NationStates Jolt Archive

Store guns in central depot
mayor: No reason to have a firearm at home, Miller says

James Cowan
National Post

Tuesday, August 16, 2005


Gun owners in Toronto may soon be prohibited from keeping their firearms at home even if they are properly licensed and registered, Mayor David Miller said yesterday.

"There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto -- collector or not. If you are a collector and you have a permit, the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen. And perhaps a centralized facility of some kind could accomplish that goal," Mr. Miller told the National Post. "The law requires gun owners to have proper storage, but obviously not everyone adheres to that."

Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.

"It's a very serious issue and I don't have all the answers to it, but I've spoken to the [Police] Chief as well as our own legal department to see what we can do," Mr. Miller said.

The Mayor has repeatedly blamed lax gun laws in the United States for some of Toronto's violence, saying half of the firearms in the city originated in the United States.

While pressing the federal government to stem the smuggling of guns across the border, Mr. Miller said steps must also be taken steps to address domestic gun problems.

"I understand there was one theft from a collector two years ago, where some of the guns were recovered after being used in murders in Toronto," he said.

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.

Mr. Miller noted several U.S. cities such as Chicago have passed ordinances restricting handgun ownership. But legal gun owners argue the new rules would only make life simpler for criminals.

"It would just put all the firearms in one place so they could all be stolen at one time," said Eric Greer of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. "That would be a wonderful thing."

Mr. Greer added the Mayor's proposal would not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons, noting Canada enacted its first handgun registry in 1934.

"It hasn't made one iota of difference. And the reason is the people that registered their handguns don't commit the crimes. The people who commit crimes don't register their guns. It's as simple as that," he said.

Other gun owners said they are tired of being conflated with murderers and thieves.

"There are legal gun owners all over Ontario who don't go around brandishing their guns, who go through the whole rigamarole to get licensed properly," said Bill, a member of the Maple Leaf Revolver Club, who asked his last name not be used citing safety concerns. "The Mayor's not thinking properly."

He added most gun owners would support tough sentences for individuals caught using firearms to commit a crime.

"At most of the clubs, you will hear people say, 'Arrest the guy, look at the law and if the law says to throw him away for five years or 10 years, do it,' " the gun owner said.

Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."


So lemme get this straight...

Instead of cracking down the people who shoot these firearms and improve the current laws to better enforce the justice system (oxymoron if you're a canadian), the mayor of toronto thinks it would be a good idea for all gun owners to put their LEGAL and REGISTERED guns in a central HUB.

We need Rudolph Giuliani here.

Yeah, we have those crazy **** gun grabbers here in the US to. They honestly help nobody but criminals.

And Canadians need to be able to have handguns because...why again?

And Canadians need to be able to have handguns because...why again?

Protection? Hunting? Collection?

Uhhh, as much as I love Rudy for the job he did here, he is pro-gun control.

Although, your mayor's plan works brilliantly.........provided all the criminals with guns agree to follow the rules.

Canada City']Protection? Hunting? Collection?

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun. You do not hunt with a handgun. Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons. You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly. Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly? After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun.

With the increased of violent crime lately in Toronto, I'm actually thinking of taking several self-defence programs involving firearms. It looks like the knife I'm wielding won't be helpful to anyone with the gun.


You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers.


Why can't people collect guns if they want to? Also, do you also greet your fellow neighbours with a SIEG HEIL?


After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...


It's because of people like you that we have this idiot mayor running wasting tax dollars on stupid shit like this, instead of doing something useful like say...crack down the criminals?

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun. You do not hunt with a handgun. Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons. You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly. Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly? After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...



False analogy. Handgun possession is generally intended for self-defense. You can't stop an attacker with a vial of anthrax. Anthrax is specifically used to wipe out entire populations; a handgun could kill a few people at the most, assuming you're very lucky.

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

You do not hunt with a handgun.

True.

Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons.

Nobody needs to collect anything. Thats thee wonderful thing about rights.

You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly.

Not as silly as saying the government can provide all the protection we need.

Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly?

We do. It just so happens nthat the cost of the contaiment units is so expensive and prohibitive, only major pharmacutical companies can do it.

After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...

I completly agree.

Oh go fly a kite with all the histrionics over something as unimportant as gun rights in the city of Toronto. I live and work downtown. We don't need guns here. The numbers are roughly 50/50 - 50% of guns used in crime on the streets of Toronto are smuggled into Canada over the US border (don't get me started), while the other 50% are stolen or otherwise misappropriated guns. Guns are supposed to be properly registered, and stored securely in a residence at all times. It's because gun-owners fail to store their weapons securely that they make it onto the streets. It makes damn good sense to me to store all firearms securely from a central location.

And maybe that doesn't fly so well with people from 905-land and beyond, but hey - you don't live here. We do. And I think we're in a better position to know what our local priorities are, not hick suburbanites from Oshawa and west Mississauga.

I think the Canadian government should just be able to enforce Canadian gun laws in the US to stop the Americans from smuggling guns in. After all, that's what the Americans have done with our drug laws to stop us smuggling drugs into their country. It's just quid pro quo.

Guns are supposed to be properly registered, and stored securely in a residence at all times.

This way they will be easier to find and take, won't they? Wonderful idea. I'm sure the list of all those firearms will never be misused.

It makes damn good sense to me to store all firearms securely from a central location.

Are you a local criminal? Thats the only way it makes sense. This way, you not only know your potential victims are unarmed, you know where to go to get your illegal firearms.

And maybe that doesn't fly so well with people from 905-land and beyond, but hey - you don't live here. We do. And I think we're in a better position to know what our local priorities are, not hick suburbanites from Oshawa and west Mississauga.

Would you be willing to discuss it with someone who lives in a city much like yours? Because I happen to live in NYC.

I live and work downtown. We don't need guns here.


You sure? Even with the recent headlines saying about the increased crime rate? How will stripping the people of Toronto from their only viable defence going to prevent more crime?


The numbers are roughly 50/50 - 50% of guns used in crime on the streets of Toronto are smuggled into Canada over the US border (don't get me started), while the other 50% are stolen or otherwise misappropriated guns.


And? How is the fault of legal gun owners?


Guns are supposed to be properly registered, and stored securely in a residence at all times. It's because gun-owners fail to store their weapons securely that they make it onto the streets. It makes damn good sense to me to store all firearms securely from a central location.


Now you're not making sense. First you say that most of the guns involved in crimes are either smuggled or stolen...now it's the fault of the owners?

Wait, you're blaming the owners for being the victim of the crime now? Do you also blame women for rape crimes too?

It's because of people like you that we pay high taxes and have crime in the first place.

Because he/she is absolutely right.

I was born in Toronto, but live in Vancouver now. And you know what the RCMP finds over and over again?

That the handguns used in crimes in Canada are, as others have said, either smuggled in from the US (50%) or the previously stolen guns from properly licensed owners. This may not be the case if you live in the US.

But since it seems to be the case here, then the mayor of Toronto has a valid point - to cut down on the crimes involving handguns the sources have to be considered.

Border control is a federal responsibility, so Ottawa has to provide the mandate to deal with that source of guns.

But if the rest of the guns are coming from from the theft of collectors, then clearly these collectors are in violation of the law.

The law states that you must have proper documentation for your guns, that you personally must be certified as having passed a use and safety course, and that they MUST BE PROPERLY SECURED.

That doesn't just mean trigger locks and barrel plugs, that means inaccessable to anybody else.

So if you're going to keep weapons, and you can't keep them safely (build a bank vault, or a concrete bunker with meter thick walls if that's what it takes), then no, you don't have a "right" to collect them.

In fact, there is no right to possess guns in Canada. Rights are explicitly laid out. And they don't mention firearms. Despite that, we have lots of guns here, although there are probably more long guns and shotguns than pistols. And not a whole lot of people get shot.

But since people are important, if they're getting shot and there are obvious sources, it's important that we look at restricting those sources as much as possible. And if that means you can't collect the guns you crave so much, you're just going to have to suck that up and accept it. We don't let you collect tigers here either.

As for the cry to "crack down the criminals", how do you propose that gets done? Throw more money to the RCMP? Lots of police departments in the US are way better funded than RCMP detachments here, and there are still plenty of death-by-guns.

So how, pray tell, do you crack down on criminals and forget about the source of the guns?

I'm all for people being able to own firearms.

Ammunition is a different thing entirely.

As for the cry to "crack down the criminals", how do you propose that gets done? Throw more money to the RCMP? Lots of police departments in the US are way better funded than RCMP detachments here, and there are still plenty of death-by-guns.

So how, pray tell, do you crack down on criminals and forget about the source of the guns?


Enforcing current laws and making new ones. Eliminate out of date ones.

Get rid of the young offenders act. Doesn't work anymore.

Introduce capital punishment. Clip 5 people at night club? Firing Squad. You shouldn't be in a secure place like a prison and expect us to pay for your crime.

Give more police power.

Of course, this won't happen. It involves logic, something many of my fellow countrymen don't have.

I'm all for people being able to own firearms.

Ammunition is a different thing entirely.

Pistol-whipping extravaganza.

Canada City']Introduce capital punishment.

And with that, you are utterly dismissed.

And with that, you are utterly dismissed.

So you rather pay taxpayer money on keeping criminals safer than the people outside of them?

Any american liberals want to trade places with me?

Awesome. He introduces an opinion you don't agree with and you stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!

to cut down on the crimes involving handguns the sources have to be considered.

Why not focus on the crimes and not the handguns? You think criminals are going to say "You know, I can't use a gun anymore because its illegal. Guess I need to go straight now."

Why not address the issue of why someone turns to violent crime instead of the tool such a person uses? I know why.

A gun is a visual. Its easy to see and blame. Societal ills are big and ambiguous and all of us have a hand in them. That makes it very uncomfortable to address.


But if the rest of the guns are coming from from the theft of collectors, then clearly these collectors are in violation of the law.

So, you think it should be illegal to be a victim?

I haven't read an anti-gun thread in a while, but I see they haven't changed. The advocates of gun control still dance around the question, 'How does a law-abiding citizen protect one's self when legal guns are gone?'. Surely Canadian criminals are just as dishonest as US criminals in this matter and will likely keep their guns, albeit illegally.

Canada City']Enforcing current laws and making new ones. Eliminate out of date ones.

Get rid of the young offenders act. Doesn't work anymore.

Introduce capital punishment. Clip 5 people at night club? Firing Squad. You shouldn't be in a secure place like a prison and expect us to pay for your crime.

Give more police power.

Of course, this won't happen. It involves logic, something many of my fellow countrymen don't have.

It's for the RCMP and city police to enforce the current the laws. We're TALKING about making new ones when we talk about making a central gun depository. Police don't make new laws.

Young Offenders Act is important, but not cast in stone. A thirteen-year-old is NOT an adult, even if the crime they do is the same. If you're not responsible enough to vote, or drink, or buy cigarettes, you're not responsible enough to be in prison.

Capital punishment? Sorry pal, you seem to have grown up wrong. If you kill people, you're a murderer. If a democratic government sanctions it, then EVERYBODY is a murderer. I'm no murderer.

I might add that stiffer sentences for violent crimes rarely does anything, since nobody who commits a crime expects to be caught anyway. You think someone, in the moment before they shoot someone else thinks "Well, I'll only get twenty years for this. No problem.", and then pulls the trigger? Snap out of it.

The police have the power to do their jobs, which is to investigate and respond to crimes. What additional power(s) would you grant them?

Why not focus on the crimes and not the handguns? You think criminals are going to say "You know, I can't use a gun anymore because its illegal. Guess I need to go straight now."

Why not address the issue of why someone turns to violent crime instead of the tool such a person uses? I know why.

A gun is a visual. Its easy to see and blame. Societal ills are big and ambiguous and all of us have a hand in them. That makes it very uncomfortable to address.

The crimes are being focused on. Changing the laws and the requirements of gun ownership aren't police matters, although it certainly impacts on the situations they get to deal with. We're looking at the source of the guns used in crimes, remember that. And they are almost invariably smuggled in from the US, or stolen from legitimate owners. So you feel we should ignore that?

Figure out why someone turns to violent crime? That would be fantastic. And then perhaps we could begin proclivities profiling and plucking those people out of the general population before they do any crime, and pre-recondition them too!

How about we figure out why some people want to have weapons when they don't need them? It's not like you're allowed to carry them on your person here in Canada anyway, so they're not protecting you out in the streets. And, might I add, we don't actually have a whole lot of people being shot. We do, however, care even if ANY are being shot, and thus this statement by the mayor of Toronto.

So, you think it should be illegal to be a victim?

lol THAT would be an interesting law - "It's unlawful to be a victim, with a penalty of 200 hours of community service". :)

I just don't equate not owning a gun with being a victim.

I haven't read an anti-gun thread in a while, but I see they haven't changed. The advocates of gun control still dance around the question, 'How does a law-abiding citizen protect one's self when legal guns are gone?'. Surely Canadian criminals are just as dishonest as US criminals in this matter and will likely keep their guns, albeit illegally.

Certainly they are. Guns get found and confiscated from criminals with every arrest. It's the sources that these criminals are getting them from that we're looking at now.

(Edited to include Myrmidonisia's reply)

Canada City']So you rather pay taxpayer money on keeping criminals safer than the people outside of them?

Any american liberals want to trade places with me?Nah, I like it fine in Germany.

