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement
to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser
points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced
restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns
were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent,
going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England
and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth
consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has
increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more
serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the
firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide
rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001,
has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is
decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in
Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of
violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example,
armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has
cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of
the police services bureaucracy, including the costly
infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased
by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact
on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive
amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For
that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol
cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United
States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the
rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the
United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The
homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming
a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms,
which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now
been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The
final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are
included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law,
no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who
decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on
criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says
Mauser. - 30 -

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent
public policy
organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

Hate to tell you this, but most criminals carry illegaly gotten handguns. Sorry to bust your theory chief.

The irony is that you can't tell the criminals apart from the honest people unless you register so they have you on file and can run you through their database to see if you are clean before selling you firearms.

The irony is that you can't tell the criminals apart from the honest people unless you register so they have you on file and can run you through their database to see if you are clean before selling you firearms.
As opposed to the more sensible approach of registering Criminals and checking to see if you are dirty...

Freedom is Bondage. Weakness is Strength. War is Peace. :rolleyes:

Freedom, like Justice must be an absolute if it is to have any meaning at all. We may culturally or politically choose to abrogate freedoms, but we cannot then say we are Free. That may very well be an acceptable state of affairs, but it is not Free. (No human living in society is Free, as all societies abrogate some Freedoms. Some societies are more Free than others, but they are still not Free.)

Just: Conforming or conformable to rectitude or justice; not doing wrong to any; violating no right or obligation; upright; righteous; honest; true; -- said both of persons and things. Not transgressing the requirement of truth and propriety; conformed to the truth of things, to reason, or to a proper standard; exact; normal; reasonable; regular; due; as, a just statement; a just inference. Rendering or disposed to render to each one his due; equitable; fair; impartial; as, just judge.

Free: Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
Freedom: The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence.

To be Legally Prohibited from owning a Thing is to be subjected to the will, controll or constraint of others. (not free) Legal Prohibitions of Things are always inequitable. If any citizen in the UK is permitted to possess firearms, for whatever reason, not permitting others to own them is inequitable and therefore injust. It may be legal, it may be accepted and acceptable, but it is still injust and an abrogation of Freedom. By definition.

Like the fundamental (animal) right to defend oneself and ones progeny from predation? I have lousy claws, and pretty tame teeth. That's what weapons, "instruments of violence", are for. I think Survival of the Fittest (most prepared) is about as fundamental a Right as imaginable.

Perhaps you should read Dr. Thompson's article. That some people seem incapable of seeing a tool as a tool, rather preferring to see it only as an implement of sociopathy says more about the person fearing the thing than the person using the thing. It's called Projection and/or Reaction Formation. Look into it.

Mmm I just read this and it's led me to conclude that freedom and justice as absolutes as you describe can only exist for isolated individuals; as soon as humans come together then the will of others, be it the 'fittest' as per your scenario or the will of the many in democratic societies, will always impinge upon others' freedoms. In a democratic society the people elect to impose prescriptions on their own behaviour in order to preserve the freedoms of the weak, the freedom to not suffer violence etc. Gun control is merely another example of this. The british people did not have their guns unfairly taken away from them, we in effect elected to give them up, to suppose otherwise is to show an ignorance of how a representative democracy functions.

Mmm I just read this and it's led me to conclude that freedom and justice as absolutes as you describe can only exist for isolated individuals; as soon as humans come together then the will of others, be it the 'fittest' as per your scenario or the will of the many in democratic societies, will always impinge upon others' freedoms. In a democratic society the people elect to impose prescriptions on their own behaviour in order to preserve the freedoms of the weak, the freedom to not suffer violence etc. Gun control is merely another example of this. The british people did not have their guns unfairly taken away from them, we in effect elected to give them up, to suppose otherwise is to show an ignorance of how a representative democracy functions.

I'll let Mr. Jung answer you, because I have to get out of the office (it's 8pm here)

"Without freedom there can be no morality".

All the highest achievements of virtue, as well as the blackest villainies, are individual. The larger a community is, and the more the sum total of collective factors peculiar to every large community rests on conservative prejudices detrimental to individuality, the more will the individual be morally and spiritually crushed, and, as a result, the one source of moral and spiritual progress is choked up. Naturally the only thing that can thrive in such an atmosphere is sociality and whatever is collective in the individual. Everything individual in him goes under, i.e., is doomed to repression. The individual elements lapse into the unconscious, where, by the law of necessity, they are transformed into something essentially baleful, destructive, and anarchical. Socially, this evil principle shows itself in the spectacular crimes-regicide and the like-perpetrated by certain prophetically inclined individuals; but in the great mass of the community it remains in the background, and only manifests itself indirectly in the inexorable moral degeneration of society as a whole society. It is a notorious fact that the morality of a society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity (Senatus bestia, senatores boni viri).Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the state has a hand. In small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded, and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality.

Carl G. Jung:The Assimilation of the Unconscious; The Collected Works vol.7,Para. 240

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Maybe you can respond to some Canadians with a slightly different perspective than yours....
Perhaps presenting some actual statistics, rather than cutting and pasting some bogus articles would help make your case?

Canada Crime statistics 2003

Violent crime: Homicide rate continues downward trend

The violent crime rate has generally declined since the early 1990s after increasing throughout most of the three previous decades. Since 1993, it has fallen 11%, and in 2003, it remained virtually unchanged.

Most violent crime categories recorded declines in 2003, except for robbery, which increased 5%, and attempted murder, which rose 4%.

The national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police, 34 fewer than in 2002.

Keeping things in perspective, Canada's homicide rate is 1.7 per 100,000 residents. That is in a country with a population of 32 Million people.

The US homicide rate is 5.7 per 100,000 or 3.2 times higher than Canada's rate.

Keeping things in perspective, Canada's homicide rate is 1.7 per 100,000 residents. That is in a country with a population of 32 Million people.

The US homicide rate is 5.7 per 100,000 or 3.2 times higher than Canada's rate.
Do you believe this is due to the lack of firearms in Canada? Or the stricter gun control measures?

Well, firearms are out there (everywhere, I'm looking at several right now) and firearms-related crime (as though it were more important than other crime) has not dropped significantly since the passing of the Firearms Act.

The US has social issues that are not as prevalent in Canada. These numbers mean nothing.

In fact, numbers mean nothing at all. I am an individual and I retain my firearms because I know I can own and use them in a responsible manner. It is within noones right, government or otherwise, to tell me that I cannot.

Stop pushing, leave gun owners alone. We have a way of life that we enjoy.

Do you believe this is due to the lack of firearms in Canada? Or the stricter gun control measures?
Well as you already know, we have had strict gun controls in Canada for a long time, which I believe makes for more responsible gun owners.

Well, firearms are out there (everywhere, I'm looking at several right now) and firearms-related crime (as though it were more important than other crime) has not dropped significantly since the passing of the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that.

The US has social issues that are not as prevalent in Canada. These numbers mean nothing.
Care to explain?

In fact, numbers mean nothing at all. I am an individual and I retain my firearms because I know I can own and use them in a responsible manner. It is within noones right, government or otherwise, to tell me that I cannot.
The government cannot tell you to use your firearms in a responsible manner? Huh?

Stop pushing, leave gun owners alone. We have a way of life that we enjoy.
Why do you want to place your rights above mine?

1.Well as you already know, we have had strict gun controls in Canada for a long time, which I believe makes for more responsible gun owners.


2.The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that.


3.Care to explain?


4.The government cannot tell you to use your firearms in a responsible manner? Huh?


5.Why do you want to place your rights above mine?

1. Define "strict" and include sources. So Gov't regulation increases responsibility?

2. Even though its over a billion dollars over budget? Your source please or is that a "belief" as well?

3. Heavy drugs, massive illegal immigration, gangs, population density, criminal subculture, politicians who refuse to go after criminals, etc. All these things you tend to not take into account when it comes to crime rates.

4. The Gov't shouldn't tell me what I can own.

5. How does a Law Abiding Citizen owning a firearm infringe on your rights?

1. Define "strict" and include sources. So Gov't regulation increases responsibility?
Strict means registering, waiting period, background check, no concealed carry, and safe storage, among others.

2. Even though its over a billion dollars over budget? Your source please or is that a "belief" as well?
The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that. (http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=513)

3. Heavy drugs, massive illegal immigration, gangs, population density, criminal subculture, politicians who refuse to go after criminals, etc. All these things you tend to not take into account when it comes to crime rates.
We have heavy drugs, illegal immigration, gangs, population density, criminal subcultures etc. as well. Toronto, Canada's most populous city, with an urban population (extremely cosmopolitan) of approximately 4.5 Million has a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000.

4. The Gov't shouldn't tell me what I can own.
If you be a bad dude, yes they should.

5. How does a Law Abiding Citizen owning a firearm infringe on your rights?
A LAC who registers his weapons, uses them responsibly, and stores them safely, will not likely infringe upon my rights.

Well as you already know, we have had strict gun controls in Canada for a long time, which I believe makes for more responsible gun owners.
No, we haven't. Before the Firearms Act snubbies were legal. Collapsable stocks, flashguards and "foregrips" on firearms were not restricted. It does not make for more responsible gun owners, it makes for greater (and pointless) restrictions on what you can buy. Do you seriously think it matters whether or not your rifle has a flashguard or not?

The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that.
No, they aren't. I don't know where you got this but we are still pissed off.
Registering guns does not make the gun safe. It does not keep them out of the hands of crooks either. It is a waste of the taxpayers money; that 1 billion could have given our healthcare system a real shot in the arm. Maybe people wouldn't be dying in the wait lines at Surrey Memorial.
Care to explain?
Kecibukia took care of this.
The government cannot tell you to use your firearms in a responsible manner? Huh?
Of course they can tell me to use them in a responsible manner. Where did I say otherwise? This was never an issue; what is is that they are telling me what I can and cannot own, my privacy is invaded, and I have nuggets telling me all the time that I'm some kind of paranoid madman for collecting firearms.
Why do you want to place your rights above mine? What rights are those? Are you going to give me a tirade about your freedom to live without red eyed gun nuts breaking down your door and shooting your, or something like that? Sorry, but that was never in question either. I want to live in peace and quiet with my family, and I want to enjoy my firearms without having to worry about people like you bludgeoning on my door for no reason.

Strict means registering, waiting period, background check, no concealed carry, and safe storage, among others.
I do not push for concealed carry reform, but I will not condemn it. Every state that has decided to allow CCW fears blood in the streets, and every sate is surprised that it just doesnt work that way. LAC's are the only ones allowed to CCW, so how does that result in more criminals? As a matter of fact, that shooting on the steps of a Texas courthouse a few months ago was stopped by an LAC and his CCW gun; the man was killed but not before saving the shooters original target. His acts were never mentioned in the liberal controlled media (Paranoid? Look at what I just said). Also, you are obviously unaware of Canadas laws as we have no waiting periods. "Safe storage" drives the cost of firearms through the roof; those safes are expensive, and not all shooters have the money to buy one. Also, it has been proven that "safe storage" does not in fact keep children in the home safe; an open action and an educated child does.
The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that. (http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=513)
Uh, maybe you should read what you just posted. Firearms owners strongly disapprove of the registry.
We have heavy drugs, illegal immigration, gangs, population density, criminal subcultures etc. as well. Toronto, Canada's most populous city, with an urban population (extremely cosmopolitan) of approximately 4.5 Million has a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000.
Nothing compared to the U.S., you have just proved my point for me. Sorry but the murder rates in America have nothing to do with LAC's and their guns; if they did they wouldn't be LAC's, now would they? Thats who gun control laws target, and if you can't see that maybe you shouldnt be having this discussion.
If you be a bad dude, yes they should.
I'm not a "bad dude". Does the fact that I like guns make me a "bad dude"? Or does it just mean that I like guns? And no, the government should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot own, be it a car, a cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, or a firearm. In possessing one, I personally have hurt noone and should not be subject to consequences simply because someone else decided to be an asshat. That is an uncomfortably socialist way of thinking.

A LAC who registers his weapons, uses them responsibly, and stores them safely, will not likely infringe upon my rights. Correct, however I'm not sure what registration has to do with it. Actually I want to know what registration hopes to accomplish in the first place. Does it make the weapon incapable of killing someone? All it does is give the government a big folder full of names of LACs.

1.Strict means registering, waiting period, background check, no concealed carry, and safe storage, among others.


2.The Firearms Act is about registering guns and the majority of Canadians are in favour of that. (http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=513)


3.We have heavy drugs, illegal immigration, gangs, population density, criminal subcultures etc. as well. Toronto, Canada's most populous city, with an urban population (extremely cosmopolitan) of approximately 4.5 Million has a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000.


4.If you be a bad dude, yes they should.


5.A LAC who registers his weapons, uses them responsibly, and stores them safely, will not likely infringe upon my rights.

1. Sources, locations, time periods?

From the 1960's to the early '90's crime in Canada increased, the same trend as the US. It started dropping again in the early '90's, the same trend as the US. It began dropping several years before the "gun control" bill was enacted. If "strict measures" were already in place, why did it increase?

"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."