New York probably can't get you Giuliani. But think of where you are. You are near America, and redneck America for that matter Hell, there's even a ferrry to there. We can always flood the city with Americans. I know of plenty of gun lovers in the Southern Tier.

Pistol-whipping extravaganza.

*pistol whips*

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!!!

Canada City']Enforcing current laws and making new ones. Eliminate out of date ones.

Get rid of the young offenders act. Doesn't work anymore.

Introduce capital punishment. Clip 5 people at night club? Firing Squad. You shouldn't be in a secure place like a prison and expect us to pay for your crime.

Give more police power.

Of course, this won't happen. It involves logic, something many of my fellow countrymen don't have.

Pretty much accurate though I wouldn't go with Firing Squad. Lethal Injection or the Gas chamber works better. Maybe re-institute hanging and have it public. :D

As for guns, When I get my own place, I'm going to go get my gun permit and a concealed carry gun permit. Haven't decided on what type of gun to get though. Then again, I am an American.

The crimes are being focused on.

No, you want legitimate gun ownership to become a crime. Thats not addressing the issue.

Changing the laws and the requirements of gun ownership aren't police matters,

They aren't matters for anyone.

although it certainly impacts on the situations they get to deal with. We're looking at the source of the guns used in crimes, remember that.

And I think thats the wrong way to deal with the issue.

And they are almost invariably smuggled in from the US, or stolen from legitimate owners. So you feel we should ignore that?

No, I didn't say that. How about tighten that border protection?

Figure out why someone turns to violent crime? That would be fantastic. And then perhaps we could begin proclivities profiling and plucking those people out of the general population before they do any crime, and pre-recondition them too!

Thanks for proving my point about people not having the balls to deal with the issue.

Did I say anything about profiling and kidnapping and pre-conditioning? No. Not once.

I meant why not address the issues that lead people to these acts. Poverty? Disenfranchisement?

I'm not advocating punishing people who haven't comitted crimes. You are.

How about we figure out why some people want to have weapons when they don't need them?

Because its none of your damned bussiness. If your neighbor has a weapon and is responsible with it, its no danger to you.

Why should you be allowed to own a computer if you don't need it? You can hack in and take my information or use it make kiddy porn or any of the other horrible crimes we hear about.

Why should people be allowed to own automobiles if they don't need them? T run someone over or use it as a getaway car in a crime.

How about blunt or sharp objects?

lol THAT would be an interesting law - "It's unlawful to be a victim, with a penalty of 200 hours of community service".

Apparently, you don't equate being robbed with being a victim either.

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun.
Then you're quite obviously a 6'1" male. For those that are smaller and physically weaker than you, I'm sure the handgun helps a lot.

Then you're quite obviously a 6'1" male. For those that are smaller and physically weaker than you, I'm sure the handgun helps a lot.

Only when you stop using your brain to solve problems.

Certainly they are. Guns get found and confiscated from criminals with every arrest. It's the sources that these criminals are getting them from that we're looking at now.

(Edited to include Myrmidonisia's reply)
I'm sure that's a real comfort to someone who hears a window break in the middle of the night, or sees a couple of armed predators walk in to their store. Fact is that illegal guns will always be available. When legal guns are not available, the law--abiding population suffers.

Only when you stop using your brain to solve problems.

And here's proof that people don't like it when brains are used TO solve problems.

I'm sure that's a real comfort to someone who hears a window break in the middle of the night, or sees a couple of armed predators walk in to their store. Fact is that illegal guns will always be available. When legal guns are not available, the law--abiding population suffers.

100% accurate!

Only when you stop using your brain to solve problems.

What? A 5'2 95 lb woman with a 6'2 220 lb man ready to pin her is supposed to debate him on the morality of his actions?

You thin ka rapist or a mugger is really all that open to discussion?

Only when you stop using your brain to solve problems.Or legs and phone...

100% accurate!Which is probably why we Germans, or the British or the French suffer so badly [/sarcasm]

Canada City']Protection? Hunting? Collection?
If you live in Toronto, you aren't going hunting any time soon. A gun could be kept safely at a cottage in a secure location, or hell, in a gun bank, why not? It's not as though you're going hunting every day for your food if you live in Toronto.

At any rate, Toronto is falling to shit and dragging the rest of the GTA with it. Not a day goes by that I don't hear about shootings in either Toronto, Mississagua or Brampton. I am seriously considering getting the hell out of here and moving out east. Halifax had something like 2 murders all last year, compared to the like, 10 murders in the last week around here...

Or legs and phone...


I don't know what kind of crime you have there, but I want to live there. I'd be a damned king.

Muggers and such know to get victims who wander off on their own and trap them in enclosed spaces. Running isn't an option.

And what the hell good is a cell phone when you get jumped? I doubt you'll be allowed to pull it out, dial it and give the police your location.

Which is probably why we Germans, or the British or the French suffer so badly [/sarcasm]
If we were actually talking about crime in Germany, the UK, or France, this might be relevant. But since we are talking about crime in Toronto, we are a little less interested in your comparison.

Although, I suspect an armed robber in any of those countries would do very well.

Oh go fly a kite with all the histrionics over something as unimportant as gun rights in the city of Toronto. I live and work downtown. We don't need guns here. The numbers are roughly 50/50 - 50% of guns used in crime on the streets of Toronto are smuggled into Canada over the US border (don't get me started), while the other 50% are stolen or otherwise misappropriated guns. Guns are supposed to be properly registered, and stored securely in a residence at all times. It's because gun-owners fail to store their weapons securely that they make it onto the streets. It makes damn good sense to me to store all firearms securely from a central location.

And maybe that doesn't fly so well with people from 905-land and beyond, but hey - you don't live here. We do. And I think we're in a better position to know what our local priorities are, not hick suburbanites from Oshawa and west Mississauga.
Hey, living in the suburbs does not make one a hick. And there has been a hell of a lot of gun violence in both Brampton and Mississagua lately too.

Muggers and such know to get victims who wander off on their own and trap them in enclosed spaces. Running isn't an option.

Well the obvious answer there is... Don't walk into the dark alley!

Genius.

Let me spell this out.

50% (that's half for you slow guys) of guns used illegally are stolen from legitimate owners.

In other words, legitimate owners are not providing proper security. Take that source away (gun bank or just plain illegalization of guns) and the number of guns available for criminal actvity drops by HALF.

This further reduces the needed effort on dealing with those crimes so anti-smuggling has more resources to bottle that end up too.

I'm going too fast for you here aren't I?

If we were actually talking about crime in Germany, the UK, or France, this might be relevant. But since we are talking about crime in Toronto, we are a little less interested in your comparison.

Although, I suspect an armed robber in any of those countries would do very well.
I don't even think most of the gun deaths in Toronto have been muggings gone wrong. They were people who went out and shot other people without hope of gaining their cash or raping them... just people who hated other people enough to put a bullet in their head (or wherever) whether it's gang related or whatever, it hasn't been about robbing innocent citizens for the most part. Lots of these people seem to have been known to the police, have been associated with gangs, drug dealing et c.

I think the Canadian government should just be able to enforce Canadian gun laws in the US to stop the Americans from smuggling guns in. After all, that's what the Americans have done with our drug laws to stop us smuggling drugs into their country. It's just quid pro quo.
I wholeheartedly agree.

If they want to extradite people selling pot seeds online, we should be able to extradite and prosecute people smuggling guns here.

50% (that's half for you slow guys) of guns used illegally are stolen from legitimate owners.

Being victim of theft is the victim's fault now?


In other words, legitimate owners are not providing proper security. Take that source away (gun bank or just plain illegalization of guns) and the number of guns available for criminal actvity drops by HALF.

Then people will use bats, shovels, explosives, and knives. Sure, the violent rate used by guns MIGHT decrease (smuggling and illegal gun owners won't put in the bank), but the crime rate won't go down. Only thing that will result in this is a waste of taxpayer money.

Well the obvious answer there is... Don't walk into the dark alley!

Genius.

Let me spell this out.

50% (that's half for you slow guys) of guns used illegally are stolen from legitimate owners.

In other words, legitimate owners are not providing proper security. Take that source away (gun bank or just plain illegalization of guns) and the number of guns available for criminal actvity drops by HALF.

This further reduces the needed effort on dealing with those crimes so anti-smuggling has more resources to bottle that end up too.

I'm going too fast for you here aren't I?
So there's no chance that the void will be filled in by simply finding more guns illegally? No, that couldn't happen.

Well the obvious answer there is... Don't walk into the dark alley!

Genius.

Let me spell this out.

50% (that's half for you slow guys) of guns used illegally are stolen from legitimate owners.

In other words, legitimate owners are not providing proper security. Take that source away (gun bank or just plain illegalization of guns) and the number of guns available for criminal actvity drops by HALF.

This further reduces the needed effort on dealing with those crimes so anti-smuggling has more resources to bottle that end up too.

I'm going too fast for you here aren't I?


So far there's been no source for this 50% statistic.

I thought that wasting 1.3 billion dollars on the much vaunted registration was supposed to fix the problems? Isn't that why they passed the law? Why has Canada's crime been rising then? Oh wait, probably America's fault again. The same reason why gun crime in the UK went up for years after the bans.

I don't even think most of the gun deaths in Toronto have been muggings gone wrong. They were people who went out and shot other people without hope of gaining their cash or raping them... just people who hated other people enough to put a bullet in their head (or wherever) whether it's gang related or whatever, it hasn't been about robbing innocent citizens for the most part. Lots of these people seem to have been known to the police, have been associated with gangs, drug dealing et c.
I don't doubt there are a lot of gang killings over things that don't affect law-abiding citizens. But I don't think for a moment that gangs are not involved in illegal activities that might present a threat to these same citizens. The law-abiding citizenry needs to be able to protect themselves, if they are ever threatened.

As far as I'm concerned, every household should possess a firearm. That is law in Kennesaw, GA and it's worked out pretty well.

I wholeheartedly agree.

If they want to extradite people selling pot seeds online, we should be able to extradite and prosecute people smuggling guns here.

I've never heard of the drug thing (link pease, I'ld like to read up on it) but if an American is caught smuggling guns, drugs, etc. into Canada, prosecute the bastard.

I don't know what kind of crime you have there, but I want to live there. I'd be a damned king.

Muggers and such know to get victims who wander off on their own and trap them in enclosed spaces. Running isn't an option.

And what the hell good is a cell phone when you get jumped? I doubt you'll be allowed to pull it out, dial it and give the police your location.Why do you risk getting into places where you'd get jumped? I mean I'd risk getting the shit beaten out of me for my American heritage if I walked alone in the park near where I live, but I don't.
Not being allowed to carry guns has made people be a bit more careful about what they do at night, and it's reduced the amount of armed thugs that will jump you. What kind of enclosed spaces would you go to at night when there are bunches of people that would jump you around, anyway? That's just stupid...

As far as I'm concerned, every household should possess a firearm. That is law in Kennesaw, GA and it's worked out pretty well.

I know where I'm moving :D

If we were actually talking about crime in Germany, the UK, or France, this might be relevant. But since we are talking about crime in Toronto, we are a little less interested in your comparison.

Although, I suspect an armed robber in any of those countries would do very well.Note what I quoted. I was calling the "100% correct" statement into question, since if it doesn't apply everywhere, it isn't "100% correct".
And define "do well".

Note what I quoted. I was calling the "100% correct" statement into question, since if it doesn't apply everywhere, it isn't "100% correct".
And define "do well".

Actually it does apply everywhere so my statement is indeed correct.

I don't doubt there are a lot of gang killings over things that don't affect law-abiding citizens. But I don't think for a moment that gangs are not involved in illegal activities that might present a threat to these same citizens. The law-abiding citizenry needs to be able to protect themselves, if they are ever threatened.

As far as I'm concerned, every household should possess a firearm. That is law in Kennesaw, GA and it's worked out pretty well.The law-abiding citizens having guns to steal is part of the problem in the first place.

As for each household having a gun, I'd oppose that since some of those have children, and I'm not particularly comfortable with having guns anywhere near children.

Actually it does apply everywhere so my statement is indeed correct.Curr... it doesn't. For someone that considers themselves so well informed, you show a lot of ignorance for reality in some other places.

Note what I quoted. I was calling the "100% correct" statement into question, since if it doesn't apply everywhere, it isn't "100% correct".
And define "do well".

Well criminals in the UK now effectively have complete control over their victims as the victims are not allowed to defend themselves in any way w/o going to jail, property rights are effectively null and void as "travelers" can come and go as they please on your land, and the bobbies hand out tickets telling them to stop being naughty.

The law-abiding citizens having guns to steal is part of the problem in the first place.

So you want the law-abiding citizens to be unarmed?

As for each household having a gun, I'd oppose that since some of those have children, and I'm not particularly comfortable with having guns anywhere near children.

Not unless you keep the guns out of their reach. Also, if you teach them proper gun safety, accidents won't happen. People need to be taught the power of a gun. If they did, gun accidents wouldn't be as frequent.

Curr... it doesn't. For someone that considers themselves so well informed, you show a lot of ignorance for reality in some other places.

Then why is gun violence up in Britain after the ban on guns?

The law-abiding citizens having guns to steal is part of the problem in the first place.

As for each household having a gun, I'd oppose that since some of those have children, and I'm not particularly comfortable with having guns anywhere near children.

It's fine if the children are actually taught about firearms. It's where the guns are hidden away and never spoken of that problems occur.

But of course that would entail parental responsibility and not encourage a Nanny Gov't, so that's not an effective solution.