--MP Garry Breitkreuz


2. I love surveys/polls. Polls said John Kerry was winning by a landslide. Apparently .006% of the population is representative.

3. You have these at the same levels as the US? You have several million illegal immigrants in Canada? You have the same population density as the US? You have the same levels of gang violence as in the US?

In a previous thread, you remarked that the 5 lowest crime states were near the border to Canada and were similar so therefore they had lower crime. They also were all CC states w/ very lax " gun control" laws. They should have much higher crime according to you.

4. But since I am not, they shouldn't. Do you support preemptive policing?

5. You're avoiding the question. How does a LAC, someone who does not commit crimes, infringe on your rights by owning a firearm?

In the US, registration is an infringement. "Responsible use" and "stored safely" are subjective terms that those who wish to infringe on my rights use to try and take away my firearms.

Uh, maybe you should read what you just posted. Firearms owners strongly disapprove of the registry.
I did read what I posted, and clearly understood the results, which state that the majority of Canadians are in favour the Firearms Act. I didn't say the majority of firearms owners.

From the Poll:

Currently, one-in-five Canadians (18%) live in a household where firearms are present. This proportion is essentially unchanged from 2001. Looking at attitudes toward the gun control legislation by ownership status, we find that a majority of gun owners (55%) oppose the current gun control legislation, with most of these (44%) in strong opposition to the legislation. However, a significant minority of gun owners supports the legislation (45%). Further, a majority of non-firearm owners living in households where firearms are present (77% overall, 45% strongly) support the gun control legislation. A strong majority of other non-owners (78% support overall, 60% strongly) also support the legislation.

Don't you find those numbers significant, especially non owners of firearms in a household where firearms are present.

Perhaps gun owners should also have to purchase insurance to cover property damage or public liability in the event that their firearms are used in an unwarranted fashion?

Perhaps presenting some actual statistics, rather than cutting and pasting some bogus articles would help make your case?

Um, because, as you have so professionally shown, statistics can be manipulated.

But it was awfully nice of you to just declare that the Frasier Institute article is "bogus". Would you like to elaborate?

I "cut and paste" it because I wanted a reasoned opinion on why you (obviously) disagree with them, not just a typically arrogant dismissal. But whatever.

Um, because, as you have so professionally shown, statistics can be manipulated.

But it was awfully nice of you to just declare that the Frasier Institute article is "bogus". Would you like to elaborate?

I "cut and paste" it because I wanted a reasoned opinion on why you (obviously) disagree with them, not just a typically arrogant dismissal. But whatever.
The article that the Frazier Institute issued does not have supporting data. Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. I responded with official numbers that actually refutes their argument. What more would you like?

The article that the Frazier Institute issued does not have supporting data. Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. I responded with official numbers that actually refutes their argument. What more would you like?

Numbers that showed crime started dropping before the gun registry.

Here's some interesting facts on how efficient the registry is:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/whatdidtaxpayersget.htm

a gun registry that has so infuriated the provincial and territorial governments that eight of them have opted out of the administration of the gun registry and the Western provinces refuse to enforce it;

a gun registry that is attempting to register all the legally-owned long guns in Canada while Statistics Canada tables show that firearms homicides with rifles and shotguns that have never been registered dropped steadily over the last 27 years, from 64% to 31%;

a new gun registry based on the failed 68-year-old legally-owned handgun registry that has seen a steady increase in firearms homicides committed with handguns from 27% in 1974 to 58% in 2000. Statistics Canada also reported that between 1997 and 2001, 74% of the handguns recovered from the scenes of 143 homicides were NOT registered;

So just from those, much of your own local gov'ts don't support it, it registers guns that were dropping in use before it, and criminals don't register their guns anyway.

<snip>
To demonstrate the societal causes, take a look at this chart...

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000) for Young Males in Selected Countries - 1993
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif

And that's not the total murders. That's the murder rate. Even in Israel, where there are suicide bombings, there are less deaths by firearms.

And even claiming that people would be "accidentally" shot in the cross-fire of a person defending themselves, is false.
<snip>

To go back to Shrub's original point, the UK isn't even on the list in that first link, and we have some of the tightest gun control around. Guns are very heavily restricted to gun clubs (where they must be kept within club premises) and certain specialist uses..... and we have one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world.

To go back to Shrub's original point, the UK isn't even on the list in that first link, and we have some of the tightest gun control around. Guns are very heavily restricted to gun clubs (where they must be kept within club premises) and certain specialist uses..... and we have one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world.

And , once again, it was lower before the gun grabs and "controls" as well.

The article that the Frazier Institute issued does not have supporting data. Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. I responded with official numbers that actually refutes their argument. What more would you like?
(Sigh. You really are an arrogant sot aren't you?) Of course it didn't give the supporting data... it was a news release. I thought you might be bright or interested enough to go look it up yourself, but since you obviously have no interest in personally researching opposing Canadian opinions...

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf (download to read)

Happy? :rolleyes: It's a PDF and I don't have the time or will to OCR it just to post for you.

Australia has good gun control.
No semi-automatic or full-automatics, exc target pistols, and some other restrictions on models, but can still have guns.
good balance between guns being available, and reducing chances of shooting rampages ala Columbine

Theres a really really big difference between arms now and when the constitution was made

Yeah, the average person could get "military" grade weaponry to keep the government in check, then. We've got a larger gap today.

I don't mind doing away with gun control, provided that we enforce actual standards of responsibility on gun owners. For instance, if a child is injured or killed in an accident involving your gun then you go to jail for the same length of time you would if you pulled the trigger. If you choose to keep a dangerous weapon around then you should be expected to take full and complete responsibility for your choice.

I'm all for personal responsibility. That's the problem with a great portion of society today--freedom means being responsible for oneself. Many don't realize that it involves effort....

Why can't you penalize them? I think that if a person chooses to keep a deadly weapon in their home (which is, in my opinion, their right) then they must accept ALL THE CONSEQUENCES of that choice. If a gun owner is prepared to accept the risk that his child--or someone elses--might be injured or killed due to a gun being in the house, then why would he be unwilling to accept the legal repercussions of making that choice? He knows that having a gun in the house means there is a chance, however small, that such an accident may occur. I think holding him legally responsible in the event of such a tragedy would provide even more incentive for him to ensure it never happens.

Because other people are responsible for THEMSELVES as well.

Again, you're ignoring two words:

"Well regulated"

Which implies some kind of cohesion and organization.

Actually, back then, it meant "trained". Like going to the range an awful lot.

On all these data arguements, has anyone seen that book which suggests that the drop in crime is linked to the legalisation of abortion?

What the author suggests is that because of abortions being legalised, more women in lower socio-econmical levels could get abortions, hence there was a drop in the amount of people in this lower level, and less people were forced to turn to crime. Also, there would be less parents that were abusive or neglective towards the children. That would also help.

Sounds bulls*** initally, but makes a certain level of sense when you think about it. It would explain lower levels in robberies and murders, as there would be fewer psychologically disturbed people, and people from a poor upbringing running around.

On all these data arguements, has anyone seen that book which suggests that the drop in crime is linked to the legalisation of abortion?

What the author suggests is that because of abortions being legalised, more women in lower socio-econmical levels could get abortions, hence there was a drop in the amount of people in this lower level, and less people were forced to turn to crime. Also, there would be less parents that were abusive or neglective towards the children. That would also help.

Sounds bulls*** initally, but makes a certain level of sense when you think about it. It would explain lower levels in robberies and murders, as there would be fewer psychologically disturbed people, and people from a poor upbringing running around.

Yes. It is called "Freakonomics" (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php) and is written by a Chicago Economics professor. I own it and it is fascinating. I have cited the study numerous times, but people visciously ignore it. :mad:

Here it is again (in part)

Chapter 4: Where Have All the Criminals Gone?


What Nicolae Ceausescu learned-the hard way-about abortion . . . Why the 1960s were a great time to be a criminal . . . Think the roaring 1990s economy put a crimp on crime? Think again . . . Why capital punishment doesn't deter criminals . . . Do police actually lower crime rates? . . . Prisons, prisons everywhere . . . Seeing through the New York City police "miracle" . . . What is a gun, really? . . . Why early crack dealers were like Microsoft millionaires and later crack dealers were like Pets.com . . . The superpredator versus the senior citizen . . . Jane Roe, crime stopper: how the legalization of abortion changed everything.




Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.

This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.

It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes-the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.

How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?

One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.

In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.

But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s-when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime-which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.

(Sigh. You really are an arrogant sot aren't you?) Of course it didn't give the supporting data... it was a news release. I thought you might be bright or interested enough to go look it up yourself, but since you obviously have no interest in personally researching opposing Canadian opinions...
Happy? :rolleyes: It's a PDF and I don't have the time or will to OCR it just to post for you.
So I am arrogant because I ask for data to back up opinionated articles? I have seen Lotts (pun intended) of articles that are so totally inaccurate that I find it incredible that they would actually write that stuff. So many gun cites (another intended pun) just cut and paste from one to the other and unfortunately skewed data gets transmitted this way.

BTW, I have read many opposing Canadian opinions as well as American so when someone posts a simple article then the poster should be prepared to post supporting facts.

That is what debate is all about?

So I am arrogant because I ask for data to back up opinionated articles? I have seen Lotts (pun intended) of articles that are so totally inaccurate that I find it incredible that they would actually write that stuff. So many gun cites (another intended pun) just cut and paste from one to the other and unfortunately skewed data gets transmitted this way.
BTW, I have read many opposing Canadian opinions as well as American so when someone posts a simple article then the poster should be prepared to post supporting facts. That is what debate is all about?
No, your post was arrogant because of comments like this: Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. I responded with official numbers that actually refutes their argument. What more would you like?
You can't refute an argument with "official numbers" unless you refer to the original argument. I did not post an argument, I posted a press release identifying a 25 page paper produced by a Canadian organization. The arrogance comes in being dismissive without reflection and refutation.

I do not hold or advance the position that possession of firearms has lowered violent crime rates, bucause it is unsupportable. However, it is also unsupportable to say that the possession of firearms raises violent crime rates. The two are not correlatable. Since they are not correlatable, banning (or hyper-regulating) the thing or honest people makes no sense. What makes sense is to hyper-regulate CRIMINALS, i.e. those who, by their actions, have proven themselves to be a causal agent in violence.

The amount of violent action in this country perpetrated by non-recidivist criminals is a tiny fraction of the violent crime rate as a whole. Laws that target the actions of the law abiding are redundant, and laws that impinge upon the rights of privacy and property of the law abiding are unethical.

Criminals, by their actions, have forfeited their sociatal Rights. We may allow them certain Privileges, but their Rights are gone. Punish, monitor, register, regulate and restrict them - not the law abiding.

No, your post was arrogant because of comments like this:
You can't refute an argument with "official numbers" unless you refer to the original argument. I did not post an argument, I posted a press release identifying a 25 page paper produced by a Canadian organization. The arrogance comes in being dismissive without reflection and refutation.
I am sorry if my post to you appeared to be arrogant, it was not the intention. Posting of articles in support of ones argument, can lead to argument regarding the content of the article? I certainly was not outright dismissive of the article and it did spur me to do some fact checking, however, it makes it easier if the source is attached.

I do not hold or advance the position that possession of firearms has lowered violent crime rates, bucause it is unsupportable. However, it is also unsupportable to say that the possession of firearms raises violent crime rates. The two are not correlatable. Since they are not correlatable, banning (or hyper-regulating) the thing or honest people makes no sense. What makes sense is to hyper-regulate CRIMINALS, i.e. those who, by their actions, have proven themselves to be a causal agent in violence.
The problem is that people such as John Lott suggest that more guns = less crime, and I don't see that as supportable. However, when I look at countries with gun control, I for the most part do see a distinct correlation between less guns and less murders.

The amount of violent action in this country perpetrated by non-recidivist criminals is a tiny fraction of the violent crime rate as a whole. Laws that target the actions of the law abiding are redundant, and laws that impinge upon the rights of privacy and property of the law abiding are unethical.
What happens in the US, is that many supposed LAC's expect complete freedom to purchase any guns without any restrictions. What happens frequently is that many of these legally purchased weapons get lost or are stolen and there is no accountability. Where do these guns end up? On the streets in the hands of the criminals.

Sometimes LAC's will use a firearm to end the life (lives) of loved one(s). Without doing a thorough background check on individuals who want to purchase a firearm, how does anyone really know that they are in fact LAC's?

Criminals, by their actions, have forfeited their sociatal Rights. We may allow them certain Privileges, but their Rights are gone. Punish, monitor, register, regulate and restrict them - not the law abiding.
Most criminals are a product of their environment. What kind of environment is developing in your neighbourhood?

I am sorry if my post to you appeared to be arrogant, it was not the intention. Posting of articles in support of ones argument, can lead to argument regarding the content of the article? I certainly was not outright dismissive of the article and it did spur me to do some fact checking, however, it makes it easier if the source is attached.Apology accepted. I couldn't attach the article because it is a PDF, otherwise I would have.