In other words, legitimate owners are not providing proper security. Take that source away (gun bank or just plain illegalization of guns) and the number of guns available for criminal actvity drops by HALF.
Because we all know alcohol consumption in the US dropped by half when prohibition was put in place.

So far there's been no source for this 50% statistic.

I thought that wasting 1.3 billion dollars on the much vaunted registration was supposed to fix the problems? Isn't that why they passed the law? Why has Canada's crime been rising then? Oh wait, probably America's fault again. The same reason why gun crime in the UK went up for years after the bans.
Uh.... the crime rate is going up? http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm The numbers seem to be pretty level and violent crime is down.

The issue here is that there have been a lot of gun deaths in Toronto and surrounding area in the past couple weeks. This problem doesn't even exist as far as Hamilton, which is less than an hour away from Toronto.

Well criminals in the UK now effectively have complete control over their victims as the victims are not allowed to defend themselves in any way w/o going to jail, property rights are effectively null and void as "travelers" can come and go as they please on your land, and the bobbies hand out tickets telling them to stop being naughty.
The UK has no property rights? Didn't the US pass a law a while ago that would force citizens to sell their property to commercial enterprises even if they weren't being paid the proper price for it or didn't want to sell? And the UK has no proprety rights?

So you want the law-abiding citizens to be unarmed?It hasn't done as much harm as you claim it does.


Not unless you keep the guns out of their reach. Also, if you teach them proper gun safety, accidents won't happen. People need to be taught the power of a gun. If they did, gun accidents wouldn't be as frequent.Which is why I have a problem with having every single household own guns, because that drastically increases the amount of people that don't know proper gun safety with guns.

Then why is gun violence up in Britain after the ban on guns?Why is gun violence so low in Germany since the ban on guns? Even if the crime rate was going up in Britain, 100% still doesn't apply. (and I'd like you to back up the crime rate going up thing)

The UK has no property rights? Didn't the US pass a law a while ago that would force citizens to sell their property to commercial enterprises even if they weren't being paid the proper price for it or didn't want to sell?

Passed a law on that? No we didn't. The US Supreme Court said it was legal but no law was ever passed stating that they could. Legislation by the Bench is what that is. Now the Congress and State Legislatures are tightening up Eminent Domain Laws to prevent what SCOTUS has allowed.

Let the pro-gun states/provinces have all the weapons they want, and the sane people move away. Everyone that stays will be shot dead within ten years, and the smart people will be able to move back and resume their lives. :D

Uh.... the crime rate is going up? http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm The numbers seem to be pretty level and violent crime is down.

The issue here is that there have been a lot of gun deaths in Toronto and surrounding area in the past couple weeks. This problem doesn't even exist as far as Hamilton, which is less than an hour away from Toronto.

And murders are up w/ the violent crime rate alost twice per capita of the US.

Sounds like the Toronto PD are dropping the ball.

Because we all know alcohol consumption in the US dropped by half when prohibition was put in place.Silly. What does alcohol have to do with guns? It would be more like putting a ban on drinking alcohol at home and only being allowed to do it in bars, if you want to compare things properly, since you could still go hunting in the wild and shooting at shooting ranges...
You're basically ruining Corneliu's and Myrmidonisia's arguements with your contribution.

It hasn't done as much harm as you claim it does.

You want law-abiding citizens to be unarmed?

Which is why I have a problem with having every single household own guns, because that drastically increases the amount of people that don't know proper gun safety with guns.

Actually, it increases gun responsibility. Down south, they've been around guns all of their lives so they know more about Gun Safety than they do up here in the North even though the North is prime hunting grounds.

Let the pro-gun states/provinces have all the weapons they want, and the sane people move away. Everyone that stays will be shot dead within ten years, and the smart people will be able to move back and resume their lives. :D

Actually, the crooks will leave with everyone else because if they suspect your house has a gun, they won't break into it.

Why is gun violence so low in Germany since the ban on guns? Even if the crime rate was going up in Britain, 100% still doesn't apply. (and I'd like you to back up the crime rate going up thing)

Just going by statistics. Crooks will always get guns. You just admitted that you have gun violence in Germany so that just proves my point. Thank you very much.

Actually, the crooks will leave with everyone else because if they suspect your house has a gun, they won't break into it.

I've thought about break-ins when I needed money. I'd break into a house regardless of if the owner has a gun because I'll do it while they're sleeping.

If the owner has an alarm system, then I'd pick another house. You can't shoot me if you're not awake.

Passed a law on that? No we didn't. The US Supreme Court said it was legal but no law was ever passed stating that they could. Legislation by the Bench is what that is. Now the Congress and State Legislatures are tightening up Eminent Domain Laws to prevent what SCOTUS has allowed.
Ok. Thank you for clearing that up.

It is a relief to hear, as my grandparents own something like 110 acres in Ohio with some encroaching subdivisions. It's nice to know that they won't be forced to sell it if they don't want to.

The UK has no property rights? Didn't the US pass a law a while ago that would force citizens to sell their property to commercial enterprises even if they weren't being paid the proper price for it or didn't want to sell? And the UK has no proprety rights?

No law was passed. As for UK property rights, try reading up of gypsy caravans. Basically they can move onto your land and you can't do anything about it w/o fear of arrest. Criminals can also enter your home and you basically can't do anything to defend it unless they directly threaten you, then you are put under investigation to see if it was warrented. Then the crown will pay the criminals to sue you.

And murders are up w/ the violent crime rate alost twice per capita of the US.

Sounds like the Toronto PD are dropping the ball.
Can you provide the stats for the american crime rate? All I can find is articles talking about the sources of the crime rate in the states and comparing the current crime rate to past years. Also, homicide in Canada is 2 per 100,000 people. I don't think the american homicde rate is half that.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
^according to that, the american homicide rate is 4 times the canadian one.

And murders are up w/ the violent crime rate alost twice per capita of the US.

Sounds like the Toronto PD are dropping the ball.

They can't do anything if the criminals are under 18 thanks to the Young Offenders act.

You want law-abiding citizens to be unarmed?If you want me to answer the question, yes. I wouldn't mind it if you got rid of guns as a whole and law-abiding citizens not having any is part of that.

Actually, it increases gun responsibility. Down south, they've been around guns all of their lives so they know more about Gun Safety than they do up here in the North even though the North is prime hunting grounds.And in Germany we have almost no deaths of children due to them getting into their parent's guns. Living with guns isn't the best way to prevent accidents with guns and children.

Silly. What does alcohol have to do with guns? It would be more like putting a ban on drinking alcohol at home and only being allowed to do it in bars, if you want to compare things properly, since you could still go hunting in the wild and shooting at shooting ranges...
You're basically ruining Corneliu's and Myrmidonisia's arguements with your contribution.

Um , no.. The discussion was about availability of firearms. Prohibition attempted to reduce availability and failed, just as laws preventing LAC's to own/keep firearms fail at reducing crime.

Well criminals in the UK now effectively have complete control over their victims as the victims are not allowed to defend themselves in any way w/o going to jail, property rights are effectively null and void as "travelers" can come and go as they please on your land, and the bobbies hand out tickets telling them to stop being naughty.

Do you know the law? No you don't, get off the damn thread.

I've thought about break-ins when I needed money. I'd break into a house regardless of if the owner has a gun because I'll do it while they're sleeping.

I would love to know how your going to do that quietly. Also, what if they have an alarm system? What if they do hear you and their gun is near them? Your SOL buddy and I hope your life insurance is up to date

If the owner has an alarm system, then I'd pick another house. You can't shoot me if you're not awake.

Good luck in breaking in quietly.

Ok. Thank you for clearing that up.

It is a relief to hear, as my grandparents own something like 110 acres in Ohio with some encroaching subdivisions. It's nice to know that they won't be forced to sell it if they don't want to.

Not necessarily accurate either. If those businesses want it bad enough, they can still get your land. Hopefully though, SCOTUS overturns the opinion. Congress is in an uproar as are state legislatures. If I may make a suggestion, have them write their state legislators as well as their Congressmen.

Can you provide the stats for the american crime rate? All I can find is articles talking about the sources of the crime rate in the states and comparing the current crime rate to past years. Also, homicide in Canada is 2 per 100,000 people. I don't think the american homicde rate is half that.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
^according to that, the american homicide rate is 4 times the canadian one.

www.fbi.gov

The US murder rate (as of '03) was 5.7. 70% of those occured in three counties in the US also corresponding w/ the highest gang crime. Also as of '03 the violent crime rate was 475. Canada's was 965.

Do you know the law? No you don't, get off the damn thread.

Nice response. I notice you don't dispute it.

If you want me to answer the question, yes. I wouldn't mind it if you got rid of guns as a whole and law-abiding citizens not having any is part of that.

So what if a crook with a gun breaks into a law-abiding citizen's home? What are those citizens supposed to do?

And in Germany we have almost no deaths of children due to them getting into their parent's guns. Living with guns isn't the best way to prevent accidents with guns and children.

You didn't refute anything I have said regarding gun violance.

I would love to know how your going to do that quietly. Also, what if they have an alarm system? What if they do hear you and their gun is near them? Your SOL buddy and I hope your life insurance is up to date



Good luck in breaking in quietly.

Learn to pick the locks or find something that can cut glass. Movie techniques, yea, but they'll work. Once you're in, it's just a matter of not knocking shit over.

If they do have an alarm system, it'd be set off either when I broke the glass or shortly after I entered the house. This is the point in which I'd make a break for it.

www.fbi.gov

The US murder rate (as of '03) was 5.7. 70% of those occured in three counties in the US also corresponding w/ the highest gang crime. Also as of '03 the violent crime rate was 475. Canada's was 965.
The murder rate in the states was 5.7 per 100,000? Which is nearly triple the canadian murder rate?
Also, how do you know that statscan doesn't have a different classification of violent crime than the states. It's like how we can't compare unemployment stats because americans classify it differently.

Also, I can't find the crime rate stats on that website.

Just going by statistics. Crooks will always get guns. You just admitted that you have gun violence in Germany so that just proves my point. Thank you very much.Hm... You just admitted that you went by statistics that you didn't provide, which proves my point. (how's that for a counter-generalization?)
What point did you make? I've never been threatened by a gun and I've never had one, and I currently live in Cottbus, which has a rather large bunch of unfriendly thugs just itching to do all sorts of mean things to people they think are different. The reason they don't have guns is because it's hard to get them legally, which makes it proportionally harder to get them illegaly.
I'd be lying if I said we didn't have gun crimes, but most of those are either bank robberies (in which case it doesn't matter jack shit whether you have a gun at home or not) or cases where the law-abiding citizen murders his family. I don't see how him having a gun protects anyone from gun crimes...

Learn to pick the locks or find something that can cut glass. Movie techniques, yea, but they'll work. Once you're in, it's just a matter of not knocking shit over.

What if someone is a light sleeper? My mom is one and can hear everything. Not to mention, the floor creeks. Floor creaking is noise. Also, what if they have a dog? Now what are you going to do?

If they do have an alarm system, it'd be set off either when I broke the glass or shortly after I entered the house. This is the point in which I'd make a break for it.

And thus, you lose.

Not necessarily accurate either. If those businesses want it bad enough, they can still get your land. Hopefully though, SCOTUS overturns the opinion. Congress is in an uproar as are state legislatures. If I may make a suggestion, have them write their state legislators as well as their Congressmen.
I'm not sure if they've had people try to buy their land off them yet or not. I know the state wants to put a road through part of it, but I don't think they want to do it for a while... there were a lot of new houses coming up near their house though. It was completely countryside before.

The murder rate in the states was 5.7 per 100,000? Which is nearly triple the canadian murder rate?
Also, how do you know that statscan doesn't have a different classification of violent crime than the states. It's like how we can't compare unemployment stats because americans classify it differently.

Almost all of it gang related.

They most likely do have different classifications. Would it account for a level twice as high?

I'm not sure if they've had people try to buy their land off them yet or not. I know the state wants to put a road through part of it, but I don't think they want to do it for a while... there were a lot of new houses coming up near their house though. It was completely countryside before.

You'll know the situation better than I can but then, this is a gun debate thread and not a property thread :D

If push comes to shove, have them get a gun to defend their land. Tresspassers can be shot if you consider them a threat and that is perfectly legal to do too :D

So what if a crook with a gun breaks into a law-abiding citizen's home? What are those citizens supposed to do?Doesn't happen that much over here at all. Crooks wait until people go on vacation, so they don't have to deal with the inhabitants because they have a hard time getting guns too...
You didn't refute anything I have said regarding gun violance.Which was the point I was making. You didn't either, but you said you did. Besides, I gave you an example of a better solution to keeping kids from getting into accidents with guns at home.
Oh, yes, and I DID refute that what you referred to as 100% accurate didn't apply everywhere without exception. It's called "refuting" in English. Don't make absolute statements and it won't happen very much. I have a hard time refuting someone that will admit that things are different the world over and what works for someone is poison for the other.

It's fine if the children are actually taught about firearms. It's where the guns are hidden away and never spoken of that problems occur.

But of course that would entail parental responsibility and not encourage a Nanny Gov't, so that's not an effective solution.
Absolutely, 100 percent correct. Plus, when the children are old enough to shoot properly, they should be taught. You never know where another Annie Oakley is going to come from.

What if someone is a light sleeper? My mom is one and can hear everything. Not to mention, the floor creeks. Floor creaking is noise. Also, what if they have a dog? Now what are you going to do?