The problem is that people such as John Lott suggest that more guns = less crime, and I don't see that as supportable. Neither do I. It is, however, supportable to say that possession of a firearm at the time that a crime is committed increases the odds and rate of survival of those potential victims. But that is not extrapolatable across the population base.
However, when I look at countries with gun control, I for the most part do see a distinct correlation between less guns and less murders.I think that after you factor in culture, history, population density and other factors that "correlation" will go away. It's a Post Hoc question. Do they have less murder because they have fewer guns, or do they have fewer guns because they (historically/culturally/whatever) have fewer murders?

What happens in the US, is that many supposed LAC's expect complete freedom to purchase any guns without any restrictions. What happens frequently is that many of these legally purchased weapons get lost or are stolen and there is no accountability. Where do these guns end up? On the streets in the hands of the criminals.There is no other product that is held to that standard. Not Drugs, not cars, not chemicals, nothing. If I go and steal a tank of liquid ammonia from a farmer and disperse it into a residence, killing the occupants, the farmer is not, and cannot be held liable for my actions. Why should firearms be any different? Should people be more proactive in storing their (non-carried) firearms? Absolutely. But to create a law that is enforcable means allowing the government carte-blanche access to homes and creates a registry of potential "undesirables".
Sometimes LAC's will use a firearm to end the life (lives) of loved one(s). Without doing a thorough background check on individuals who want to purchase a firearm, how does anyone really know that they are in fact LAC's?
I have no problems with (instant) background checks, as long as the only data retained by the government (and therefore retrievable) is of convicted criminals. A database search of convicted violent felons is feasable and sensible, a search (and maintaining a database!) of all LACs is not. It should not be the LAC's responsibility to prove the positive, it should be the Governmen't to prove the negative.
Most criminals are a product of their environment. What kind of environment is developing in your neighbourhood?The only kind I am legally allowed to promote... which means I have to "ignore" the gangs of teenage thugs that roam the streets and wander through my yard intimidating people (my neighbors) rather than attempt to shame or intimidate them in return. There is no social stigma attached to thuggish behavior any more - it is, in fact praised by popular culture. The only thing I CAN do is be ready and capable of defending myself when (not if, when) physically menaced by people with criminal/violent intent. I should not have to leave my home simply because it is between two housing projects. That's punishing the innocent again. Punish the guilty, not the innocent.

1. What happens in the US, is that many supposed LAC's expect complete freedom to purchase any guns without any restrictions. What happens frequently is that many of these legally purchased weapons get lost or are stolen and there is no accountability. Where do these guns end up? On the streets in the hands of the criminals.

2.Sometimes LAC's will use a firearm to end the life (lives) of loved one(s). Without doing a thorough background check on individuals who want to purchase a firearm, how does anyone really know that they are in fact LAC's?


3.Most criminals are a product of their environment. What kind of environment is developing in your neighbourhood?

1.Do you have a source for this? What defines "many"? In Canada, an estimated 92% of handguns used in homicides are unregistered.

Less than .025% of firearms in the US are used in crime, assuming that every one was stolen from a LAC and each crime used a separate firearm.

OTOH, the FBI has had stolen or lost track of several thousand firearms alone. Perhaps we should put more "controls" on them.

2. Define "thorough". The NICS shows whether an individual has a criminal history or not.

3. Therefore attempts should be made to change the environment in which they come from. Increased education and efforts to reduce poverty and the glorification of the criminal subculture would help.

Apology accepted. I couldn't attach the article because it is a PDF, otherwise I would have.
No problem. Thanks for the link. Several thoughts come to mind while reviewing his material.

1. The Frazier Institute tends to be a right wing think tank and generally espouses those views.

2. Gary Mauser is an American from California who currently resides in Canada.

3. Is Gary Mauser related to the Mauser gun manufacturer in any way?

4. He stands to profit from his research in that he is writing a book about it.

5. The graphs he uses in his examples are visually deceptive. He has overlayed the Canadian stats with the US stats and uses one scale on the left for Canada and one scale on the right for the US. A more accurate graph would show the Canadian rates much lower than the US rates, even if the patterns might be identical.

6. I do not believe that the following comment that he made in the article that you attached is representative or true:

"The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

Here is a graph of murder rates that depict the downward trend except in 2002, when the homicide rate increased 4% to 1.85 per 100,000. However, not shown here is the 2003 rate which was a 6% drop to 1.73 per 100,000:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/c031001a.gif

Accompanying notes:

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm last year, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, firearms accounted for 40% to 50% of all homicides. This proportion has generally been decreasing since 1974.

I think this is most significant when discussing the relative virtues of gun control, especially when you notice that murder rates in the late 60's early 70's were in the 3 per 100,000 range.

I will get back to you on the rest of your post....I just don't have time right now.

*snip*
May I ask you something?

Do you believe that its worth it?

I mean, worth spending billions of dollars to take my firearms away, or at least to invade my privacy because I've got them, because some people die at the end of a gun each year?

Consider the following.

How useful is a baseball bat, really? I mean, what do you need it for? Baseball you say?

Ah, baseball, such a wholesome sport. Right? Well, I view hunting, target shooting and plinking to be wholesome activities as well. Actually I think they are safer than baseball (ever seen a catcher wasted with a bat, by accident? Pretty scene, that one) football (no need to comment) or rugby (again, self evident), because the gun is pointed downrange; you aren't slamming eachother around. And lets face it, way more people are beaten to death than shot. Just something to think about before you go off on a rant about "gun crime". Guns recieve so much attention because they are more dramatic.

May I ask you something?

Do you believe that its worth it?
The simple answer is yes.

I mean, worth spending billions of dollars to take my firearms away, or at least to invade my privacy because I've got them, because some people die at the end of a gun each year?
First of all, they are not confiscating your weapons. They just want you to register them and be accountable.

Now may I ask you the same question, worded differently:

If the legislation ended up only saving one life and that life was yours, would it be worth it?

Consider the following.

How useful is a baseball bat, really? I mean, what do you need it for? Baseball you say?

Ah, baseball, such a wholesome sport. Right? Well, I view hunting, target shooting and plinking to be wholesome activities as well. Actually I think they are safer than baseball (ever seen a catcher wasted with a bat, by accident? Pretty scene, that one) football (no need to comment) or rugby (again, self evident), because the gun is pointed downrange; you aren't slamming eachother around. And lets face it, way more people are beaten to death than shot. Just something to think about before you go off on a rant about "gun crime".
Would you say that it would be extremely difficult to kill someone with a baseball bat, or a knife if the victim was 300 yards away?

The obvious answer would be yes? Now I ask you to consider this article:

Police arm themselves with high-powered rifles (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/25/Southpinellas/Police_arm_themselves.shtml)

In November of 2002 a Ruskin man stole a truck and threatened its owner with an assault rifle. He then led Hillsborough sheriff's deputies on a half-hour chase, firing at them along the way.

Six months later, a man hiding in a patch of woods in east Pasco County fired an assault rifle at a sheriff's cruiser, killing a popular deputy.

Earlier this month, a man stood outside a St. Petersburg day care waving an assault rifle and yelling threats to his girlfriend inside. The staff locked the doors and huddled children in closets.

High-powered rifles are increasingly visible in the Tampa Bay area, and with the expiration of a 10-year ban on their sale, law enforcement agencies fear they will see more.

Guns recieve so much attention because they are more dramatic.
Exactly my point, and BTW, far more deadly than a bat or knife.

There is no other product that is held to that standard. Not Drugs, not cars, not chemicals, nothing. If I go and steal a tank of liquid ammonia from a farmer and disperse it into a residence, killing the occupants, the farmer is not, and cannot be held liable for my actions. Why should firearms be any different?
If you want to buy drugs, you need a prescription. Your name, type of drug, and quantity are recorded and saved in a data base.

If you buy a car, it has to be registered, and insured.

Companies that sell chemicals require licensing, insurance, and record transactions. I am sure that if thousands of people were going around killing people with chemicals, the government would have to act.

Cars, drugs, and chemicals are meant for the enhancement of the human condition, and cars and trucks are necessary for transport and the delivery of goods.

Guns are made to enable hunters to kill their quarry, and for soldiers to protect themselves in war i.e. shoot their foes. Shouldn't these deadly weapons be licenced? Perhaps an argument could be made that gun owners should also have insurance to protect against property damage, and public liability, in the cases where guns have been used inappropriately?

Should people be more proactive in storing their (non-carried) firearms? Absolutely. But to create a law that is enforcable means allowing the government carte-blanche access to homes and creates a registry of potential "undesirables".
However, it appears that many gun owners are not storing their guns "proactively" and this results in 500,000 lost or stolen weapons every year.

"A registry of potential undesirables" sounds a bit like unjustified fear?

The simple answer is yes.


First of all, they are not confiscating your weapons. They just want you to register them and be accountable.
At the sacrifice of my privacy. And be accountable for what? Owning guns? You little twit, you really believe all that crap Moore spews about "gun nuts, militia crazies" dont you!? I'm sorry, but this is really getting offensive.
Now may I ask you the same question, worded differently:

If the legislation ended up only saving one life and that life was yours, would it be worth it?
Fuck no. READ MY LIPS: INVASION OF PRIVACY, WITH NO JUST CAUSE. Do you know why a police officer needs a search warrant? RIGHT TO PRIVACY! I have committed no crime, and am not suspect, you have no right to collect a neat little dossier!
Would you say that it would be extremely difficult to kill someone with a baseball bat, or a knife if the victim was 300 yards away? I saved a photo for just this moment, when someone would try and pull that "sniper rifle" bs:

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/S_SNIPER.JPG

I take 400 yard shots with my hunting rifle for warmup. 800 for serious practice, before I re-zero for 150. Unless you plan on banning hunting rifles outright, you had better just drop that right there. It also only happens like that in movies.
Police arm themselves with high-powered rifles (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/25/Southpinellas/Police_arm_themselves.shtml)

In November of 2002 a Ruskin man stole a truck and threatened its owner with an assault rifle. He then led Hillsborough sheriff's deputies on a half-hour chase, firing at them along the way.

Six months later, a man hiding in a patch of woods in east Pasco County fired an assault rifle at a sheriff's cruiser, killing a popular deputy.

Earlier this month, a man stood outside a St. Petersburg day care waving an assault rifle and yelling threats to his girlfriend inside. The staff locked the doors and huddled children in closets.

High-powered rifles are increasingly visible in the Tampa Bay area, and with the expiration of a 10-year ban on their sale, law enforcement agencies fear they will see more.
I'm sorry, I will not be held accountable for the actions of criminals because I own the same piece of hardware (I probably don't, but whatever). The fact that you compare an LAC to a moron with a rifle shoots your own argument down. The people who go on these rampages purchase their weapons illegally; Roszko, Platt, Klebold (who did NOT purchase his tec-9 at a gunshow, but rather from a dealer). Harris is the only exception to this; his guns and one of Klebolds were bought for him by an older friend who cleared a backround check; no restrictions would have stopped him from getting his weapons. By the way, The Brady Bill never banned assault weapons, it banned asthetic features. It was a PR move, and a terribly destructive one.

Also, you realize a hunting rifle is more likely to kill a police officer? Yep, its true. Them evil .30-06 (or .308, or .270, or .284, or .25WSM, or any .300, or .338, etc) boltguns is armor-piercing! :eek: AR and AKs arent!
Exactly my point, and BTW, far more deadly than a bat or knife.
#1 Who cares? People use them to kill way more people, and they are even LESS useful than guns! We need immediate registration programs, anyone with a baseball bat needs to be held ACCOUNTABLE!

#2 If you actually understood guns, then you would understand that they are not the all-powerful kill sticks you make them out to be. A kitchen knife is legal, rediculously easy to conceal, available to anyone with a place to sleep, and the wounds are worse than any pistol can inflict. Guns are not common weapons, because it is illegal to sell one to a crook. Sorry, but registration, clip restrictions (which as I have pointed out many times, don't restrict a clip if you intend on breaking the law) and indeed, most of the firearms act was designed to discourage gun owners in the first place. Look at the laws, I mean really look at them: Registration? It has never helped solve a case, doesn't regulate who can get guns, either. Its just a catalogue of who owns them, which if you ask me, is really fucking creepy. The fact that you, as a Canadian, think this is alright makes me wonder what this place is about.

Or what about prohibited firearms? Snubbies and valuable WW2 lugers? I can never own the luger my Grandfather brought back; when my dad passes on it will be destroyed. "Grandfathered" firearms cannot be passed along. Snubbies, the same kind the cops used to use to protect LAC's, were disassembled and set in concrete rather than sold back to the liscence bearing portion of the public that bought them in the first place; it could have brought in revenue with no ill effects. And, the shooters would have been happy.

Or "restricted" carbines... Flashguards make an assault weapon? Or a pistol grip? Thats asthetics, not function!

Do you think I'm a criminal? I suppose I cannot ask for an opinion since you don't know me, but anyway, I'm innocent until proven guilty. So why are you and people like you giving ME and other shooters like me a hard time, instead of going after the actual criminals?

By the way, you know quite well where you can put your statistics. They do not effect me in any way, and add up to a big 0, because unless I woke up in the wrong country today, we are a society of individuals, and I am not socially responsible for someone elses roadrage.