And thus, you lose.

The first two are reasons to be very quiet. Crime is like anything else, if you want to be successful, you have to learn about the challenges and how to overcome them. Most people will make some kind of noise coming down the stairs, again giving me time to get out.

If they have a dog, again, I leave. Escaping the house isn't losing, it's a setback. There are other houses. As long as I get out with my life, I can find another target.

I'm not sure if they've had people try to buy their land off them yet or not. I know the state wants to put a road through part of it, but I don't think they want to do it for a while... there were a lot of new houses coming up near their house though. It was completely countryside before.

Putting a road through it is different. That's considered a "public good". The issue w/ SCOTUS was on private development. Either way, a good portion of states have strictly defined emminent domain laws w/ more on the way due to the decision.

Doesn't happen that much over here at all. Crooks wait until people go on vacation, so they don't have to deal with the inhabitants because they have a hard time getting guns too...

Answer my damn question and stop dodging it.

Which was the point I was making. You didn't either, but you said you did. Besides, I gave you an example of a better solution to keeping kids from getting into accidents with guns at home.

But won't defend the family if a crook with a gun breaks in if that family doesn't have a gun.

There is also the concept that should our governments treat us like children? Honestly...

I am a law-abiding citizen, I keep firearms in my home, I have no criminal record, I do not use them to devious purposes...why should I not have the right to keep them?

Lets be honest, if you are going to prohibit firearms in a city, justify it. The burden of proof is not on the citizenry as to why they should have that right, it is on the government as to why they should not. Will stripping law-abiding citizens of their property, which is actually an inanimate object which first must be loaded, cocked, have the saftey switched off, aimed, and fired, actually benefit society, and prevent criminals from continuing to use firearms? Its not the firearm thats the problem, its just an object, its the person commiting crimes with it that is the problem.

Almost all of it gang related.

They most likely do have different classifications. Would it account for a level twice as high?
The shit going on in Toronto is gang related, what is your point?

And yes, different definitions make a huge difference. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:e5M2Npbou1MJ:www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/LibraryReport_PrairieCrimeFollowUp_2005_04_20.doc+violent+crime+%2B+canadian+definition&hl=en

Comparing the Canadian and United States violent and property crime rates in the paper “A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003” is complicated by differences in the crime definitions. In Table 8, Statistics Canada defines assault much more widely than the U.S. FBI measure of aggravated assault. Statistics Canada includes simple assault, i.e., pushing, slapping, punching and threatening resulting in no more than minor injury, as well as more serious assaults. The U.S. FBI definition of aggravated assault is compared to Canadian definitions on page 21 of the paper. Note that:


U.S. aggravated assault = Canadian aggravated assault + assault with a weapon + attempted murder



Roughly about one fifth of Canadian assaults are aggravated assaults under the U.S. definition, or four fifths of the assaults in Table 8 would not be counted in the
U.S. definition. Assaults account for about three quarters of the Canadian measure of violent crime. By the U.S. definitions, the Canadian violent crime rate is far too high. If the Canadian assault rate of 746 in Table 8 is replaced by the aggravated assault for Canada of 152.9 (U.S. definition) on page 21, the Canadian violent crime rate of 963 would drop to 369.9.

Absolutely, 100 percent correct. Plus, when the children are old enough to shoot properly, they should be taught. You never know where another Annie Oakley is going to come from.But making everyone have to have guns is going to increase the amount of people that DON'T know how about gun safety and have guns and children in the same house. Not having guns around the house keeps the amount of children getting into gun-related accidents near to zero.

Putting a road through it is different. That's considered a "public good". The issue w/ SCOTUS was on private development. Either way, a good portion of states have strictly defined emminent domain laws w/ more on the way due to the decision.
Well, the subdivisions encroaching would probably mean commercial developments eventually as well. Plus the housing people are businesses as well, when you think about it... so if they get to buy the land...

What if someone is a light sleeper? My mom is one and can hear everything. Not to mention, the floor creeks. Floor creaking is noise. Also, what if they have a dog? Now what are you going to do?



And thus, you lose.
I've had houses broken into two times. Once in college, while I was gone over a break. Once in the Marine Corps Officer family housing, while I was on leave and where I was not allowed to have a weapon in the house. Neither of these break-ins were especially subtle. The college apartment had the door smashed in. The house on base had the window next to the door smashed. I think I would have heard either of those from next door. My little spaniel certainly would have.

And if something like that happened now, the predator would hear a blast from a 45 and his last thoughts would be 'Oh, shit...'.

Answer my damn question and stop dodging it.Which question? The only question you asked so far I did answer.

But won't defend the family if a crook with a gun breaks in if that family doesn't have a gun.Which, as I said, doesn't happen that often because the crooks don't manage to get their hands on guns that easily.

But making everyone have to have guns is going to increase the amount of people that DON'T know how about gun safety and have guns and children in the same house. Not having guns around the house keeps the amount of children getting into gun-related accidents near to zero.
Even now, kids are more likely to drown in bathtubs than be involved in a firearm related accident. Should we ban bathing? This isn't France, we do like to clean ourselves once in a while.

The shit going on in Toronto is gang related, what is your point?

And yes, different definitions make a huge difference. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:e5M2Npbou1MJ:www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/LibraryReport_PrairieCrimeFollowUp_2005_04_20.doc+violent+crime+%2B+canadian+definition&hl=en

Point conceded. Excellent research.

I've had houses broken into two times. Once in college, while I was gone over a break. Once in the Marine Corps Officer family housing, while I was on leave and where I was not allowed to have a weapon in the house. Neither of these break-ins were especially subtle. The college apartment had the door smashed in. The house on base had the window next to the door smashed. I think I would have heard either of those from next door. My little spaniel certainly would have.

And if something like that happened now, the predator would hear a blast from a 45 and his last thoughts would be 'Oh, shit...'.

Well, if there's noone home you don't have to be subtle.

But the quieter you are, the better your chances for survival. My sister had her apartment broke into while she was gone, and it was nothing more complex than having her living room window open.

You'll know the situation better than I can but then, this is a gun debate thread and not a property thread :D

If push comes to shove, have them get a gun to defend their land. Tresspassers can be shot if you consider them a threat and that is perfectly legal to do too :D
Yeah, that was a bit side tracked, but I am genuinely curious about that situation. I wouldn't want to see my grandparents lose their land over something stupid.

Um , no.. The discussion was about availability of firearms. Prohibition attempted to reduce availability and failed, just as laws preventing LAC's to own/keep firearms fail at reducing crime.Crime, no, but fire-arm related crime, yes.

Point conceded. Excellent research.
Thank you. :)

Even now, kids are more likely to drown in bathtubs than be involved in a firearm related accident. Should we ban bathing? This isn't France, we do like to clean ourselves once in a while.
Good job with the stereotypes.

But making everyone have to have guns is going to increase the amount of people that DON'T know how about gun safety and have guns and children in the same house. Not having guns around the house keeps the amount of children getting into gun-related accidents near to zero.

Related accidents in the US are near zero now. Illinois had 1 in 2004 and zero in '03.

Now we get into cultural differences. In rural areas like Kennesaw, GA, people have grown up around firearms and know how to safely use them. Handing a firearm to an average suburbanite w/o a safety class would be not a good idea.

Which question? The only question you asked so far I did answer.

Which, as I said, doesn't happen that often because the crooks don't manage to get their hands on guns that easily.
I think there are two different frames of reference being discussed. Maybe in Germany, there isn't a big problem with armed break--ins. Toronto doesn't seem to resemble Germany in that respect. Atlanta certainly doesn't bear any similarity. If there is no gun crime in Germany, that's great. Predators will always find weapons in North America. That's just the way it is and banning law--abiding citizens from owning firearms won't make the place a bit safer. The void caused by removing the legal-->illegal transition by theft will only be filled with guns obtained from other sources.

Even now, kids are more likely to drown in bathtubs than be involved in a firearm related accident. Should we ban bathing? This isn't France, we do like to clean ourselves once in a while.And? Your point being? Maybe we should ban bathing and only allow showers... :p
Pun aside, we can have children drown in bath tubs which is difficult to prevent and have children die in gun-related accidents or have kids drown in bathtubs and not die in gun-related accidents. If you believed owning a gun at home served no beneficial purpose, would you still think they were as necessary as bathing a child?

I think there are two different frames of reference being discussed. Maybe in Germany, there isn't a big problem with armed break--ins. Toronto doesn't seem to resemble Germany in that respect. Atlanta certainly doesn't bear any similarity. If there is no gun crime in Germany, that's great. Predators will always find weapons in North America. That's just the way it is and banning law--abiding citizens from owning firearms won't make the place a bit safer. The void caused by removing the legal-->illegal transition by theft will only be filled with guns obtained from other sources.
Which is why I questioned the "100% correct" statement in the first place.

Related accidents in the US are near zero now. Illinois had 1 in 2004 and zero in '03.

Now we get into cultural differences. In rural areas like Kennesaw, GA, people have grown up around firearms and know how to safely use them. Handing a firearm to an average suburbanite w/o a safety class would be not a good idea.

The proliferation of firearms in rural areas makes me uneasy. This is primarily because I'm a guy that has a great amount of respect for certain animals, primarily birds of prey. Perhaps this is a stereotype, but people with little respect for poaching laws (or alternatively, a great deal of both alcohol and firearms) therefore conflict with my values.

What I'm saying is that they may know how to operate them safely, but that doesn't mean they'll be responsible with them.

Crime, no, but fire-arm related crime, yes.

Still no. Gun crime in the UK increased. The Clinton AWB had no effect, the Brady bill had no effect. Legal ownership in the US has increased in the US while crime (including gun crime) decreased.

Absolute correlation, no. However, disarming LAC's does not reduce the criminal element.

I think there are two different frames of reference being discussed. Maybe in Germany, there isn't a big problem with armed break--ins. Toronto doesn't seem to resemble Germany in that respect. Atlanta certainly doesn't bear any similarity. If there is no gun crime in Germany, that's great. Predators will always find weapons in North America. That's just the way it is and banning law--abiding citizens from owning firearms won't make the place a bit safer. The void caused by removing the legal-->illegal transition by theft will only be filled with guns obtained from other sources.

...And on a minor tanget, why do you call criminals predators? That implies that the rest of us are prey, you know. :P

The proliferation of firearms in rural areas makes me uneasy. This is primarily because I'm a guy that has a great amount of respect for certain animals, primarily birds of prey. Perhaps this is a stereotype, but people with little respect for poaching laws (or alternatively, a great deal of both alcohol and firearms) therefore conflict with my values.

What I'm saying is that they may know how to operate them safely, but that doesn't mean they'll be responsible with them.

Most hunters are more avid environmentalists that many "greens" you'll meet. Poachers are criminals and tend to not follow the laws in the first place.

...And on a minor tanget, why do you call criminals predators? That implies that the rest of us are prey, you know. :P
And is that inaccurate?

Still no. Gun crime in the UK increased. The Clinton AWB had no effect, the Brady bill had no effect. Legal ownership in the US has increased in the US while crime (including gun crime) decreased.

Absolute correlation, no. However, disarming LAC's does not reduce the criminal element.Takes a bit of time. The less legally available guns are available, the less these are likely to be stolen. I think Myrmidonisia made that point a bit earlier on.

...And on a minor tanget, why do you call criminals predators? That implies that the rest of us are prey, you know. :P

In their minds, that is exactly the way it is.

Takes a bit of time. The less legally available guns are available, the less these are likely to be stolen. I think Myrmidonisia made that point a bit earlier on.
I agree with that in part. The second part is that there will always be illegal weapons available to fill the void left by removing legal weapons from law--abiding citizens. I can make guns in my basement, for instance. I wouldn't because I obey laws. But if I didn't... And I'm not that skilled as a machinist. I wouldn't be turning out match-quality rifles and pistols, but they would fire every time and be reasonably accurate.

Takes a bit of time. The less legally available guns are available, the less these are likely to be stolen. I think Myrmidonisia made that point a bit earlier on.

And better the chances of illegal gun activity.

Takes a bit of time. The less legally available guns are available, the less these are likely to be stolen. I think Myrmidonisia made that point a bit earlier on.

He made that conjecture. The guns don't magically disappear. The ones that were on the street are still there and the black market (another criminal element not following the law) will provide more. How many people have to become victims before it becomes effective?

And better the chances of illegal gun activity.Not in the long run.

Not in the long run.

LOL! Oh brother you really don't know anything about illegal guns do you? Crooks will always find a way to get the guns thus putting the LAC's at risk. I would rather have a gun in my home to defend myself than not have a gun at home.

He made that conjecture. The guns don't magically disappear. The ones that were on the street are still there and the black market (another criminal element not following the law) will provide more. How many people have to become victims before it becomes effective?No clue. How many more victims will it take before you realise that it won't stop on its own?

But what do you think happens to guns that are taken from criminals? If they got confiscated and destroyed by the authorities, it would eventually reduce the amount of guns on the black market. I'll also wager that the people more likely to commit violent crimes aren't the ones that would be able to make guns as Myrmidonisia said. There would be some, but a guy out for a quick buck is less likely to have the equipment (or practice and education) to make guns in their basement.

LOL! Oh brother you really don't know anything about illegal guns do you? Crooks will always find a way to get the guns thus putting the LAC's at risk. I would rather have a gun in my home to defend myself than not have a gun at home.I'd rather give up the right to have a gun at home if it reduces the amount of guns that the criminals get. This is the case in Germany, and a gun doesn't do much good anyway if you aren't home when they break in.
Crooks will always find a way to get guns, but the main source is still those stolen from law-abiding citizens and then sold. If you take that out, you can get the lower criminals away from them.

I'd rather give up the right to have a gun at home if it reduces the amount of guns that the criminals get.

That'll never happen Laerod. If you think it will, then your in a fantasy land.

This is the case in Germany, and a gun doesn't do much good anyway if you aren't home when they break in.

Doesn't do much good if that occurs in the US either but then, alot of those people do have alarms on them so.....

Crooks will always find a way to get guns, but the main source is still those stolen from law-abiding citizens and then sold.

To a point true but then again, they have suppliers that are outside the law who can get weapons to them that don't require theft.

If you take that out, you can get the lower criminals away from them.

Doubtful.

Not in the long run.
For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What happens when the predators switch to knives or clubs? Or even fists? Those aren't much less deadly. How does the law-abiding citizen protect himself now?

That'll never happen Laerod. If you think it will, then your in a fantasy land.Darn, I knew Germany was too good to be true...
Doesn't do much good if that occurs in the US either but then, alot of those people do have alarms on them so...And why does having an alarm need you to have a gun when you aren't there?
To a point true but then again, they have suppliers that are outside the law who can get weapons to them that don't require theft.I'm pretty sure that isn't all that cheap and that the average lowly gang member couldn't afford something like that. People that go and get those kinds of guns are more likely to go for something like a bank robbery than to break into a house. (And the blackmarket is the best example for supply and demand, reduce the supply and the price skyrockets, thus reducing the amount of small criminals having the money it takes to arm themselves)

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What happens when the predators switch to knives or clubs? Or even fists? Those aren't much less deadly. How does the law-abiding citizen protect himself now?How much more willing would you be to break into a house while the inhabitant is still there without a gun? It would probably reduce the amount of breakins while people are at home because they'd no longer have the "equality" that a gun supplies. Thanks for allowing me to make that point :)

And is that inaccurate?

I'd figured you'd want something a little less self-deprecitiating, I guess.

Most hunters are more avid environmentalists that many "greens" you'll meet. Poachers are criminals and tend to not follow the laws in the first place.

Not getting into an environmental debate on this. I didn't mention hunters, I stated that irresponsible people with guns around protected wildlife is a bad thing.

How much more willing would you be to break into a house while the inhabitant is still there without a gun? It would probably reduce the amount of breakins while people are at home because they'd no longer have the "equality" that a gun supplies. Thanks for allowing me to make that point :)

Actually, if a crook knows that house doesn't have a gun, they'll break into it.

As to your alarm quote, what if someone cuts the power to the alarm system? Now how is one to defend his/her property if they don't have a gun?

Actually, if a crook knows that house doesn't have a gun, they'll break into it.

As to your alarm quote, what if someone cuts the power to the alarm system? Now how is one to defend his/her property if they don't have a gun?

Maybe they should sell Home Alone as an instruction tape to home protection

Maybe they should sell Home Alone as an instruction tape to home protection

That's a great Idea! I like it :D

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun. You do not hunt with a handgun. Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons. You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly. Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly? After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...

Yes, people do hunt with a handgun. There are specific seasons for many game animals that are handgun only.

Have several weapons, incuding handguns and military look alikes. i have a handgun that has been in my family for 5 generations. Its is functional, but I would never shoot it. Its a family heirloom that I won't give up without a fight.

Most people in this debate seem to be from urban areas. He's a rural outlook. If i called the police, it would take at least 20 minutes for them to get here.

My neighbors know when I'm gone on vacation, and I know the same about them. If i see lights on and a strange car in the drive while they are gone, I'm grabbing a pistol and a shotgun and going to check it out. They would do the same for me.

I also go backpacking and hunting in the rockies. I carry a pistol for protection against large predators. Mountain lion attacks aren't common, but they do happen.

We also have dog that occasionally pack up and attack livestock. When I hear about that happening, I'll take pistol with me when i go out for a run. Yes, I am licened for concealed carry.

How much more willing would you be to break into a house while the inhabitant is still there without a gun? It would probably reduce the amount of breakins while people are at home because they'd no longer have the "equality" that a gun supplies. Thanks for allowing me to make that point :)
How much more willing? I think the burglary statistics for Kennesaw help out there. Violent crime is 0.15 times the national average and property crime is 0.41 times the national average. If you look at the neighboring Smyrna, violent crime is 0.69 times the national average and property crime is 1.05 times the national average. The towns are next to each other and are similar in size. The difference? Kennesaw homeowners own firearms.
I'd conclude that one is indeed more likely to be the victim of a burglary or other violent crime if one is unarmed. Is that the point you were trying to make?

I thought I'd try to take a look at some of the statistics surrounding gun control in America and other countries.

I won't claim to be fair, because I am in favour of gun control, but I think to think statistics paint a better picture than assertions, so we'll see.

These articles are all from The Economist, a British-based right-leaning weekly magazine:

First (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=159294):

"In 1996 handguns were used to murder two people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States. A 1997 study found that the firearm-related death rate among American children under 15 years old was nearly 16 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialised countries combined."

"Where guns are especially cherished, as they are in Arkansas and other states in the South and south-west, gun-related violence is highest."

Second (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=4504):

http://www.economist.com/images/20000708/cus599.gif

"One guide to the future could have been the moment at the NRA convention in May when Charlton Heston, the NRA'S president and usually its best asset, took the stage, raised a revolutionary-war musket above his head, and declared (in a slogan long familiar on the bumpers of southern pick-up trucks) that the vice-president could take the gun “from my cold, dead hands”."

Third (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=380658):

"There are around 230m guns in America. One in four Americans claims to have been threatened by one. In 1997, handguns were used in 17,566 suicides (60% of the total) and in 12,337 homicides. Since 1962, the number of firearms deaths a year has doubled, although the past two years have shown a slight decline. Falling or not, America’s rate of death by guns is extraordinarily high by the standards of the civilised world."

"Some 31 states allow adults (provided they have no criminal record and no history of mental illness) to carry concealed guns almost everywhere."

"John Lott of Yale University has crunched the county data and concluded that, for each year a concealed-weapon law is in effect, the local murder rate declines by 3% and robberies by 2%."

"A few relatively liberal states (Maryland, Massachusetts) have placed quite tough restrictions on handguns: those in Massachusetts, introduced in April, bar the sale of any handguns that do not have serial numbers and trigger locks. Most places are far laxer. More than two-thirds of the states require no gun licences or registration, and 46 set no limit on gun purchases."

http://www.economist.com/images/20000930/cbb575.gif

Uh, there is no fourth.

Fifth (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=200641):

"After a disgruntled Scout master killed 16 nursery pupils and their teacher at a school in Dunblane in 1996, Britain banned all handguns. After one man wielding a semi-automatic rifle murdered 35 people in Tasmania the month after Dunblane, Australia drastically tightened its gun laws. Such a response in America seems inconceivable."

Sixth (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=200641):

"If businesses want to keep concealed weapons off their property, they must put up a sign stating that “Carrying of a pistol or revolver is prohibited”. Vistors must also be able to read the sign from 10 feet away. If they can't, they can bring their guns in."

"Other states also allow companies to ban guns from their premises. But what about car parks? Lawmakers in Oklahoma are feeling anxious. Banning guns in the office, they say, is all very well. But what about the poor fellows who want to go hunting straight after work?"

Seventh (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=397593):

"What Woodstock was to peace, Knob Creek’s bi-annual Machine-Gun Shoot is to war. Some trippers come to buy or sell military weapons the uninitiated would never believe are legal; many come to try them out, and at least one is there "looking for G.I. Jane."

"Experienced visitors looking for more of a challenge opt for the assault-rifle match. One at a time, contestants run from point to point, shooting at rows of metal plates. Their final tally reflects both speed and accuracy. For something a little more novel, $20 will buy a turn at the Jungle Walk, a 200-metre hike and submachinegun target-shoot through a decidedly deciduous, though supposedly Vietnamese, jungle. Back at the main range, $75 lets you barbecue a car with a flame-thrower. For $50 more, you can upgrade to napalm."

"Television crews are banned."

"When the explosions die down, an announcer takes over the public address system. “Remember, only in America. Only in America can you come see a show like this. Nowhere else has these liberties.” He’s hit the bull’s eye."

Eighth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=307648):

"A central concern for many on the march is one extraordinary fact: every day, according to the Justice Department, 13 children are killed by guns in America. It is one of the most disturbing (and oft-cited) statistics in the gun-control debate. The number is true. It is also misleading."

"A recent report in the American Journal of Public Health found that 22m children live in houses with guns—and that in 43% of those houses, the guns are not locked away or fitted with trigger locks (indeed in 9% of them, the guns are also kept loaded)."

"Yet 85% of the deaths in the study were not of small children at home: they were of teenagers between 15 and 20 years old. Most were killed in gang conflicts, often over drugs. Child-safety locks may or may not be a good idea. But they would do nothing to stop such killings."

"The number of children under five who were killed in gun accidents in 1997 was 20 (or half the number who drowned in five-gallon plastic buckets). For children aged 14 and under, the figure was 142."

"So are the opponents of gun control right to cast doubt on the usefulness of trigger locks or gun-storage laws? Not necessarily, because even that last number is still nine times higher than 25 other industrialised countries combined. Moreover, teenagers in America are 11 times more likely than those in other countries to shoot themselves using a gun. So laws that stop troubled adolescents from getting hold of loaded weapons must surely do some good."

"Florida, the first state to adopt [a gun storage] law, has seen a big drop in accidental gunshot deaths."

Ninth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=91128):

"Three out of four women will have a crime committed against them in their lifetime, it claims. The police won’t help: there are no arrests in approximately 56% of all violent crimes. The courts won’t help: half of all convicted rapists spend less than one year in jail. Husbands and boyfriends won’t help: 60% of female murder victims were killed by people they know."

Tenth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=130495):

http://www.economist.com/images/19980530/cus950.gif

"Using data from all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994, he has found that, for each year that a concealed-handgun law is in effect, the local murder rate declines by 3%, robberies by over 2% and rape by 2%."

"The biggest falls in crime were in high-crime urban areas or minority neighbourhoods. The laws led to no increase in accidental deaths or suicide by gunshot. Every additional woman who carries a handgun produces an even bigger drop in crime than each additional man. And popular anti-gun measures, such as waiting periods or background checks, produce no reduction in crime."

"If the rest of the country had adopted concealed-handgun laws in 1992, he claims, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided."

"He also expects that only about 5% of people will ever take advantage of concealed-weapons laws. If many more started carrying handguns, he admits, the laws might have a different effect. At the very least, reductions in crime would probably level off. At the worst, a more heavily armed society might see a rise in crime."

"Before 1995, the city was an exception to Pennsylvania’s concealed-weapons law; police there could refuse a request for a permit to carry a concealed weapon if the applicant could not prove “reasonable need”. In 1995, the exception was eliminated. In 1994, 1,500 permits to carry a concealed weapon were issued in Philadelphia; in 1996, around 11,500 were. Whereas in most big American cities homicide rates have been falling in recent years, in Philadelphia they have stayed much the same."

Eleventh (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=472654):

"Just a year later, a paper† using the same data and more advanced econometric methods showed that concealed-weapon legislation had made only a small contribution to falling murder rates, and may even have boosted robberies."

"With data stretching from 1980 to 1998, he calculated that a 10% increase in an average state’s rate of gun ownership, proxied by magazine sales, was associated with a 2% rise in its homicide rate."

"Perhaps most striking for those who believe in the deterrent effect of gun-ownership, burglary (theft with forcible entry) and larceny (theft without forcible entry or threat of harm) rose significantly following growth in gun ownership, by roughly half as much as homicides. On the other hand, rates of robbery (theft with threat of harm), assault, rape and car theft remained largely unchanged, a finding which, at least for violent crimes, contradicts Messrs Lott’s and Mustard’s paper."

Twelfth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1012025):

http://www.economist.com/images/20020302/CUS406.gif

"Firearms kill more children in the United States than any other cause except motor-vehicle crashes and cancer. Over the period studied, 1988-97, nearly 7,000 children aged between five and 14 were killed with firearms. Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else in the industrialised world."

"The study's authors, Mathew Miller, Deborah Azrael and David Hemenway, find that states with a lot of guns have higher rates of gun suicide, homicide and deadly accidents among children aged between five and 14, even after allowing for factors such as poverty, education level and urbanisation."

"Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware). Children in the “high-gun states” were also seven times more likely to die from a gun suicide and three times more likely to die from a gun homicide."

Thirteenth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1132897):

"The first is the “collective” or “states' rights” interpretation. It holds that the meaning of the second amendment is made clear in its preamble: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” This implies, say the collectivists, that the right to own guns lies with the people collectively, by virtue of their support for militias (originally a mass military gathering; now, something like the National Guard). The second amendment merely gives state governments the right to set up militias. It does not protect a private citizen's right to own a gun."

"Supporters of this “individualist” interpretation say the preamble does not materially affect the amendment because, when it was drawn up, “the militia” and “the people” were pretty much the same thing. They concede that, elsewhere in the constitution, “the people” sometimes means everyone collectively, not as individuals. But by no stretch of the imagination can “the people” mean “the states”—so the right does indeed belong to every American."