Here is a fact of life you need to get used to: People die. People kill eachother. In some places, more people kill eachother than in other places. You think guns are more available to Americans than Canadians? Bullshit, we don't even have waiting periods, and noone even knows how many people have grampa's .22 stashed in a storage closet somewhere. The only laws we have were designed to inconvenience shooters.

At the sacrifice of my privacy. And be accountable for what? Owning guns? You little twit, you really believe all that crap Moore spews about "gun nuts, militia crazies" dont you!? I'm sorry, but this is really getting offensive.
You bemoan your right to "privacy", but if you want to own and operate a car on the highway, you must register your vehicle and insure it. If you own a gun in Canada, it has to be registered and the majority of Canadians support that.


Now may I ask you the same question, worded differently:

If the legislation ended up only saving one life and that life was yours, would it be worth it?

Fuck no. READ MY LIPS: INVASION OF PRIVACY, WITH NO JUST CAUSE. Do you know why a police officer needs a search warrant? RIGHT TO PRIVACY! I have committed no crime, and am not suspect, you have no right to collect a neat little dossier!
So, your right to privacy is worth more than YOUR life? Interesting concept.

I'm sorry, I will not be held accountable for the actions of criminals because I own the same piece of hardware (I probably don't, but whatever). The fact that you compare an LAC to a moron with a rifle shoots your own argument down. The people who go on these rampages purchase their weapons illegally; Roszko, Platt, Klebold (who did NOT purchase his tec-9 at a gunshow, but rather from a dealer). Harris is the only exception to this; his guns and one of Klebolds were bought for him by an older friend who cleared a backround check; no restrictions would have stopped him from getting his weapons. By the way, The Brady Bill never banned assault weapons, it banned asthetic features. It was a PR move, and a terribly destructive one.
Yet many gun owners don't want to be responsible for their weapons, and many end up being stolen, which end up in the hands of these "dealers", and viola you have chaos.

#1 Who cares? People use them to kill way more people, and they are even LESS useful than guns! We need immediate registration programs, anyone with a baseball bat needs to be held ACCOUNTABLE!
Yet in Canada, in the late 60's early 70's when the murder rate was in the 3 per 100,000 range, guns were used 40 to 50% of the time. The gun usage rate is lower and so is the murder rate.

#2 If you actually understood guns, then you would understand that they are not the all-powerful kill sticks you make them out to be. A kitchen knife is legal, rediculously easy to conceal, available to anyone with a place to sleep, and the wounds are worse than any pistol can inflict. Guns are not common weapons, because it is illegal to sell one to a crook. Sorry, but registration, clip restrictions (which as I have pointed out many times, don't restrict a clip if you intend on breaking the law) and indeed, most of the firearms act was designed to discourage gun owners in the first place. Look at the laws, I mean really look at them: Registration? It has never helped solve a case, doesn't regulate who can get guns, either. Its just a catalogue of who owns them, which if you ask me, is really fucking creepy. The fact that you, as a Canadian, think this is alright makes me wonder what this place is about.
It is more difficult to kill a person with a knife than with a gun, because to do so, you need to get up close and personal, whereas with a gun, you can shoot a person from hundreds of yards away.

Do you think I'm a criminal? I suppose I cannot ask for an opinion since you don't know me, but anyway, I'm innocent until proven guilty. So why are you and people like you giving ME and other shooters like me a hard time, instead of going after the actual criminals?
I do believe that the police are going after the criminals and asking owners of lethal weapons to register them, and store them in a safe place. What is the problem?

#By the way, you know quite well where you can put your statistics. They do not effect me in any way, and add up to a big 0, because unless I woke up in the wrong country today, we are a society of individuals, and I am not socially responsible for someone elses roadrage.
However, statistics are what politicians use to justify their actions. I believe that they are right to ask LAC's to register their weapons.

Here is a fact of life you need to get used to: People die. People kill eachother. In some places, more people kill eachother than in other places. You think guns are more available to Americans than Canadians? Bullshit, we don't even have waiting periods, and noone even knows how many people have grampa's .22 stashed in a storage closet somewhere. The only laws we have were designed to inconvenience shooters.
To get a FIREARMS ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE, there is a 28 day waiting period, effective in 1993.

I fully understand the facts of life and I realize that Canada is a safer country to live in, and I would like it to stay that way. So, go register your guns, store them safely and enjoy them.

BTW, the ad hominen attacks do nothing to enhance your debating skills, and makes me reflect upon your statement about "road rage".

A few things(note:I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this may have been said already):
1)YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN. IT IS A PRIVILIDGE THAT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect you(no gun control law has EVER been shot down on second amendment grounds), and the privacy issue is moot because by buying a gun, you know full well that you have to register it(which is actually rather ineffective in stopping gun violence).
2)Owning a gun makes you less safe. They are almost useless for self-defense (http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm); even if it works for even one person, for every time a firearm has been used in self-defense, 37 lives are lost due to gun suicides, 4.6 lives are lost due to gun homicides, and 1.3 lives are lost in unintentional gun deaths. That's 43 deaths for each self-defense gun use.
3)Gun Safety doesn't work for preventing deaths. Research has shown that gun safety programs of any sort do little to reduce firearm death and injury; the only thing that works is removing the guns.
4)Most of the "gun control" measures currently in place DON'T WORK. Safety features on guns do little. Background checks and licensing don't work well(partially because they don't exclude certain groups from buying guns, partially becasue they "routinely fail to screen out criminals and other dangerous individuals", partially because they do little to stop several common catagories of gun violence(suicides, homicides between people who know each other, and unintentional injuries), and partially becasue there's no guarantee that people who pass licensing won't use them for violent purposes later). In fact, many guns used in crimes are liscensed
5)Guns are suspetable to being stolen. That gun you have for "self-defense" will more likely be stolen than used for your purpose.
6)Having a gun in the home increases the risk of successful suicide for people in the home.
7)Having children and guns in the same home is a bad idea. It's all too easy for them to get their hands on the gun and shoot themselves or somebody else, whether it's on purpose or by accident.

The above is a mixture of information from Every Handgun is Aimed at You:The Case for Banning Handguns, the website in my signature, and common sense.

A few things(note:I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this may have been said already):
1)YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN. IT IS A PRIVILIDGE THAT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect you(no gun control law has EVER been shot down on second amendment grounds), and the privacy issue is moot because by buying a gun, you know full well that you have to register it(which is actually rather ineffective in stopping gun violence).
2)Owning a gun makes you less safe. They are almost useless for self-defense (http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm); even if it works for even one person, for every time a firearm has been used in self-defense, 37 lives are lost due to gun suicides, 4.6 lives are lost due to gun homicides, and 1.3 lives are lost in unintentional gun deaths. That's 43 deaths for each self-defense gun use.
3)Gun Safety doesn't work for preventing deaths. Research has shown that gun safety programs of any sort do little to reduce firearm death and injury; the only thing that works is removing the guns.
4)Most of the "gun control" measures currently in place DON'T WORK. Safety features on guns do little. Background checks and licensing don't work well(partially because they don't exclude certain groups from buying guns, partially becasue they "routinely fail to screen out criminals and other dangerous individuals", partially because they do little to stop several common catagories of gun violence(suicides, homicides between people who know each other, and unintentional injuries), and partially becasue there's no guarantee that people who pass licensing won't use them for violent purposes later). In fact, many guns used in crimes are liscensed
5)Guns are suspetable to being stolen. That gun you have for "self-defense" will more likely be stolen than used for your purpose.
6)Having a gun in the home increases the risk of successful suicide for people in the home.
7)Having children and guns in the same home is a bad idea. It's all too easy for them to get their hands on the gun and shoot themselves or somebody else, whether it's on purpose or by accident.

The above is a mixture of information from Every Handgun is Aimed at You:The Case for Banning Handguns, the website in my signature, and common sense.


1. The majority of states disagree w/ you as almost every single one has an equivalent to the 2nd amendment in their constitutions. The only reason the federal 2nd doesn't apply to the states is because the courts have not "incorporated" it as per the 14th amendment. It is the only one that hasn't. Convienent, huh? 39 states have also passed concealed carry laws, the ultimate in individual firearm rights.

2. The VPC, there's a legitimate source. Every one of those statistics have been refuted and are considered a joke except by groups like that.

3. More "research" by the VPC.

4,5,6. "Many licensed guns are used in crime"? Source please? preferrably something not from the VPC or HCI.

7. I guess that's why accidents have been decreasing for decades while ownership has increased.

If you want to buy drugs, you need a prescription. Your name, type of drug, and quantity are recorded and saved in a data base.

If you buy a car, it has to be registered, and insured.

Companies that sell chemicals require licensing, insurance, and record transactions. I am sure that if thousands of people were going around killing people with chemicals, the government would have to act.

Cars, drugs, and chemicals are meant for the enhancement of the human condition, and cars and trucks are necessary for transport and the delivery of goods.

Guns are made to enable hunters to kill their quarry, and for soldiers to protect themselves in war i.e. shoot their foes. Shouldn't these deadly weapons be licenced? Perhaps an argument could be made that gun owners should also have insurance to protect against property damage, and public liability, in the cases where guns have been used inappropriately?


However, it appears that many gun owners are not storing their guns "proactively" and this results in 500,000 lost or stolen weapons every year.

"A registry of potential undesirables" sounds a bit like unjustified fear?


Boy, did you miss the point entirely. None of the above mentioned are in danger of being forced out of business due to third party lawsuits.

A car does not have to be registered or insured to be purchased. Only driven on public streets. Licenses are also good across the entire US. Do you support a national licensing program that would make one be able to use a firearm in every state equally?

500K every year? Source please. You've stated that one before and never cited it.

If they are used "innapropriately" then the consequenses are already in place. Do you support lawsuits against the firearm industry for illegal actions committed w/ their products?

1.The simple answer is yes.


2.First of all, they are not confiscating your weapons. They just want you to register them and be accountable.

Now may I ask you the same question, worded differently:

3.If the legislation ended up only saving one life and that life was yours, would it be worth it?


4.Would you say that it would be extremely difficult to kill someone with a baseball bat, or a knife if the victim was 300 yards away?

The obvious answer would be yes? Now I ask you to consider this article:

Police arm themselves with high-powered rifles (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/25/Southpinellas/Police_arm_themselves.shtml)

In November of 2002 a Ruskin man stole a truck and threatened its owner with an assault rifle. He then led Hillsborough sheriff's deputies on a half-hour chase, firing at them along the way.

Six months later, a man hiding in a patch of woods in east Pasco County fired an assault rifle at a sheriff's cruiser, killing a popular deputy.

Earlier this month, a man stood outside a St. Petersburg day care waving an assault rifle and yelling threats to his girlfriend inside. The staff locked the doors and huddled children in closets.

High-powered rifles are increasingly visible in the Tampa Bay area, and with the expiration of a 10-year ban on their sale, law enforcement agencies fear they will see more.


Exactly my point, and BTW, far more deadly than a bat or knife.

1. Do you support the banning of knives as well to "reduce crime"?

2. Registering leads to confiscation. It happened in DC, Chicago, NY, England, Australia, and Canada.

Over 550,000 previously legal handguns became illegal and were to be confiscated/turned in following the "gun control"bill. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal.

But what's this, :Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms."

Next came long-gun registration. Guess what's going to come after that.

3. Not if the legislation removed more of my civil rights beforehand.

4. How many crimes or murders are committed from 300yds away?

5. Were they really using "assault rifles"? Or were they using "assault weapons"? These were still just as available as during the AWB years. There has been no change in prices or "flooding of the market". They are also less powerful and have less range than an average hunting rifle. $250 a box!? Only if you define a "box" as over 1000 rounds. You can pick up a "box" of 20 for under $10.
" Officers say the rifles provide a layer of comfort, even if they have not had to fire a single shot beyond the practice range."

So the police can feel "comfortable" , but civilians can't?

More lies by the VPC: "when you arm the police with assault rifles, you run the risk of turning them into combat zones," & "I doubt there very many communities outside Iraq where you need that kind of firepower."

Once again, not "assault rifles". and I thought the streets were supposed to be "awash w/ blood" after the CC laws were passed?

So that article has no obvious bias, no, none at all.

1.You bemoan your right to "privacy", but if you want to own and operate a car on the highway, you must register your vehicle and insure it. If you own a gun in Canada, it has to be registered and the majority of Canadians support that.




2.So, your right to privacy is worth more than YOUR life? Interesting concept.


3.Yet many gun owners don't want to be responsible for their weapons, and many end up being stolen, which end up in the hands of these "dealers", and viola you have chaos.


Yet in Canada, in the late 60's early 70's when the murder rate was in the 3 per 100,000 range, guns were used 40 to 50% of the time. The gun usage rate is lower and so is the murder rate.


4.It is more difficult to kill a person with a knife than with a gun, because to do so, you need to get up close and personal, whereas with a gun, you can shoot a person from hundreds of yards away.


5.I do believe that the police are going after the criminals and asking owners of lethal weapons to register them, and store them in a safe place. What is the problem?


6.However, statistics are what politicians use to justify their actions. I believe that they are right to ask LAC's to register their weapons.


7.To get a FIREARMS ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE, there is a 28 day waiting period, effective in 1993.