And I'm tired now...

I think the Canadian government should just be able to enforce Canadian gun laws in the US to stop the Americans from smuggling guns in. After all, that's what the Americans have done with our drug laws to stop us smuggling drugs into their country. It's just quid pro quo.

Better eyt whu don't both of us stop tellingour citizens what they can drink/smoke/shoot so long as they are'nt using them on anyone who does'nt want them to?

So I spend a good chunk of time assembling all that only to get a comment on the throwaway post I made at the start? Life's not fair, I say.

Pretty much accurate though I wouldn't go with Firing Squad. Lethal Injection or the Gas chamber works better. Maybe re-institute hanging and have it public. :D
Gotta love these so called "Christians" who advocate state sanctioned murder. :eek:

As for guns, When I get my own place, I'm going to go get my gun permit and a concealed carry gun permit. Haven't decided on what type of gun to get though. Then again, I am an American.
What a scary thought. :eek:

I don't doubt there are a lot of gang killings over things that don't affect law-abiding citizens. But I don't think for a moment that gangs are not involved in illegal activities that might present a threat to these same citizens. The law-abiding citizenry needs to be able to protect themselves, if they are ever threatened.

As far as I'm concerned, every household should possess a firearm. That is law in Kennesaw, GA and it's worked out pretty well.

What's the per capita death-by-gun rate in Kennesaw, that it's worked out so well?

Last I checked (Stats Canada breaks it down differently than the US stats I looked up last time this thread was around) our average death-by-gun rate here is about one percent of a comparable US site.

This is the country that doesn't let you carry firearms to "protect" yourself, remember.

I don't know the current comparable rate right now, but I'll still bet it's lower than yours. And despite that, it's still too high. So looking at the source of the guns is a good idea. Step up inspection on the borders, and if private owners can't properly secure their guns, make them put them somewhere better.

So I spend a good chunk of time assembling all that only to get a comment on the throwaway post I made at the start? Life's not fair, I say.
Life isn't fair. I tell my kids that all the time. But it was too much all at once. That and it lacked a clear topic for each paragraph. Good evidence, bad presentation. Edit and resubmit.

What's the per capita death-by-gun rate in Kennesaw, that it's worked out so well?

Last I checked (Stats Canada breaks it down differently than the US stats I looked up last time this thread was around) our average death-by-gun rate here is about one percent of a comparable US site.

This is the country that doesn't let you carry firearms to "protect" yourself, remember.

I don't know the current comparable rate right now, but I'll still bet it's lower than yours. And despite that, it's still too high. So looking at the source of the guns is a good idea. Step up inspection on the borders, and if private owners can't properly secure their guns, make them put them somewhere better.
It's one per 25k, so I guess that's 4 per 100k. What's yours in numbers? When you take all violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, and assault, the rate is ten percent of the national average. Pretty good for a metropolitan suburb of Atlanta. Atlanta's rate for violent crimes is 330 percent of the national average. Who's better off? The gun-toting citizens of Kennesaw, I'd say.

Answer my damn question and stop dodging it.

But won't defend the family if a crook with a gun breaks in if that family doesn't have a gun.

Got your gun properly secured and locked away, unloaded?

Then when someone breaks into your home with a gun, you can't use your own anyway. But now the criminal has access to ANOTHER gun. And the cycle continues. Thanks for making the point.

You know what? Someone breaks into your home, if you can't scare them away merely because you're there, get the hell out of Dodge and leave your house to them. They can have whatever they want. In fact, let them jack your house up on a couple of flatbeds and cart it away.

You're far too valuable, and it's just stuff. Even if it wipes you out, I happen to think that your life is far too valuable. And here comes the part that's probably going to baffle you:

The criminal's life is too valuable for you to be judge, jury, and executioner because you didn't want him/her to rip off your PSX2.

Got your gun properly secured and locked away, unloaded?

Then when someone breaks into your home with a gun, you can't use your own anyway. But now the criminal has access to ANOTHER gun. And the cycle continues. Thanks for making the point.

You know what? Someone breaks into your home, if you can't scare them away merely because you're there, get the hell out of Dodge and leave your house to them. They can have whatever they want. In fact, let them jack your house up on a couple of flatbeds and cart it away.

You're far too valuable, and it's just stuff. Even if it wipes you out, I happen to think that your life is far too valuable. And here comes the part that's probably going to baffle you:

The criminal's life is too valuable for you to be judge, jury, and executioner because you didn't want him/her to rip off your PSX2.
You have made a bad assumption here. A gun that is unloaded is worthless. A citizen that is concerned with protecting his property will keep the gun safely stored, but ready to use. In my case that means locked in a safe when I'm away and in the night stand drawer when I'm home. I have no doubt that my alarm, a cocker spaniel and a terrier mix, will alert me in plenty of time to meet the predator.

If he doesn't turn around and run when a gun is pointed at him, I consider my life in danger and I have every right to shoot him dead. It's not about the stuff, it's about the danger.

Gotta love these so called "Christians" who advocate state sanctioned murder. :eek:

Show me where in the Bible that says thou shall not execute a murderer?

What a scary thought. :eek:

Why? I know the power of a gun and what it can do.

Got your gun properly secured and locked away, unloaded?

I don't have a gun yet but I will when I get my own place. And I know better than to keep a loaded gun. Keep Ammo and gun seperated but close enough to where you can quickly arm it and cock it to defend yourself. Unless of course, I'm outside the house. Then it'll be loaded and ready for use.

Then when someone breaks into your home with a gun, you can't use your own anyway. But now the criminal has access to ANOTHER gun. And the cycle continues. Thanks for making the point.

I made no point other than the fact that if a crook even suspects there's a gun in the house, they won't try to break into it because they wanna live to see tomorrow. If I had a gun, it'll be near my bed, within reach in the event of a breakin.

You know what? Someone breaks into your home, if you can't scare them away merely because you're there, get the hell out of Dodge and leave your house to them. They can have whatever they want. In fact, let them jack your house up on a couple of flatbeds and cart it away.

I'll defend my home. I shall not be a coward and run. I would use my gun against the crooks that do break into my house. Besides, we have a weapon in the house anyway, but its not a gun.

You're far too valuable, and it's just stuff. Even if it wipes you out, I happen to think that your life is far too valuable. And here comes the part that's probably going to baffle you:

I'm shaking in my boots.

The criminal's life is too valuable for you to be judge, jury, and executioner because you didn't want him/her to rip off your PSX2.

My life is more important than that of a crook. If I had a family, there lives are more important than the sob that does break into my home. Someone breaks into my home, their life insurance better be paid up because they won't be around long.

Show me where in the Bible that says thou shall not execute a murderer?
Thou shalt not kill:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg

Why? I know the power of a gun and what it can do.
I am sure God will be impressed if you kill someone to protect your "material" possessions?

Life isn't fair. I tell my kids that all the time. But it was too much all at once. That and it lacked a clear topic for each paragraph. Good evidence, bad presentation. Edit and resubmit.

I was merely providing the information with the hope that someone would use it. If you want, I guess I can distill it down so it fits nicely into my point of view, but then you lose some of the depth. That said, if this page ends and no one has really cared or used it, I'll just cannibalize it to say what I want.

Maybe we should look at the issue at different way. It doesn't matter if you own a gun, what matters is if you have the will to use it. It would appear that North
American Culture (American and Canadian culture are similar enough, I'd say, to make them the same, most of you will disagree but) makes it easier for your average person to become a murderer, which means that something is wrong with the culture in North America. How about we educate people at very young age so that the idea is burned into their brain that murder is wrong? I don't give a shit if you own a gun, I know alot of great people that own guns. You don't judge a person if they own a gun, you judge them by what they frigging do with the damn thing. I had more to say but......I don't want this to become a longer post (I actually just forgot because I was thinking about something else....I forget what the thing was too that I was thinking about that got me distracted).

P.S. Mayor Dumbass (Miller) only got elected because his hair is like Conan O'Brien's.

Crooks will always find a way to get guns, but the main source is still those stolen from law-abiding citizens and then sold.
Source please, I find this statistic to be highly questionable.

Thou shalt not kill:
Actually, as has been noted in many, many other threads on this board at one time or another, the correct translation is thou shalt not murder. Biiiig difference.

I live in downtown Vancouver, and I am happy to say I can walk anywhere, at any hour of the day or night, without fear of being shot. Why? Because we don't all own handguns. We don't all live in fear of the other guy's gun, forcing us to bleat about our right to protection by owning one ourselves.

The math is simple. Fewer handguns in Canada = fewer handguns available to be stolen. The criminals get their guns illegally, you shriek? So what? That in no way changes the fact that I am safer in a country with fewer handguns. Just because a person hasn't committed a murder does not make it sensible to hand him a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to injure or kill other people (unlike baseball bats or tire irons). We don't get to find out whether a person is likely to snap on his neighbour and shoot him in the face over a stereo being played too loudly night after night until it is too late.

It is my belief that the majority of the public are not responsible enough or properly trained to own this sort of weapon. Police are specifically trained to control their emotions, to be taunt-resistant, to think before they act. Civilians get no such training, and I will stick to my assertion that private handgun ownership is the cause of a great deal more problems than ever could be solved by increasing the number of handguns in civilian hands.

I think the statistics on handgun-related homicides in Canada versus the United States makes it perfectly clear that our legislation works better for us than America's does for them.

Actually, as has been noted in many, many other threads on this board at one time or another, the correct translation is thou shalt not murder. Biiiig difference.
You take it however you wish and we will let God decide who was right later?

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord?

I thought I'd try to take a look at some of the statistics surrounding gun control in America and other countries.

I won't claim to be fair, because I am in favour of gun control, but I think to think statistics paint a better picture than assertions, so we'll see.

These articles are all from The Economist, a British-based right-leaning weekly magazine:

First (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=159294):

"In 1996 handguns were used to murder two people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States. A 1997 study found that the firearm-related death rate among American children under 15 years old was nearly 16 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialised countries combined."

"Where guns are especially cherished, as they are in Arkansas and other states in the South and south-west, gun-related violence is highest."

Second (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=4504):

http://www.economist.com/images/20000708/cus599.gif

"One guide to the future could have been the moment at the NRA convention in May when Charlton Heston, the NRA'S president and usually its best asset, took the stage, raised a revolutionary-war musket above his head, and declared (in a slogan long familiar on the bumpers of southern pick-up trucks) that the vice-president could take the gun “from my cold, dead hands”."

Third (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=380658):

"There are around 230m guns in America. One in four Americans claims to have been threatened by one. In 1997, handguns were used in 17,566 suicides (60% of the total) and in 12,337 homicides. Since 1962, the number of firearms deaths a year has doubled, although the past two years have shown a slight decline. Falling or not, America’s rate of death by guns is extraordinarily high by the standards of the civilised world."

"Some 31 states allow adults (provided they have no criminal record and no history of mental illness) to carry concealed guns almost everywhere."

"John Lott of Yale University has crunched the county data and concluded that, for each year a concealed-weapon law is in effect, the local murder rate declines by 3% and robberies by 2%."

"A few relatively liberal states (Maryland, Massachusetts) have placed quite tough restrictions on handguns: those in Massachusetts, introduced in April, bar the sale of any handguns that do not have serial numbers and trigger locks. Most places are far laxer. More than two-thirds of the states require no gun licences or registration, and 46 set no limit on gun purchases."

http://www.economist.com/images/20000930/cbb575.gif

Uh, there is no fourth.

Fifth (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=200641):

"After a disgruntled Scout master killed 16 nursery pupils and their teacher at a school in Dunblane in 1996, Britain banned all handguns. After one man wielding a semi-automatic rifle murdered 35 people in Tasmania the month after Dunblane, Australia drastically tightened its gun laws. Such a response in America seems inconceivable."

Sixth (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=200641):

"If businesses want to keep concealed weapons off their property, they must put up a sign stating that “Carrying of a pistol or revolver is prohibited”. Vistors must also be able to read the sign from 10 feet away. If they can't, they can bring their guns in."

"Other states also allow companies to ban guns from their premises. But what about car parks? Lawmakers in Oklahoma are feeling anxious. Banning guns in the office, they say, is all very well. But what about the poor fellows who want to go hunting straight after work?"

Seventh (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=397593):

"What Woodstock was to peace, Knob Creek’s bi-annual Machine-Gun Shoot is to war. Some trippers come to buy or sell military weapons the uninitiated would never believe are legal; many come to try them out, and at least one is there "looking for G.I. Jane."

"Experienced visitors looking for more of a challenge opt for the assault-rifle match. One at a time, contestants run from point to point, shooting at rows of metal plates. Their final tally reflects both speed and accuracy. For something a little more novel, $20 will buy a turn at the Jungle Walk, a 200-metre hike and submachinegun target-shoot through a decidedly deciduous, though supposedly Vietnamese, jungle. Back at the main range, $75 lets you barbecue a car with a flame-thrower. For $50 more, you can upgrade to napalm."

"Television crews are banned."

"When the explosions die down, an announcer takes over the public address system. “Remember, only in America. Only in America can you come see a show like this. Nowhere else has these liberties.” He’s hit the bull’s eye."

Eighth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=307648):

"A central concern for many on the march is one extraordinary fact: every day, according to the Justice Department, 13 children are killed by guns in America. It is one of the most disturbing (and oft-cited) statistics in the gun-control debate. The number is true. It is also misleading."