I fully understand the facts of life and I realize that Canada is a safer country to live in, and I would like it to stay that way. So, go register your guns, store them safely and enjoy them.

BTW, the ad hominen attacks do nothing to enhance your debating skills, and makes me reflect upon your statement about "road rage".

1. There is also no right to own a car. You also don't need a license to purchase a car or use it on private land.

2. I'll defend my rights and those of others w/ my life if necessary.

3. Provide sources for "many". 92% of handguns used in Canada are not registered. What were the murder rates before the registry? Bet they were similar.

4. You "can", but how many murders are committed from more than a few feet away? Even w/ firearms.

5. If they haven't committed a crime, why are the police involved in the first place? Once again, define "safe". Do you support warrantless searches of your home to determine if you are "safe"?

6. As you have proven, statistics can be shown to "prove" anything. I believe it is wrong to ask LAC's to register their weapons especially when you have politicians like Fienstein stating "Turn them all in" and Liberal Party Senator Sharon Carstairs stating that the new law was a keystone in her party`s blueprint to "socially re-engineer Canada."

Hope you like being "re-engineered".

7.According to the chart you posted, gun crime started dropping before 1993.

Canada was safer before the registry. It did nothing to curb crime. Crime was dropping before the new laws and grabs were enacted so they did little or nothing to curb crime. Registering does nothing, "safe storage" is subjective as I already store mine safely w/o gov't intervention and I plan on enjoying them and continuing my fight against them being taken away.

1. There is also no right to own a car. You also don't need a license to purchase a car or use it on private land.

2. I'll defend my rights and those of others w/ my life if necessary.

3. Provide sources for "many". 92% of handguns used in Canada are not registered. What were the murder rates before the registry? Bet they were similar.

4. You "can", but how many murders are committed from more than a few feet away? Even w/ firearms.

5. If they haven't committed a crime, why are the police involved in the first place? Once again, define "safe". Do you support warrantless searches of your home to determine if you are "safe"?

6. As you have proven, statistics can be shown to "prove" anything. I believe it is wrong to ask LAC's to register their weapons especially when you have politicians like Fienstein stating "Turn them all in" and Liberal Party Senator Sharon Carstairs stating that the new law was a keystone in her party`s blueprint to "socially re-engineer Canada."

Hope you like being "re-engineered".

7.According to the chart you posted, gun crime started dropping before 1993.

Canada was safer before the registry. It did nothing to curb crime. Crime was dropping before the new laws and grabs were enacted so they did little or nothing to curb crime. Registering does nothing, "safe storage" is subjective as I already store mine safely w/o gov't intervention and I plan on enjoying them and continuing my fight against them being taken away.

Good.

However, statistics are what politicians use to justify their actions.
This is true, however as Howard Dean showed earlier this week that politicians pull statistics put of their ass without checking the validity of said statistics. He stated that abortion has had a 25% rise since Bush was put into office. This is false. There is only a single opinion piece that states this. However Guttmacher looked at the raw numbers and whadda you know, there's been a decrease. Statistics mean jack shit unless you know exactly how they were gathered so you can quantify their reliability.

http://factcheck.org/article330.html

1. There is also no right to own a car. You also don't need a license to purchase a car or use it on private land.
This rebuttal really is a non starter.

2. I'll defend my rights and those of others w/ my life if necessary.
I do believe that you missed the point on this one?

3. Provide sources for "many". 92% of handguns used in Canada are not registered. What were the murder rates before the registry? Bet they were similar.
That was in reference to American gun owners who resist any form of registration.

Where did you get the 92% figure for Canada?

Before you bet, perhaps you will dig up the numbers?

4. You "can", but how many murders are committed from more than a few feet away? Even w/ firearms.
Still, no contact is required, thus killing with a gun is far easier than with a knife.

5. If they haven't committed a crime, why are the police involved in the first place? Once again, define "safe". Do you support warrantless searches of your home to determine if you are "safe"?
I support registration of firearms, and safe storage.

6. As you have proven, statistics can be shown to "prove" anything. I believe it is wrong to ask LAC's to register their weapons especially when you have politicians like Fienstein stating "Turn them all in" and Liberal Party Senator Sharon Carstairs stating that the new law was a keystone in her party`s blueprint to "socially re-engineer Canada."

Hope you like being "re-engineered".
Could you please provide a link to where Sharon Carstairs actually stated these words, or did you get them from the plethora of "pro gun" sites that tend to twist the truth?

7.According to the chart you posted, gun crime started dropping before 1993.

Canada was safer before the registry. It did nothing to curb crime. Crime was dropping before the new laws and grabs were enacted so they did little or nothing to curb crime. Registering does nothing, "safe storage" is subjective as I already store mine safely w/o gov't intervention and I plan on enjoying them and continuing my fight against them being taken away.
You didn't read the bolded statement underneath the chart? I will post it again:

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm last year, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, firearms accounted for 40% to 50% of all homicides. This proportion has generally been decreasing since 1974.

BTW, Canada is safer WITH the gun registry, contrary to your assertion. (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/New/MythsFacts01.06.pdf)

I am sure that you will find Canada's gun laws draconian by US standards, but the results are the end that justify the means.

As far as someone said about keeping criminals from buying them, in the USA if you have a felony or any violent crime record, you can not legally buy a firearm.
If you are a felon in the US, you can NOT own a firearm or you can go to prison. You can not even have a firearm in your dwelling. If you do and are caught, you *will* go to prison...do not pass go, do not collect $200. In fact, under felony probation, you cannot even carry a pocketknife. You can't carry around a Leatherman if you're a felon, because even though it's just a tool, it contains a blade. To do so is to risk prison as well.

As for concealed carry laws in Texas, you have to have a completely clean criminal record and pass more than one safety course to get a concealed carry permit. Also, this law was recently passed, it's not a holdover from the Wild, Wild West.

All in all, in Texas, it's harder to get a concealed carry permit than it is to become a police officer.

1.This rebuttal really is a non starter.


2.I do believe that you missed the point on this one?


3.That was in reference to American gun owners who resist any form of registration.

Where did you get the 92% figure for Canada?

4.Before you bet, perhaps you will dig up the numbers?


5.Still, no contact is required, thus killing with a gun is far easier than with a knife.


6.I support registration of firearms, and safe storage.


7.Could you please provide a link to where Sharon Carstairs actually stated these words, or did you get them from the plethora of "pro gun" sites that tend to twist the truth?


8.You didn't read the bolded statement underneath the chart? I will post it again:

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm last year, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, firearms accounted for 40% to 50% of all homicides. This proportion has generally been decreasing since 1974.

BTW, Canada is safer WITH the gun registry, contrary to your assertion. (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/New/MythsFacts01.06.pdf)

I am sure that you will find Canada's gun laws draconian by US standards, but the results are the end that justify the means.

1. And yet you made the Car/gun comparison. What's the matter? Don't like the comparison anymore?

2. no, don't think so. Nice that you didn't answer from the other post though.

3. the 92% is from the Frazier report which cites Canadian surveys. Did you not read the report before dismissing it as "right wing biased"? Where did you get your 500K stolen guns /year figure?

4. What? I thought you've done "extensive research" on the matter. I don't know for a fact but I'm still willing to bet on it.

5. You're avoiding the question. How many murders are committed from more than a few feet away?

6. You're still avoiding the questions. Do you support warrantless searches of homes by Gov't authorities to ensure registration and "safe storage"? What do you define as "safe storage"?

7. I got it from the NRA site. I admit that. Do you deny she said that? As for "twisting Facts" you have quoted numerable things from HCI and VPC amongst others as well as "twisting facts" yourself w/ the numbers.

8. The Canada handgun registry has been in place since the 1930's. Why did gun usage increase then?

"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."

--MP Garry Breitkreuz

You have the audacity to make cause w/ "the plethora of "pro gun" sites that tend to twist the truth" and then post a PDF from a group called "The Coalition for Gun Control"? You're just too much. It still shows that firearm crime began decreasing before the licensing and registration laws were passed. They just rehashed the numbers from the same poll you posted earlier. I still don't see 2000 people being representative of 32 million.

I like this "prevented 9,000 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS" people. Out of how many million registered? What about the 38,000 plus people that the registry has already lost track of? "Potentially Dangerous"? That's a nice phrase. Wait till you're denied something for being "potentially dangerous".

Apparently you do support pre-emptive policing.

After all this time, still no causality.

I can't seem to find the post anymore, but I was reading this thread earlier and I heard someone mention that governments ought to have the monopoly on violence...am I the only one who is even slightly frightened by this? It's almost as if the world is forgetting the Stalins and Hitlers and the nearly endless list of psychotic dictators over the ages. I'd like to think that people would realize that it would be more difficult for such people to rise to prominence if the citizenry in opposition were armed.

I can't seem to find the post anymore, but I was reading this thread earlier and I heard someone mention that governments ought to have the monopoly on violence...am I the only one who is even slightly frightened by this? It's almost as if the world is forgetting the Stalins and Hitlers and the nearly endless list of psychotic dictators over the ages. I'd like to think that people would realize that it would be more difficult for such people to rise to prominence if the citizenry in opposition were armed.

But that could "never" happen here. [sarcasm]

God knows how many times I've heard that one from friends and fellow students. I live in a very "liberal" (by that I mean they're Democrats) college town, and it seems like everyone thinks the government can do no wrong. Unless of course it's in the hands of the Republican Party.

I'd like to think that people would realize that it would be more difficult for such people to rise to prominence if the citizenry in opposition were armed.
The Founding Fathers realized it. That's the exact reason why the 2nd Ammendment was included in the Constitution.

It's too bad that people nowdays are such sheep that they'd rather kowtow to their government and special interest groups than be able to protect themselves.

You bemoan your right to "privacy", but if you want to own and operate a car on the highway, you must register your vehicle and insure it. If you own a gun in Canada, it has to be registered and the majority of Canadians support that.

The majority of Canadians don't know what they are talking about, unfortunately. Our society has an unfortunate tendency to "make a law against it" or "impose restrictions" thinking that it solves the problem. All it does is motivate people to ignore the problem all over again.

Honestly I dont see why people care what weapon a murder is committed with. You have done nothing to prove that Canada is safer; from what I can see, it isn't.
So, your right to privacy is worth more than YOUR life? Interesting concept.
Is freedom of speech more valuable than my life? It is a tragic day when Canadians as a body support this kind of thinking. Why do you think people flee their countries, at great peril to them and their families, just to enjoy these basic rights? Because it is more important than any one life, or any thirty lives.
Yet many gun owners don't want to be responsible for their weapons, and many end up being stolen, which end up in the hands of these "dealers", and viola you have chaos.
Don't hold me responsible for the negligence of others. I am not responsible for this, neither are the majority of gun owners. Also, your "500K stolen guns a year" thing is laughable, because the number is so huge. There are 7 million guns in Canada. Do the math.
Yet in Canada, in the late 60's early 70's when the murder rate was in the 3 per 100,000 range, guns were used 40 to 50% of the time. The gun usage rate is lower and so is the murder rate.
Correct. This means nothing, as I have pointed out you cannot link the two.
It is more difficult to kill a person with a knife than with a gun, because to do so, you need to get up close and personal, whereas with a gun, you can shoot a person from hundreds of yards away.
No, you can't.

Well, I suppose you could, but you would need:

A ) Premeditation
B ) A high end rifle (very expensive - ever heard of a crook using a $1500 rifle?)
C ) A place to sight in this rifle (rifles will draw some attention)
D ) Skill
E ) Motive is to kill rather than rob (rarely, rarely, rarely happens, its huge news when it does)

Whereas with a knife, you need to "get up close and personal". Like muggings, carjackings, deals-gone-wrong, etc.? Try to understand the settings of these deaths.

I once heard you claim that you were in the Military. The more you post about guns, the more it becomes evident that you were shooting off your mouth. Sorry to be so blunt.
I do believe that the police are going after the criminals and asking owners of lethal weapons to register them, and store them in a safe place. What is the problem?
Register as in put our names down in a little list that as I already explained, is nothing but a catalogue of who owns a hunting rifle? And safe place as in somewhere where one could never use that firearm if it were needed?
However, statistics are what politicians use to justify their actions. I believe that they are right to ask LAC's to register their weapons.
Yes, I know you do. :rolleyes:

We see the problem with your "weapon" statement. You look upon that as a bad thing. I look upon a weapon as a useful tool.

[COLOR=Red]To get a FIREARMS ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE, there is a 28 day waiting period, effective in 1993.[/QUOTE]
The Firearms Act changed FAC's to PAL's. Why? Know one knows, it was kinda stupid. But the waiting period is much longer now.

Anyway, I was referring to the firearms themselves.
I fully understand the facts of life and I realize that Canada is a safer country to live in, and I would like it to stay that way. So, go register your guns, store them safely and enjoy them.
Certain parts of Canada are safer than certain parts of the United States, this is true. It also has nothing to do with a gun registry, which does not stop someone from shooting someone else. I think you know this and don't know when to concede an argument.
BTW, the ad hominen attacks do nothing to enhance your debating skills, and makes me reflect upon your statement about "road rage".You think I give a damn about my debating skills?

I already told you, these are offensively socialist principles that are being forced on me.

I already told you, these are offensively socialist principles that are being forced on me.

I get the feeling that CH is also opposed to capitalism as he has denounced research that "stands to show a profit" for its authors on several occasions.

I'm still waiting for his 500K guns stolen a year cite (I think that was for the US BTW) which he mentioned several weeks ago in another thread and never posted where he got it from. It couldn't possibly be from one of the "the plethora of "ant-gun" sites that tend to twist the truth" though, could it?

.

Criminals are going to use whatever they can get their hands on to kill a person. It doesn't matter if it's a $600 pistol, a $30,000 car, a $1,000,000 airliner, or a $10 Swiss Army knife.

In addition, murder rates with guns are higher in areas situated in 'Blue' states, which are also areas which usually have tighter gun control laws. In the 'Red' states, where almost every home has a gun, there is a low murder rate and really lax gun control laws.

You can put this argument to rest. There is no reasoning with someone capable of actually believing this...
(snip)
I am sure that you will find Canada's gun laws draconian by US standards, but the results are the end that justify the means.
The above sentiment is/has been the excuse throughout history for every atrocity known to man.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Some people believe so strongly in something that it serves them the way Religion serves Fundamentalists. No amount of evidence will convince them, indeed, such people believe that those who don't agree with them are either:

1. Stupid/ignorant/uninformed
or
2. Evil.

CH is one such person, he is a TRUE BELIEVER. Such are, within the limits of their dogma, perfectly rational, they are often even nice people... but they are also capable of incredible ruthlessness and closed-mindedness when dealing with those whose opinions and viewpoints differ from their carefully circumscribed belief-systems.

I'm amazed so many of you have failed to realize this. On the subject of Gun Control, CH's mind is as made-up as a mind can get-and he will never, ever, be even capable of contemplating changing that mind, (much less doing so based on evidence).

You're trying to explain Desert Geological Processes to a fish here. Unless you have the ultimate gift of persuasion, you're not going to get anywhere with this guy. Give up, you can't beat Faith with Reason or Evidence.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
"Some people believe so strongly in something that it serves them the way Religion serves Fundamentalists. No amount of evidence will convince them, indeed, such people believe that those who don't agree with them are either:

1. Stupid/ignorant/uninformed
or
2. Evil.

Kecibukia is one such person, he is a TRUE BELIEVER. Such are, within the limits of their dogma, perfectly rational, they are often even nice people... but they are also capable of incredible ruthlessness and closed-mindedness when dealing with those whose opinions and viewpoints differ from their carefully circumscribed belief-systems.

I'm amazed so many of you have failed to realize this. On the subject of guns, Kecibukia's mind is as made-up as a mind can get-and he will never, ever, be even capable of contemplating changing that mind, (much less doing so based on evidence).

You're trying to explain Desert Geological Processes to a fish here. Unless you have the ultimate gift of persuasion, you're not going to get anywhere with this guy. Give up, you can't beat Faith with Reason or Evidence".

I borrowed your words Cadillac, and inserted Kecibukia's name to demonstrate their reversibility. However, there is a difference. Kecibukia has zero tolerance for gun control advocates, whereas I do believe that responsible gun owners have every right to own a gun based on strict guidelines. I am not close minded to the point whereby I advocate confiscation of guns.

There are irresponsible people in all walks of life and I don't see how giving them all the right to walk around with guns under their coats is going to improve the safety of the citizenship.

Consider these overwhelming facts:

Canada:

Population: 32,000,000

A total of 149 homicides reported in 2002 were committed with firearms, 22 fewer than in 2001. This total represented a rate of 0.47 for every 100,000 people, the lowest since 1966.

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm.

Virginia:

Population: 7,386,330

In 2003, the number of people murdered by a firearm was 335. This total represents a rate of 4.53 for every 100,000 people.

In Virginia, the murder weapon of choice was the firearm, to the tune of 72.6%

Now if anyone is being dogmatic in their beliefs, I honestly believe that it would be those that advocate zero restrictions on gun ownership. If the facts presented here don't register with the appendage attached to your shoulders, then the fish analogy would be more appropriate to them.

What's the matter CH? are you getting upset?

Does this sound familiar? "ad hominen attacks do nothing to enhance your debating skills"

You must be getting upset, you're going back to "But Virginia (or Florida etc.) has high crime so it must be the guns". BTW, 4.53 is below the Nat'l average.

Still no causality.

If you don't support the confiscation of firearms, why do you support every policy that has led to confiscation, including in Canada?

Nice that you avoided every question I've asked.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the 500,000 guns a year stolen cite.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the 500,000 guns a year stolen cite.

Governments participating in the United Nation’s International Study on Firearm Regulation reported more than 100,000 firearms lost or stolen annually. According to the UN Study, the United States reported more
than 12,000 stolen guns during a nine-month period to September 1996. However other sources have estimated that the number could be as high as half a million.44

44 Cook et. al, 1995 The FBI compiles national data only on the value of the firearms reported to the police department, not the number of firearms. Depending on the assumptions regarding the average value of guns, the Police Foundation estimated that in 1991 between 300,000 and 600,000 guns were stolen. According to the National Crime Victimization Study the average number of incidents in which at least one gun was stolen during the period 1987-1992 was 340,700 per year.

Governments participating in the United Nation?s International Study on Firearm Regulation reported more than 100,000 firearms lost or stolen annually. According to the UN Study, the United States reported more
than 12,000 stolen guns during a nine-month period to September 1996. However other sources have estimated that the number could be as high as half a million.44

44 Cook et. al, 1995 The FBI compiles national data only on the value of the firearms reported to the police department, not the number of firearms. Depending on the assumptions regarding the average value of guns, the Police Foundation estimated that in 1991 between 300,000 and 600,000 guns were stolen. According to the National Crime Victimization Study the average number of incidents in which at least one gun was stolen during the period 1987-1992 was 340,700 per year.

That's nice. Where did you get it from?

What's the matter CH? are you getting upset?
There is nothing you could do or say that would upset me. Why do you believe that I am upset?

Does this sound familiar? "ad hominen attacks do nothing to enhance your debating skills"
Actually, I didn't perceive the post by Cadillac to be ad hominien per se, but it appears that you take it that way since I inserted your name foe mine?

You must be getting upset, you're going back to "But Virginia (or Florida etc.) has high crime so it must be the guns". BTW, 4.53 is below the Nat'l average.
The National average is 67%, and Virginia's is 72.6%. How is that below the National average? The reference was to homicides committed by firearms, not the total number of homicides.

If you don't support the confiscation of firearms, why do you support every policy that has led to confiscation, including in Canada?
I have stated my position and it was quite clear. I stand by that statement.

Nice that you avoided every question I've asked.
That is absolutely not true and you know it. Some questions I have ignored because you already have been given answers to those questions before, or that I find them irrelevant, or I do not have time to answer them all.

That's nice. Where did you get it from?
It states in the footnote (44) that the reference comes from the FBI.

The National average is 67%, and Virginia's is 72.6%. How is that below the National average? The reference was to homicides committed by firearms, not the total number of homicides.
He was referring to the number of homicides, hence he said 4.53. Who gives a damn what kind of weapon the murder was committed with, seriously? Does it make a difference?

Keep on churning those numbers, HowitzerBoy...

1.There is nothing you could do or say that would upset me. Why do you believe that I am upset?


2.Actually, I didn't perceive the post by Cadillac to be ad hominien per se, but it appears that you take it that way since I inserted your name foe mine?


3.The National average is 67%, and Virginia's is 72.6%. How is that below the National average? The reference was to homicides committed by firearms, not the total number of homicides.


4.I have stated my position and it was quite clear. I stand by that statement.


5.That is absolutely not true and you know it. Some questions I have ignored because you already have been given answers to those questions before, or that I find them irrelevant, or I do not have time to answer them all.

1.Because you're avoiding/changing the topics, refusing to answer questions, and switching around quotes to state what you want. All things you do when you're getting frustrated in the arguements.

2. Since I had nothing to do w/ that post, it's interetesting to note that you used MY name instead of CG's. "Foe"? A freudian slip?

3. You used the total number of homicidesby firearm, 4.53. That is below the Nat'l total average VA still has a lower rate than nationally as well. If you want to keep returning to things, DC's is close to 100% w/ a handgun ban and Chicago's increased after their ban.

4. You stand by a statement that doesn't answer the question. How political of you. One can only infer that you DO support the confiscation of firearms since you support policies that have lead to confiscation.

5. It is absolutely true and I know it. You refuse to answer questions that make your position untenable and then try and change the subject (like now).

It states in the footnote (44) that the reference comes from the FBI.

Actually is states that the reference comes from an author named "Cook" who alledgeldy used data from the FBI. Did he "stand to make a profit" from his/her research?

Nice way to dodge the issue again. Where did you get your cutnpaste from CH?

You've proven beyond a doubt how one can rearrange statistics.

1.Because you're avoiding/changing the topics, refusing to answer questions, and switching around quotes to state what you want. All things you do when you're getting frustrated in the arguements.
I can assure you that I am not frustrated in the least.

2. Since I had nothing to do w/ that post, it's interetesting to note that you used MY name instead of CG's. "Foe"? A freudian slip?
Well I certainly have debated this subject with you far more than any other poster, so you were a natural fit. The "foe" thing is a typo but it does confirm my beliefs that you tend to be a bit paranoid regarding this topic. And before you go jumping into the deep end, you have admitted this yourself, in regards to the government confiscating your weapons.

3. You used the total number of homicides, 4.53. That is below the Nat'l average. Nice way to dodge around the issue. If you want to keep returning to things, DC's is close to 100% w/ a handgun ban and Chicago's increased after their ban.
No in fact, I did NOT use the total number of homicides in Virginia. The total number of homicides in Virginia was 461 according to OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER (http://www.vdh.state.va.us/medexam/FIPVRpt04.pdf).

Therefore, the 4.53 per 100,000 murders by firearm (72.6%) is higher than the National average of 67%. Nice try though.

4. You stand by a statement that doesn't answer the question. How political of you. One can only infer that you DO support the confiscation of firearms since you support policies that have lead to confiscation.
If YOUR inferences keep you happy, then you are welcome to them. My statement does answer the question.

5. It is absolutely true and I know it. You refuse to answer questions that make your position untenable and then try and change the subject (like now).
Actually, that is your favourite tactic, among others. I honestly try my best to answer the questions. However, there are several questions that you ask over and over and I have decided that I am not going to answer the same question over and over.

He was referring to the number of homicides, hence he said 4.53. Who gives a damn what kind of weapon the murder was committed with, seriously? Does it make a difference?
I do believe that the topic is gun control, so yes I do believe that the number of murders committed with a firearm is appropriate. Seriously.

Keep on churning those numbers, HowitzerBoy...
I spent one year in the militia (artillery) when I was a young boy of 16, so I guess HowitzerBoy would fit. The best position on the gun was number two, as a number two, you get to set the elevation, pull the lanyard to fire the shell,and open the breach to eject the expended shell. Our rifles were the FNC 1, and I was a pretty good shooter if I must say so myself, although my buddy was definitely a marksman.

1.I can assure you that I am not frustrated in the least.


2.Well I certainly have debated this subject with you far more than any other poster, so you were a natural fit. The "foe" thing is a typo but it does confirm my beliefs that you tend to be a bit paranoid regarding this topic. And before you go jumping into the deep end, you have admitted this yourself, in regards to the government confiscating your weapons.


3.No in fact, I did NOT use the total number of homicides in Virginia. The total number of homicides in Virginia was 461 according to OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER (http://www.vdh.state.va.us/medexam/FIPVRpt04.pdf).

Therefore, the 4.53 per 100,000 murders by firearm (72.6%) is higher than the National average of 67%. Nice try though.


4.If YOUR inferences keep you happy, then you are welcome to them. My statement does answer the question.


5.Actually, that is your favourite tactic, among others. I honestly try my best to answer the questions. However, there are several questions that you ask over and over and I have decided that I am not going to answer the same question over and over.

1. If you say so.

2. I was a "natural fit", "paranoid", "jumping into the deep end"? Boy this is getting weak. The majority of "gun control" laws are intended to disarm LAC's. The "Gun Control" groups and politicians even admit this. It has been shown historically many times. That makes one "paranoid"?

3. I had a typo and modified it. VA is still below the nat'l average on totals. You have also stated that a few percentage points were not a big deal(except when it fits your arguements).

4. At least you admit it. You never have defined "safe".

5. Whatever CH. I ask the same questions over and over because you refuse to answer them and avoid or change the subject. How many times did I have to ask you about the 500K reference before you answered? You STILL haven't answered where you got it from.

I have to go, but before I do, I will leave you with this (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/888):

The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries.17 The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.18 This difference in these rates seems to be related to a large extent to the ease of availability of guns in the United States compared with other industrialized countries. The lower rates of crime, assaults, and homicides in Vancouver, British Columbia, compared with Seattle, Washington, has been attributed to different handgun regulations.19,20 The available National Pediatric Trauma Registry morbidity data from Toronto, Ontario, for the years 1986 to 1992 are also in sharp contrast to the US experience; <.5% of trauma admissions were attributable to gunshot wounds in Toronto compared with 5% in the United States.13

What is wrong with this picture?

you tend to be a bit paranoid regarding this topic. And before you go jumping into the deep end, you have admitted this yourself, in regards to the government confiscating your weapons.