"A recent report in the American Journal of Public Health found that 22m children live in houses with guns—and that in 43% of those houses, the guns are not locked away or fitted with trigger locks (indeed in 9% of them, the guns are also kept loaded)."

"Yet 85% of the deaths in the study were not of small children at home: they were of teenagers between 15 and 20 years old. Most were killed in gang conflicts, often over drugs. Child-safety locks may or may not be a good idea. But they would do nothing to stop such killings."

"The number of children under five who were killed in gun accidents in 1997 was 20 (or half the number who drowned in five-gallon plastic buckets). For children aged 14 and under, the figure was 142."

"So are the opponents of gun control right to cast doubt on the usefulness of trigger locks or gun-storage laws? Not necessarily, because even that last number is still nine times higher than 25 other industrialised countries combined. Moreover, teenagers in America are 11 times more likely than those in other countries to shoot themselves using a gun. So laws that stop troubled adolescents from getting hold of loaded weapons must surely do some good."

"Florida, the first state to adopt [a gun storage] law, has seen a big drop in accidental gunshot deaths."

Ninth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=91128):

"Three out of four women will have a crime committed against them in their lifetime, it claims. The police won’t help: there are no arrests in approximately 56% of all violent crimes. The courts won’t help: half of all convicted rapists spend less than one year in jail. Husbands and boyfriends won’t help: 60% of female murder victims were killed by people they know."

Tenth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=130495):

http://www.economist.com/images/19980530/cus950.gif

"Using data from all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994, he has found that, for each year that a concealed-handgun law is in effect, the local murder rate declines by 3%, robberies by over 2% and rape by 2%."

"The biggest falls in crime were in high-crime urban areas or minority neighbourhoods. The laws led to no increase in accidental deaths or suicide by gunshot. Every additional woman who carries a handgun produces an even bigger drop in crime than each additional man. And popular anti-gun measures, such as waiting periods or background checks, produce no reduction in crime."

"If the rest of the country had adopted concealed-handgun laws in 1992, he claims, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided."

"He also expects that only about 5% of people will ever take advantage of concealed-weapons laws. If many more started carrying handguns, he admits, the laws might have a different effect. At the very least, reductions in crime would probably level off. At the worst, a more heavily armed society might see a rise in crime."

"Before 1995, the city was an exception to Pennsylvania’s concealed-weapons law; police there could refuse a request for a permit to carry a concealed weapon if the applicant could not prove “reasonable need”. In 1995, the exception was eliminated. In 1994, 1,500 permits to carry a concealed weapon were issued in Philadelphia; in 1996, around 11,500 were. Whereas in most big American cities homicide rates have been falling in recent years, in Philadelphia they have stayed much the same."

Eleventh (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=472654):

"Just a year later, a paper† using the same data and more advanced econometric methods showed that concealed-weapon legislation had made only a small contribution to falling murder rates, and may even have boosted robberies."

"With data stretching from 1980 to 1998, he calculated that a 10% increase in an average state’s rate of gun ownership, proxied by magazine sales, was associated with a 2% rise in its homicide rate."

"Perhaps most striking for those who believe in the deterrent effect of gun-ownership, burglary (theft with forcible entry) and larceny (theft without forcible entry or threat of harm) rose significantly following growth in gun ownership, by roughly half as much as homicides. On the other hand, rates of robbery (theft with threat of harm), assault, rape and car theft remained largely unchanged, a finding which, at least for violent crimes, contradicts Messrs Lott’s and Mustard’s paper."

Twelfth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1012025):

http://www.economist.com/images/20020302/CUS406.gif

"Firearms kill more children in the United States than any other cause except motor-vehicle crashes and cancer. Over the period studied, 1988-97, nearly 7,000 children aged between five and 14 were killed with firearms. Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else in the industrialised world."

"The study's authors, Mathew Miller, Deborah Azrael and David Hemenway, find that states with a lot of guns have higher rates of gun suicide, homicide and deadly accidents among children aged between five and 14, even after allowing for factors such as poverty, education level and urbanisation."

"Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware). Children in the “high-gun states” were also seven times more likely to die from a gun suicide and three times more likely to die from a gun homicide."

Thirteenth (http://www.economist.com/background/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1132897):

"The first is the “collective” or “states' rights” interpretation. It holds that the meaning of the second amendment is made clear in its preamble: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” This implies, say the collectivists, that the right to own guns lies with the people collectively, by virtue of their support for militias (originally a mass military gathering; now, something like the National Guard). The second amendment merely gives state governments the right to set up militias. It does not protect a private citizen's right to own a gun."

"Supporters of this “individualist” interpretation say the preamble does not materially affect the amendment because, when it was drawn up, “the militia” and “the people” were pretty much the same thing. They concede that, elsewhere in the constitution, “the people” sometimes means everyone collectively, not as individuals. But by no stretch of the imagination can “the people” mean “the states”—so the right does indeed belong to every American."

And I'm tired now...
Excellent post Ragbralbur!! :)

I live in downtown Vancouver, and I am happy to say I can walk anywhere, at any hour of the day or night, without fear of being shot. Why? Because we don't all own handguns. We don't all live in fear of the other guy's gun, forcing us to bleat about our right to protection by owning one ourselves.

The math is simple. Fewer handguns in Canada = fewer handguns available to be stolen. The criminals get their guns illegally, you shriek? So what? That in no way changes the fact that I am safer in a country with fewer handguns. Just because a person hasn't committed a murder does not make it sensible to hand him a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to injure or kill other people (unlike baseball bats or tire irons). We don't get to find out whether a person is likely to snap on his neighbour and shoot him in the face over a stereo being played too loudly night after night until it is too late.

It is my belief that the majority of the public are not responsible enough or properly trained to own this sort of weapon. Police are specifically trained to control their emotions, to be taunt-resistant, to think before they act. Civilians get no such training, and I will stick to my assertion that private handgun ownership is the cause of a great deal more problems than ever could be solved by increasing the number of handguns in civilian hands.

I think the statistics on handgun-related homicides in Canada versus the United States makes it perfectly clear that our legislation works better for us than America's does for them.

Well said.

I too live in Vancouver, and in fact work in security. Unarmed.

Private security in Canada isn't armed, folks. Proprietary security might be, but all of those guards you see at doors, in the airports, doing rounds in buildings... unarmed.

No firearms, nightsticks, sprays, knuckles, or anything else. Pretty freaky, eh?

People paid to keep watch on places where trouble is expected. And know what the mortality rate is?

There was a guard last year shot in a burned out building by someone who was looking for someone else. To find the one before that, you have to go back something like five years.

And this is a city we're talking about, not a rural town. What makes the streets dangerous is all the scared people who think they're in danger every time they leave their homes.

And am I the only one who finds it odd that people in this thread keep talking about "If a criminal knew a house had a gun in it, they'd be way less likely to break in", but then later in the same thread will say "People should get to carry concealed". Which is it that deters - advertised or unadvertised firearms?

Think about nightclub shootings, too. Somebody gets shot outside a nightclub every once in awhile, gang activity or whatever. What would happen if everybody had a handgun? One person shot would turn into fourteen people shot in about 3 seconds.

No, I'll keep to my "no handguns, thank you" policy.

I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun. You do not hunt with a handgun. Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons. You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly. Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly? After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...


Agreed 100 percent.

People dont kill people, GUNS kill people. :)

I live in Toronto, and you know what, NOBODY except the police should have guns. NOBODY AT ALL.

Its a FACT that "rights to guns" increase gun violence and deaths.

Agreed 100 percent.

People dont kill people, GUNS kill people. :)

I live in Toronto, and you know what, NOBODY except the police should have guns. NOBODY AT ALL.

Its a FACT that "rights to guns" increase gun violence and deaths.
Quick, qualify that statement with "handguns" before the rifle folks leap in.

yeah, handguns. sure.

Thou shalt not kill:

You do know that is talking about murder. I'm asking you where is it stated regarding execution AS IN Capitol Punishment?

I am sure God will be impressed if you kill someone to protect your "material" possessions?

I will defend my life, family, and property. Self-Defense.

People dont kill people, GUNS kill people. :)

You do know that guns don't fire themselves right? They need someone to pull the trigger. Therefor, PEOPLE kill people and not guns kill people.

Its a FACT that "rights to guns" increase gun violence and deaths.

Funny thing is, gun violence has dropped here in the US whereas gun sales are up!

I think the Canadian government should just be able to enforce Canadian gun laws in the US to stop the Americans from smuggling guns in. After all, that's what the Americans have done with our drug laws to stop us smuggling drugs into their country. It's just quid pro quo.

Might want to stop the buyers on your side of the border also. No market=no smuggling.

ok of all the shootings in TO how many were commited with a legal gun?
Before you beg for fewer rights looks how well gun control works in England. A rising gun violence rate despite a ban on ownership.
I need less protection as a result of everyone around me NOT having a handgun. You do not hunt with a handgun. Nobody needs to collect deadly weapons. You want to collect something, collect kitchen witches or vegetable peelers. Claiming you "need" to collect handguns is silly. Shall we also allow people to collect various anthrax strains, as long as he promises to store them properly? After all, the terrorists don't register their anthrax, and the law-abiding citizens who register their anthrax wouldn't commit terrorist acts with them...

Actually an alarm means "steal faster" and when a theif trips an alarm the tend to do more damage do to their haste.

Actually, if a crook knows that house doesn't have a gun, they'll break into it.

As to your alarm quote, what if someone cuts the power to the alarm system? Now how is one to defend his/her property if they don't have a gun?

Actually an alarm means "steal faster" and when a theif trips an alarm the tend to do more damage do to their haste.

If its sound activated, the crooks will flee most of the time. Also, alot of the alarms are silent alarms. Crooks have no idea that cops are on the way until its too late.

It all depends on the alarm system one has in their homes.

Now your seeking to impose your Christian ideology on us?
We need firearms to protectus from those that would Talabanize this country.

Thou shalt not kill:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg


I am sure God will be impressed if you kill someone to protect your "material" possessions?

Source please, I find this statistic to be highly questionable.

From everything I've read on it, the main source of firearms "recovered" at crime scenes have been stolen. In reality, even w/ the vaunted registration system, the authorities have no idea the amounts or percentages of firearms used in crimes.

And here's proof that people don't like it when brains are used TO solve problems.

Care to elaborate?

What? A 5'2 95 lb woman with a 6'2 220 lb man ready to pin her is supposed to debate him on the morality of his actions?

You thin ka rapist or a mugger is really all that open to discussion?

Why is it that every gun enthusiast I've dealt with in this forum thinks that arming midgets is going to solve the problems of the world?

LOL! Oh brother you really don't know anything about illegal guns do you? Crooks will always find a way to get the guns thus putting the LAC's at risk. I would rather have a gun in my home to defend myself than not have a gun at home.

Crooks will be less likely to find hand guns if they are no longer manufactured.

Crooks will be less likely to find hand guns if they are no longer manufactured.

Well there's a violation of free enterprise as well as a violation of the 2nd amendment since owning guns is a constitutional right.

Well there's a violation of free enterprise as well as a violation of the 2nd amendment since owning guns is a constitutional right.

Then maybe the 2nd Amendment should be ammended so that I don't have to worry about getting shot by a crook, vigilante or a rape victim with bad aim.

Then maybe the 2nd Amendment should be ammended so that I don't have to worry about getting shot by a crook, vigilante or a rape victim with bad aim.

That won't solve your issue. They'll find other ways to kill you either which way. So I would rather have a gun than not have one. Good luck in trying to get it amended. I can tell you that the South won't go for it and neither will some of the North East.

That won't solve your issue. They'll find other ways to kill you either which way. So I would rather have a gun than not have one. Good luck in trying to get it amended. I can tell you that the South won't go for it and neither will some of the North East.

Note that this thread is about Toronto, in Canada. The south and northeast US aren't really the focus here - nobody's suggesting changes there. ;)

If we were actually talking about crime in Germany, the UK, or France, this might be relevant. But since we are talking about crime in Toronto, we are a little less interested in your comparison.

Although, I suspect an armed robber in any of those countries would do very well.


where would you get the gun for the armed robbery if there were no guns or all guns were securely locked up?

Furthermore would you use a gun if you knew that possesion of an unlicensed (to you) or illegal, or concealed gun carried a minimum jail term with no way to avoid it?

Finally gun crime has gone down in australia over the last 7 years (Since Port Arthur and the gun buyback scheme) (dispite what the NRA in the US might say... there have been something like 20 gun related crimes involving fatalities in the last 5 YEARS in victoria, total victims i think was around 24, this includes one psycho who took handguns to my uni and started shooting people at random, he fired 3 shots before the rest of the class took him down (no-one else in the room was armed with any weapons other than chairs etc)

oh yeah - other than the police and specific security guards (who are ex police generally) who move money in and out of banks it is illegal to have a handgun in public or to transport it in a non secured case, and then only to a dealer or service place.

where would you get the gun for the armed robbery if there were no guns or all guns were securely locked up?

Smuggling

Furthermore would you use a gun if you knew that possesion of an unlicensed (to you) or illegal, or concealed gun carried a minimum jail term with no way to avoid it?