With respect I think you'll find many gunowners are. I am, and for good reason.

I'll let you in on a secret: The Firearms Act was never designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or LACs. Its about control (right about now, your cursor hovers above the " :rolleyes: " emoticon, no? I'll give you some very good reasons, don't worry).

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-99/conflict_war/oka/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1238-6866/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1238-6865/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1238-6854/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/clip4

These are just the incidents in Canada. Perhaps you are familiar with Wounded Knee in the '70s? AIM had groups up here, too.

All before/around the passing of the gun legistlation. Alphabet Soup (RCMP, **PD, FBI, NSA, ATF, etc.) falls apart when it meets organized resistance and they know it. What to do? Take away the ability to forcefully resist. Register people with rifles, so you know who every dissenter has access to.

Take whatever side you want, for or against the legistlation - but gun control has never been about petty criminals. That is just fact.

That's actually a view I haven't heard before. You're actually into this from the practical side, saying that gun control is working like prohibition, is that kinda accurate? That's actually some reasonable logic. However, you ignore the fact that gun control doesn't have to be banning guns, it can just be requring registration, giving warnings, etc. that seems to be working with smoking in the US and with slightly different methods in sex in Europe. Gun control of that style might actually work. A similar strategy would probably help with pot.
except when there is higher gun control its the people who use them for murders and crime who register, its the law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, go hunting, or just have some fun on a target range. criminals wouldnt go to the trouble of registering their ak before going and having a gang fight. i know im generalizing but do you see my point? and there are lots of ways of getting a gun without having to deal with registration and government control. people go around the gun regulations if they know they are going to be doing something illegal with the weapon. and lowering gun control would just make it less of a hassle for someone to get a weapon to protect themselves with in case their house is being robbed or something.

The majority of gun incidents occur during domestic arguments where one partner reaches for the nearest weapon. If theres wasn't a gun lying around the effects would be less severe

I have to go, but before I do, I will leave you with this (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/888):

The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries.17 The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.18 This difference in these rates seems to be related to a large extent to the ease of availability of guns in the United States compared with other industrialized countries. The lower rates of crime, assaults, and homicides in Vancouver, British Columbia, compared with Seattle, Washington, has been attributed to different handgun regulations.19,20 The available National Pediatric Trauma Registry morbidity data from Toronto, Ontario, for the years 1986 to 1992 are also in sharp contrast to the US experience; <.5% of trauma admissions were attributable to gunshot wounds in Toronto compared with 5% in the United States.13

What is wrong with this picture?


They cite Kellerman, 'nuff said.

The majority of gun incidents occur during domestic arguments where one partner reaches for the nearest weapon. If theres wasn't a gun lying around the effects would be less severe

Your source?

According to the FBI, most murders are listed under "unknown" and "other" circumstances with "other arguements" being second .

Your source?

According to the FBI, most murders are listed under "unknown" and "other" circumstances with "other arguements" being second .

My source is a ER doctor in Hollywood who claims that most people coming into the emrgency rooms with gun shot wounds are victims of domestic fights

They cite Kellerman, 'nuff said.
There are 72 references. How does the reference to Kellerman affect the report?

My source is a ER doctor in Hollywood who claims that most people coming into the emrgency rooms with gun shot wounds are victims of domestic fights

First problem: You have a doctor trying to cite crime statistics for a VERY small geographic area, and using them as a generalization for the nation. Doctors aren't exactly known for their support of the 2nd amendment. QUITE the opposite, actually. So they already have an agenda.

Second problem: In HOLLYWOOD? Yeah, very neutral toward guns that town...

There are 72 references. How does the reference to Kellerman affect the report?

They cite Kellerman about 6 times. His studies have been debunked more times that Lott.

They cite a number of anti-gun organizations as well.

Of course they also don't take into account gang crime, consider "adolecents" to be up to 24 yrs old, "young adults" up to 34 and the majority of their "statistics" relate to 15-19 year olds.
They pretty much state that they prefer a disarmed populace.

Nope, no bias here.

Not all Dr.s agree:

Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on guns and violence are available in the criminological, legal, and social sciences literature, yet escapes acknowledgment or analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the public debate and impede the development of effective strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article examines a representative sample of politicized and incompetent research.

http://www.cely.com/firearms/medlit.html

Now where did you get your 500K /year source from again?

Guns are fun. Like drugs.

Used intelligently, and in moderation, they are a fine hobby. Additionally, if the shit hits the fan, I'll be prepared enough to defend myself, and possibly hunt for food. I also take very seriously the obligation the Constitution and our general history here in the USA lays on gun owners (i.e. those whe are armed). Not only is a gun a personal means of self defense, it is also a tool in the defense of our liberty in general, be that against a foreign power or our own government grown too corrupt to continue.

Yeah, I know that the army as it is now could kick the normal individual citizen's ass with no trouble, but as is being shown in Iraq and parts of Afghanistan, determined folks with not much more than rifles, fertilizer bombs and mortars can cause a lot of confusion to even the best equipped army in the world.

If you own a gun, take it seriously. It's made not just to blow holes in tin cans, but to blow holes in living things.

They cite Kellerman about 6 times. His studies have been debunked more times that Lott.

They cite a number of anti-gun organizations as well.

Of course they also don't take into account gang crime, consider "adolecents" to be up to 24 yrs old, "young adults" up to 34 and the majority of their "statistics" relate to 15-19 year olds.
They pretty much state that they prefer a disarmed populace.

Nope, no bias here.

Not all Dr.s agree:

Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on guns and violence are available in the criminological, legal, and social sciences literature, yet escapes acknowledgment or analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the public debate and impede the development of effective strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article examines a representative sample of politicized and incompetent research.

http://www.cely.com/firearms/medlit.html

Now where did you get your 500K /year source from again?
Well that certainly was fun. The link you posted was itself linked to a non descript "pro gun" web site. And who the hell is "Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy"? Have they been around as long as the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS?

I gave you a source and it appears far more credible than your Dr. Suter?

Well that certainly was fun. The link you posted was itself linked to a non descript "pro gun" web site. And who the hell is "Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy"? Have they been around as long as the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS?

I gave you a source and it appears far more credible than your Dr. Suter?

This article was published in the March '94 edition of The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia,

So a published article isn't valid either? Let me guess CH, nothing is "credible" in your eyes unless it espouses disarming the public. The APA officially endorses an anti-firearm stance.

As credible as Kellerman? The VPC? HCI? How about that gun control site you posted a few posts back?.

If you don't like that, how about a reply from Dr. Mauser as to your dismissal of his article?

1. The Frazier Institute tends to be a right wing think tank and generally espouses those views.

The Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank. so? Left wing tt's espouse different views. so?


2. Gary Mauser is an American from California who currently resides in Canada.

True. I moved to Canada in 1975.

3. Is Gary Mauser related to the Mauser gun manufacturer in any way?

As all Smiths are related or all Wongs. But not that I can discover.

4. He stands to profit from his research in that he is writing a book about it.

How? Please let me know?

5. The graphs he uses in his examples are visually deceptive. He has overlayed the Canadian stats with the US stats and uses one scale on the left for Canada and one scale on the right for the US. A more accurate graph would show the Canadian rates much lower than the US rates, even if the patterns might be identical.

This is a standard statistical approach to demonstrate trends. Read the paper on my web site and you'll understand better. www.sfu.ca/~mauser/

National averages are misleading. No sensible criminologists thinks this is a useful approach.


6. I do not believe that the following comment that he made in the article that you attached is representative or true:

"The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

This is a misquote. I'd urge you to read the paper.
As I say, Violent crime has fallen over the past decade in the US, while it has been essentially flat in Canada. At first it declined in Canada, as it did in the US, then it increased again.

Here is a graph of murder rates that depict the downward trend except in 2002, when the homicide rate increased 4% to 1.85 per 100,000. However, not shown here is the 2003 rate which was a 6% drop to 1.73 per 100,000:


I'm looking at decade-long trends, not simply changes from one year to another. Look at the graph.




I seem to recall you making case w/ me about year to year comparisons as well.
And you still refuse to state the location of your 500K/year cite.

I seem to recall you making case w/ me about year to year comparisons as well.
However, he did say that the article misquoted him. Why? The fact remains that the quote was not true and that is why I challenged it. The fact also remains that firearm usage for murders in Canada has dropped from the 40 to 50% range down to 26%. In the US it is around 67%.

And you still refuse to state the location of your 500K/year cite.
You will love this site (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/Dutch0701.PDF).

With respect I think you'll find many gunowners are. I am, and for good reason.

I'll let you in on a secret: The Firearms Act was never designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or LACs. Its about control (right about now, your cursor hovers above the " :rolleyes: " emoticon, no? I'll give you some very good reasons, don't worry).

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-99/conflict_war/oka/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1238-6866/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-73-1238-6865/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1238-6854/politics_economy/aboriginal_treaty_rights/clip4

These are just the incidents in Canada. Perhaps you are familiar with Wounded Knee in the '70s? AIM had groups up here, too.

All before/around the passing of the gun legistlation. Alphabet Soup (RCMP, **PD, FBI, NSA, ATF, etc.) falls apart when it meets organized resistance and they know it. What to do? Take away the ability to forcefully resist. Register people with rifles, so you know who every dissenter has access to.

Take whatever side you want, for or against the legistlation - but gun control has never been about petty criminals. That is just fact.
What has the stand off at Oka got to do with gun control?

If anything, this was a screw up by three levels of government, namely the mayor of Oka, the Provincial Parti Quebecquois, and the Federal Progressive Conservatives.

BTW, I remember watching this on TV and I was 100% behind the Mohawks.

What has the stand off at Oka got to do with gun control?

If anything, this was a screw up by three levels of government, namely the mayor of Oka, the Provincial Parti Quebecquois, and the Federal Progressive Conservatives.

BTW, I remember watching this on TV and I was 100% behind the Mohawks.
It has everything to do with gun control.

Alphabet Soup falls apart when they meet armed, organized resistance and they know it. This is about having a catalogue of gunowners, keeping guns out of the hands of political activists and anyone else the government might choose to ignore and screw over at some point.

If you were behind the Mohawks, then why is it that you don't support or at least understand the concept of an armed populace? They were ignored by the local government, the provincial government, the federal government, tried protesting lawfully and were ignored, tried protesting with illegal barricades only to have a court injunction set against them, and when the bulldozers were at the steps of their church / cemetary they finally took a forceful stand. They were only able to resist because they were armed effectively, i.e. rifles for more than just "sporting purposes".

1.Because you're avoiding/changing the topics, refusing to answer questions, and switching around quotes to state what you want. All things you do when you're getting frustrated in the arguements.

2. Since I had nothing to do w/ that post, it's interetesting to note that you used MY name instead of CG's. "Foe"? A freudian slip?

3. You used the total number of homicidesby firearm, 4.53. That is below the Nat'l total average VA still has a lower rate than nationally as well. If you want to keep returning to things, DC's is close to 100% w/ a handgun ban and Chicago's increased after their ban.

4. You stand by a statement that doesn't answer the question. How political of you. One can only infer that you DO support the confiscation of firearms since you support policies that have lead to confiscation.

5. It is absolutely true and I know it. You refuse to answer questions that make your position untenable and then try and change the subject (like now).


You know, I wonder if I should be insulted or flattered that he inserted your name instead of mine when he cut'n'pasted my post.
;)

It has everything to do with gun control.
I totally disagree.

Alphabet Soup falls apart when they meet armed, organized resistance and they know it. This is about having a catalogue of gunowners, keeping guns out of the hands of political activists and anyone else the government might choose to ignore and screw over at some point.
Gun control is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and ensuring responsible gun ownership.

If you were behind the Mohawks, then why is it that you don't support or at least understand the concept of an armed populace?
In a just society, most people resolve their differences through a court of law. I understand the privelege of law abiding citizens owning guns for sport or hunting purposes. I do not understand the concept of having an "armed populace" solely for the purpose of defending against the remote possibility of a tyrannical government.

They were ignored by the local government, the provincial government, the federal government, tried protesting lawfully and were ignored, tried protesting with illegal barricades only to have a court injunction set against them, and when the bulldozers were at the steps of their church / cemetary they finally took a forceful stand. They were only able to resist because they were armed effectively, i.e. rifles for more than just "sporting purposes".
I don't agree that their only form of resistance had to be an armed resistance. Obviously when there is armed resistance, the stakes are much higher and unfortunately a police officer died as a result.

In a just society, most people resolve their differences through a court of law.

Unfortunately, not everyone in society is interested in justice or following the rules.

Criminals, for instance, don't follow rules. Neither do men who beat their wives.

Since the police cannot be guarding everyone everywhere 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and since criminals (at least in the US) have little regard for human life or human decency, and since the majority of them (76 percent) are unarmed when they commit a Part I Felony, it stands to reason that an individual should have the right to defend themselves and preserve their life and liberty. If they do not have this right, then it is quite apparent that the government does not believe that the individual has this right to life and liberty - more to the point - the government MUST then believe that the life and liberty of the criminal far outweighs any other consideration.

In previous posts, I have stated that I do not find the statement “More Guns = Less Crime” statistically supportable. This is true, but for different reasons than you might suppose.

Published Crime Statistics are dependant on a single factor – the crime being reported to/investigated by the Police. Attempted crimes that are thwarted are often NOT reported simply because there is no identifiable suspect and “no harm no foul”. In essence, crime statistics are grossly under-representative of the actual number of crimes attempted in the US.

Keeping this in mind, lets approach Canuck’s “More Guns = More Crime” model.

If “More Guns = More Crime”, then the rate of successful/reported crime would rise in direct correlation. It does not, so that statement is a simple non starter.

The oft-cites Lott/Mustard research that generated the book “More Guns = Less Crime” has been sufficiently derided here that I will, for the sake of argument, dismiss their findings. I will, however use the averaged findings of 13 other defensive gun use (DGU) studies taken by independent news and research organizations from 1976 through 1994. (see findings HERE http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/DGUstudies.jpg )

Even when including the n/a datasets (that is, to assume that there were NO DGUs for that study) the Mean # of implied annual DGUs is 1,425,790.46 with a median of 1,414,544.

Assuming for the moment that only ½ of these DGU were the result of an unarmed criminal attack and led to no increase in the “crime count” used in “Crime Statistics” (because the criminal ran away), 710,083.6 otherwise reportable crimes went unreported because the “victim” had a firearm.

Given that in an average year in the US, there are some 500,000 gun-related crimes, if we waved our magic wand and all guns were to disappear – (and none were manufactured at home to replace them) AND we are to assume (equally irrationally) that NONE of those 500,000 gun-related crimes would have been committed without the access to a gun, there would have still been –AT A MINIMUM – 210,000 MORE crimes committed in the absence of firearms then in their presence.

So, in sum, while it is inaccurate to claim “More Guns = Less Crime”, it is not at all inaccurate to claim that, in the US, “More Guns = Less SUCCESSFUL Crime”. Given that US paradigm, (yes, we have a LOT of criminal activity… in any other country the Military would already be involved…) efforts to disarm the population are hopelessly naïve and dangerous.

Two books that deserve reading:

"Restricting Handguns" - The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out: 1979 Don Kates, ed.
A series of essays from such "pro-gun" luminaries as:
Mark K Benenson - American Chair of Amnesty Intl, 1968 - 1972
Colin Greenwood - (1970s) Superintendant of West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police (England)
Carol Ruth Silver - Anti-segregationist, Freedom Rider, Council for United Farm Workers, member of the board of supervisors city & County of San Francisco.

Hallmark - Intellectual honesty: No matter how much these people personally dislike guns as a thing or concept - something they come out and say - they individually come to the conclusion that the problems with "guns" are not inherent in the guns, but in the criminal subset of the population - and that attempts at gun prohibition or gross restriction are pernicious.

"The Great American Gun Debate": 1997, Kates & Kleck
Includes historical antecedants to the enlightenment era thinking leading to the conept of the 2nd Ammendment as codification of the essential duty to self defense. Massively researched. Discusses the congenital failings of both the Pro and Anti - gun movements as they apply to the US.

Just like to point out that although crime involving firearms in Britain is on the rise, nationally the statistics are still massively smaller then in any one american state. If theres a crime involving a gun here it often makes national news.

My point with this? If gun's were not so tightly controlled in Britain would crimes involving firearms be massively increased? Personally I think they would be, thus the restriction of armaments is beneficial to society.



N.B. - *if* anyone attempts to use that ridiculous bloody Frued quote that i've seen around I *will* have a hissy fit... Frued was an idiot

Unfortunately, not everyone in society is interested in justice or following the rules.

Criminals, for instance, don't follow rules. Neither do men who beat their wives.

Since the police cannot be guarding everyone everywhere 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and since criminals (at least in the US) have little regard for human life or human decency, and since the majority of them (76 percent) are unarmed when they commit a Part I Felony, it stands to reason that an individual should have the right to defend themselves and preserve their life and liberty. If they do not have this right, then it is quite apparent that the government does not believe that the individual has this right to life and liberty - more to the point - the government MUST then believe that the life and liberty of the criminal far outweighs any other consideration.
What is interesting about this self defence argument, is that a majority (77%) of members of Canadian households where firearms are present but who do not own the firearm either strongly support gun registration (45%) or somewhat support gun registration (32%).

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/02212003-2.gif

What is interesting about this self defence argument, is that a majority (77%) of members of Canadian households where firearms are present but who do not own the firearm either strongly support gun registration (45%) or somewhat support gun registration (32%).

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/02212003-2.gif
I'm not sure I get you. Are you intimating that over 70% of the family members Canadian gun owners are somehow afraid that this tool will somehow warp the other members of the household?

That somehow having the government know what things are kept in a house will somehow protect them from a family member gone nuts (which is the LEAST likely way of getting shot in the US if no one in the house is a criminal/on drugs)

How about this: That people who actually admit to having a gun in the house but claim to "not be gun owners" are LIKELY to be anti-gun in the first place?

Your statistic is out of context and meaningless.

I'm not sure I get you. Are you intimating that over 70% of the family members Canadian gun owners are somehow afraid that this tool will somehow warp the other members of the household?

That somehow having the government know what things are kept in a house will somehow protect them from a family member gone nuts (which is the LEAST likely way of getting shot in the US if no one in the house is a criminal/on drugs)

How about this: That people who actually admit to having a gun in the house but claim to "not be gun owners" are LIKELY to be anti-gun in the first place?

Your statistic is out of context and meaningless.
Actually, I think they make perfectly good sense. In Canada, if a person wants to buy a firearm, the spouse is notified of the purchaser's intentions before a purchase can be completed.

When looking at US data, it appears that a firearm is the weapon of choice for committing a murder involving an intimate partner.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intweap.gif

Homicides by relationship and weapon type, 1990-2002 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

Relationship of victim to offender

Total Gun Knife Blunt object Force Other weapon

Husband 100 % 70 % 26 % 2 % 1 % 2 %
Ex-husband 100 87 9 1 0 2
Wife 100 68 14 5 9 4
Ex-wife 100 78 12 2 6 2
Boyfriend 100 46 45 3 3 3
Girlfriend 100 57 19 5 14 5

Actually, I think they make perfectly good sense. In Canada, if a person wants to buy a firearm, the spouse is notified of the purchaser's intentions before a purchase can be completed.

When looking at US data, it appears that a firearm is the weapon of choice for committing a murder involving an intimate partner.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intweap.gif

Homicides by relationship and weapon type, 1990-2002 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

Relationship of victim to offender

Total Gun Knife Blunt object Force Other weapon

Husband 100 % 70 % 26 % 2 % 1 % 2 %
Ex-husband 100 87 9 1 0 2
Wife 100 68 14 5 9 4
Ex-wife 100 78 12 2 6 2
Boyfriend 100 46 45 3 3 3
Girlfriend 100 57 19 5 14 5

Ok, now factor out all of the felons who weren't allowed to have a gun in the first place (gun control) and try again. Look also to how many of those might NOT have happened if the victim was sufficiently armed to fight back/defend themselves. These events don't happen in a vacuum.

This is the same statistical slight of hand used for the "aquaintance killing" misstatements.

Multi-year FBI data runs show 67% - 78% of arrested murderers have prior felony records. They AVERAGED four major prior felonies over a prior criminal career of over 6 years. These statistics don't even include Juvinile records, which are closed. In Detroit and Kansas City, in 90% of all domestic homicides police had been called to the residence at lease once in the two years prior. In 54% of the cases, they had been called five or more times. Family killings accounted for only 12% of US homicides in 1994, and given the preponderance of evidence, the day-to-day reality is that most family killings are preceeded by a long history of assultive behavior.

What it comes down to is, again, REGISTER AND MONITOR CRIMINALS - not the average citizen who NEVER has any sort of run-in with Law Enforcement.

There are too many guns out there to make "gun registry" effective or useful. The Privacy concerns of LAC's, not to mention the sheer imposibility of maintaining data on all LACs, trump any sort of gun-user registry.

Criminals are already registered. USE that information. They have forfeited their rights. But don't go suggesting that registering me is somehow going to stop violent crime.

However, he did say that the article misquoted him. Why? The fact remains that the quote was not true and that is why I challenged it. The fact also remains that firearm usage for murders in Canada has dropped from the 40 to 50% range down to 26%. In the US it is around 67%.


You will love this site (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/Dutch0701.PDF).

That's a little better. I could of course, reply in your fashion"Well that certainly was fun. The link you posted was itself linked to a non descript "anti- gun" web site.

But I won't. The article is in itself biased. It admits that it has limited data for "empirical" analysis and relies heavily on "anecdotal" evidence and secondary sources to make "broad" generalizations.

Good research but broad conclusions aren't made on limited and anecdotal evidence.

As for Cook, the information used is 10 years out of date and is also based on "estimates". The NCVS data is gathered from years where crime was increasing. It does not take into account the decade after where it decreased.

Next time you use the 500K a year stat, you might want to mention that.

What is interesting about this self defence argument, is that a majority (77%) of members of Canadian households where firearms are present but who do not own the firearm either strongly support gun registration (45%) or somewhat support gun registration (32%).

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/02212003-2.gif

Based off of a "representative" survey of 2,000 people out of 32 million.

Actually, I think they make perfectly good sense. In Canada, if a person wants to buy a firearm, the spouse is notified of the purchaser's intentions before a purchase can be completed.

When looking at US data, it appears that a firearm is the weapon of choice for committing a murder involving an intimate partner.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intweap.gif

Homicides by relationship and weapon type, 1990-2002 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

Relationship of victim to offender

Total Gun Knife Blunt object Force Other weapon

Husband 100 % 70 % 26 % 2 % 1 % 2 %
Ex-husband 100 87 9 1 0 2
Wife 100 68 14 5 9 4
Ex-wife 100 78 12 2 6 2
Boyfriend 100 46 45 3 3 3
Girlfriend 100 57 19 5 14 5

And look, it's been dropping steadily even as ownership increases. Maybe more women should arm themselves for protection instead of relying on a piece of paper. Notice that as of the 2002 figures, the use of firearms in intimate homicedes is less than the nat'l av'g for total firearm homicides.

And look, it's been dropping steadily even as ownership increases. Maybe more women should arm themselves for protection instead of relying on a piece of paper. You Think? ;)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506010311jun01,1,2969535.story
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 1, 2005
A Chicago man accused of killing two women is also charged with raping three other women, including one who escaped from a second-story window after the man allegedly stabbed both of her hands, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Patrell Doss, 24, who had been charged with first-degree murder in the Jan. 21 slaying of Renee Daniels, 38, and the April 24 slaying of Kimberly Greyer, 30, was also charged with three aggravated criminal sexual assaults dating to March 16, officials said.

Doss of the 8600 block of South Jeffery Boulevard is eligible for the death penalty because he is alleged to have killed two people, Cook County Assistant State's Atty. Kelly Navarro said.

He was ordered held without bail Tuesday.

Doss was arrested Saturday after a fingerprint was taken from the scene of where Greyer's body was found, police said Monday. The fingerprint was matched in the police database, which led investigators to Doss.

In the three rapes, Doss allegedly used a butcher knife to force victims into sexual acts after picking them up off the street, Navarro said.

Navarro detailed the five incidents in which she said Doss showed a "frustration" with women. Doss, dressed in a blue denim jumpsuit, told authorities he was taking medication for anger management and receives treatment, according to court records.

On Jan. 21, Doss is alleged to have met Daniels at a party with two other co-defendants not yet arrested, Navarro said. The three then allegedly took Daniels to an abandoned building in the 8000 block of South Ingleside Avenue where the other two sexually assaulted her after Doss allegedly beat her.

Doss "watched and drank his beer" while the two others raped Daniels, Navarro said. Daniels later died from her injuries.

In the other four incidents, Doss worked alone, including a rape on the same block on March 16, Navarro said. The 40-year-old woman was allegedly forced to have sex with him after he attacked her.

"The defendant chopped her in the leg" with the knife, she said. The woman eventually escaped.

On March 30, Doss asked a woman near a South Side liquor store for a date and took her to a building where he raped her so many times the 46-year-old woman pleaded for her life, Navarro said.

Doss left for a short time and the woman tried to escape through a second-floor window, but Doss saw her dangling from the ledge, Navarro said. He then stabbed her in both hands, puncturing one through to the other side, Navarro said. She fell to the ground and sought help.

Four days later, Navarro said, Doss sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman at knifepoint in an apartment in the 2900 block of East 80th Place. She crawled through a window to safety.

Greyer was killed on April 24 when Doss beat her severely, causing her death at an abandoned garage in the 8100 block of South Drexel Avenue, Navarro said.

Doss has a preliminary hearing on June 21.

----------

trybarczyk@tribune.com
Gun Control protects Criminals!
Save the Women - Ban Men!
--------------------
Web…too…slow…can’t…post…must…work…arrrghhhhh!