If it was to defend myself from a crook, you bet your life I would.

actually i meant as a criminal...

so why does australia have such low gun crime then? excluding data from the NRA (and like organisations) which is all complete BS (they claimed something like a 600% per annum increase in guncrime since the buyback... the vic police claim something like a 80% drop... i think i believe the police in the country over the gun lobby of another country in this stat...) there is no-one who says gun crime here has increased...

actually i meant as a criminal...

so why does australia have such low gun crime then? excluding data from the NRA (and like organisations) which is all complete BS (they claimed something like a 600% per annum increase in guncrime since the buyback... the vic police claim something like a 80% drop... i think i believe the police in the country over the gun lobby of another country in this stat...) there is no-one who says gun crime here has increased...

Umm...


Subject: ABOUT AUSTRALIA

Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 6:05 AM
Subject: Worth repeating

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.

Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's to late!

first link: (takes me a while to get them...)

This is an official summary from the victorian police about crime last financial year.
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/610_Highlights-2004-05.pdf

second link:
Executive summary about crime in victoria over the last financial year, including catagory breakdown:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/616_Executive-Summary-2004-05.pdf

regarding the above the definition of assult was modifed, contributing to the increase., for those who dont want to open it there were a TOTAL of 123.8 weapons/explosives crimes per 100,000 people (total pop ~3.5Million) in the year. There were a total of 4 homicides per 100,000 people in the year as well.

third link:
This one details actual numbers of crimes, those committed and prosescuted:
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/files/documents/614_Summary-2004-05.pdf
as you can see, regarding crimes against people 78.5 were prosecuted successfully, with robbery being the only one below 74%, regarding weapon crimes 98.5% were prosecuted successfully.

[QUOTE]That won't solve your issue. They'll find other ways to kill you either which way.

Given the choice I think my odds against a criminal with a knife are a lot better than against a criminal with a gun.

So I would rather have a gun than not have one. Good luck in trying to get it amended. I can tell you that the South won't go for it and neither will some of the North East.

Yeah, the South didn't want to abolish slavery either. ;)

Given the choice I think my odds against a criminal with a knife are a lot better than against a criminal with a gun.

True it is unless of course they are a proven knife fighter. If someone can use the knife effectively, your done for. Those are very dangerous fights and they aren't clean either. However, odds are, your attacker would be armed with a gun so.....

Yeah, the South didn't want to abolish slavery either. ;)

And if they haven't fired (HEHE) their big guns (lol aka cannons) then we wouldn't have had the biggest gun duel ever seen on American shores.

True it is unless of course they are a proven knife fighter. If someone can use the knife effectively, your done for. Those are very dangerous fights and they aren't clean either. However, odds are, your attacker would be armed with a gun so.....

I can always try to out run a killer with a knife. It requires a bit more speed to outrun a bullet. Also, why is it that gun advocates who use self-defence as an excuse for having a gun in the house, assume that a criminal is going to give them ample warning to go into whatever place they keep their gun, load the bullets into the gun and take aim?

And if they haven't fired (HEHE) their big guns (lol aka cannons) then we wouldn't have had the biggest gun duel ever seen on American shores.

Just as long as I don't get hit by a stray rocket.

I can always try to out run a killer with a knife. It requires a bit more speed to outrun a bullet. Also, why is it that gun advocates who use self-defence as an excuse for having a gun in the house, assume that a criminal is going to give them ample warning to go into whatever place they keep their gun, load the bullets into the gun and take aim?

Are you assuming that Americans are idiots? If I had a gun, I'd make sure I can get to it with ease. Keeping it by my headboard will do that. When I hear a crook break in (and noise always happens), I can quickly grab the gun and be ready to defend myself.

Just as long as I don't get hit by a stray rocket.

LOL

1st off slavery was morally wrong, guns ownership is not.
2nd the 2nd amendment is a codified provision for the violent overthrown of the governmrnt should it ever become necessary.
3rd The African and European genocides would not have occured if the victims had the ability to fightback. firearms as a human right (http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html)


[QUOTE=Corneliu]

Given the choice I think my odds against a criminal with a knife are a lot better than against a criminal with a gun.



Yeah, the South didn't want to abolish slavery either. ;)

Canada City']So lemme get this straight...

Instead of cracking down the people who shoot these firearms and improve the current laws to better enforce the justice system (oxymoron if you're a canadian), the mayor of toronto thinks it would be a good idea for all gun owners to put their LEGAL and REGISTERED guns in a central HUB.
.
I agree, it's a bad idea. Why does he think that it will be easier to enforce the requirement to store your gun in a gun club, than to force people to store it securely at home?

1st off slavery was morally wrong, guns ownership is not.

Slavery, at the time when it was legal, was not considered morally wrong. On the otherhand Capernicus was almost lynched for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Morality is subject to change. I think the possession and manufacturing of guns is morally wrong because guns have one purpose and one purpose only, to cause harm.

2nd the 2nd amendment is a codified provision for the violent overthrown of the governmrnt should it ever become necessary.

And a hand gun is really going to be a match against nuclear missiles, amored assault helicopters, tanks and jet fighters?

P.S. The overthrow of your government has already become necessary.

3rd The African and European genocides would not have occured if the victims had the ability to fightback. firearms as a human right (http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html)

The African and Native American tribesmen did have the ability to fight back. The problem was they were too stupid to realise that the Europeans were their enemies.

P.S. The overthrow of your government has already become necessary.

No it hasn't become necessary to overthrow the government.

[QUOTE]Are you assuming that Americans are idiots? If I had a gun, I'd make sure I can get to it with ease. Keeping it by my headboard will do that. When I hear a crook break in (and noise always happens), I can quickly grab the gun and be ready to defend myself.

I'm not assuming Americans are idiots. I'm assuming U.S. gun advocates are idiots. And even this is not much of an assumption. So you keep your gun where it is always ready, do you have children? I hope not.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]

I'm not assuming Americans are idiots. I'm assuming U.S. gun advocates are idiots. And even this is not much of an assumption. So you keep your gun where it is always ready, do you have children? I hope not.

No kids yet but if I do have kids, I'll be teaching them how to shoot and how to handle a gun properly.

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

No kids yet but if I do have kids, I'll be teaching them how to shoot and how to handle a gun properly.

And I'm pretty sure you'll be walking funny once they're old enough to pull the trigger.

P.S. The U.S. hasn't been a democracy since the 2000 elections, pass it on.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]

And I'm pretty sure you'll be walking funny once they're old enough to pull the trigger.

Nope I wouldn't because I'll be teaching them early about the power of the gun.

P.S. The U.S. hasn't been a democracy since the 2000 elections, pass it on.

Your right! WE've been a democracy for a lot longer than that. Don't even bring up Florida otherwise, I'll have to hit you upside the head with a few facts that you seem to have forgotten.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]

And I'm pretty sure you'll be walking funny once they're old enough to pull the trigger.

P.S. The U.S. hasn't been a democracy since the 2000 elections, pass it on.

Conspiracies and generalizations an arguement do not make.

I do have kids, I do have loaded guns, they have been taught safety.

P.S. The US has never been a Democracy, read a book.

Slavery, at the time when it was legal, was not considered morally wrong. On the otherhand Capernicus was almost lynched for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Morality is subject to change. I think the possession and manufacturing of guns is morally wrong because guns have one purpose and one purpose only, to cause harm.



And a hand gun is really going to be a match against nuclear missiles, amored assault helicopters, tanks and jet fighters?

P.S. The overthrow of your government has already become necessary.



The African and Native American tribesmen did have the ability to fight back. The problem was they were too stupid to realise that the Europeans were their enemies.

So we have an..

1. an innacurate statement about the uses of firearms.

2. the standard arguement how an armed populace could never overthrow an entrenced gov't.

3. More generalizations about America (shock)

4. Blatant racism

Outstanding display.

Why is it that every gun enthusiast I've dealt with in this forum thinks that arming midgets is going to solve the problems of the world?

So anyone under 5'4" are midgets. My wife (5'2") , along w/ a large percentage of the world will be surprised.

Crooks will be less likely to find hand guns if they are no longer manufactured.

Why is it that every Hoplophobe I've ever met has thought that more useless laws will make firearms miraculously disappear?

Then maybe the 2nd Amendment should be ammended so that I don't have to worry about getting shot by a crook, vigilante or a rape victim with bad aim.

So you support the abolishment of civil rights in the name of "safety"?

Nope I wouldn't because I'll be teaching them early about the power of the gun.

Of course and we all know how rational and disciplined children can be.


Your right! WE've been a democracy for a lot longer than that. Don't even bring up Florida otherwise, I'll have to hit you upside the head with a few facts that you seem to have forgotten.

Q. How many Floridians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A. A Floridian couldn't tell you.

Q. How many Floridians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A. A Floridian couldn't tell you.

I actually have a cousin that lives in Florida and I know he knows how to change a lightbulb.

BTW: why were the troubles in voting taking place in DEMOCRAT strongholds?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Guns so.....can we get back to guns please?

[QUOTE]Conspiracies and generalizations an arguement do not make.

I do have kids, I do have loaded guns, they have been taught safety.

Where do you keep your gun?

P.S. The US has never been a Democracy, read a book.

Could you recommend one? Although I should warn you, I'm a little sick of Harry Potter.

[QUOTE]So we have an..

1. an innacurate statement about the uses of firearms.

Care to elaborate?

2. the standard arguement how an armed populace could never overthrow an entrenced gov't.

It's an oldy but a goody.

3. More generalizations about America (shock)

I've not made one single generalization about America, or Americans. The U.S. on the otherhand owes its existence to the African Slave Trade, the genocide of Native Americans and an Imperialistic foreign policy.

4. Blatant racism

Save the race card for a hand when it might do you some good. The natives and Africans were conquered by Europeans because they thought trading with the Europeans would give them an edge against rival tribes. Trusting the whiteman was their downfall.

Outstanding display.

I might take that as a compliment if I didn't have such a low opinion of someone who thinks owning a weapon is a way to promote civil liberties.

[QUOTE]I actually have a cousin that lives in Florida and I know he knows how to change a lightbulb.

BTW: why were the troubles in voting taking place in DEMOCRAT strongholds?

Personally I see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. But if there was a problem with the tallying of the votes, then there should have been a recount. As far as relying on semantics to say "we are a Republic, not a Democracy" save it. The U.S. government claims to be a bringing democracy to the world. I suggest you start at home.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Guns so.....can we get back to guns please?

Of course, all digressions aside, I know how much it turns you on to talk about your deadly weapon. I bet your polishing it right now. ;)

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Where do you keep your gun?



Could you recommend one? Although I should warn you, I'm a little sick of Harry Potter.

One is kept on a rack in the bedroom. (Let's see, the next comment will probably be another adhominem about my sexuality since he can't seem to make a valid arguement)

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

1.Care to elaborate?

2.It's an oldy but a goody.

3.I've not made one single generalization about America, or Americans. The U.S. on the otherhand owes its existence to the African Slave Trade, the genocide of Native Americans and an Imperialistic foreign policy.

4.Save the race card for a hand when it might do you some good. The natives and Africans were conquered by Europeans because they thought trading with the Europeans would give them an edge against rival tribes. Trusting the whiteman was their downfall.



I might take that as a compliment if I didn't have such a low opinion of someone who thinks owning a weapon is a way to promote civil liberties.

1. Many firearms are designed for trap/skeet/target shooting. No harm there.

2. And about as effective as an old warn-out blanket.

3. And more uneducated america-bashing generalizations.

4. You specifically said they were stupid. If it walks like a duck....

5. You have a low opinion of someone that actively supports the civil rights of others. Very telling. Ghandi stated that the British disarming the Indian citizenry was wrong.

Now your seeking to impose your Christian ideology on us?
How could I possibly impose Christian beliefs on you? I posted that for my good friend Corny who is a believer. You have the right to ignore the post if you wish. :)

We need firearms to protectus from those that would Talabanize this country.
Are you really afraid of the Taliban? Wow. I guess Osama is more powerful than I thought, even if he is hiding in a cave somewhere.

[QUOTE]

1. Many firearms are designed for trap/skeet/target shooting. No harm there.

What is the purpose of shooting trap/skeet/targets?

2. And about as effective as an old warn-out blanket.

An old warn out blanket can be very effective on a cold rainy night, sipping a warm cup of chocolate in front of the fire while anticipating the day when you will take on helicopters, nuclear missiles, futuristic robotic cyborgs and huge mutant insects with your 38 caliber snub nose colt revolver. :D

3. And more uneducated america-bashing generalizations.

So there was no slavery in the U.S.? Natives were not killed, displaced, herded into reservations by the U.S. military? Again these are observations regarding the U.S., not America.

4. You specifically said they were stupid. If it walks like a duck....

...then you'll probably start shooting at it.

5. You have a low opinion of someone that actively supports the civil rights of others. Very telling. Ghandi stated that the British disarming the Indian citizenry was wrong.

Gandhi was human. Humans aren't always right.

This whole discussion has really degenerated in the last couple days. I'm not quite sure what it's become, but I guess the serious folks have left.

As I said in my first post, the folks that advocate gun control by banning guns from law-abiding citizens are about as idealistic as the communists that post here. By saying that, I mean that the advocates of gun control assume artifical conditions that have never and will never exist such as the total lack of gun manufacture.

Nice try folks, but no cigar. When it comes to personal protection, there's no substitute for a firearm.

This whole discussion has really degenerated in the last couple days. I'm not quite sure what it's become, but I guess the serious folks have left.

As I said in my first post, the folks that advocate gun control by banning guns from law-abiding citizens are about as idealistic as the communists that post here. By saying that, I mean that the advocates of gun control assume artifical conditions that have never and will never exist such as the total lack of gun manufacture.

Nice try folks, but no cigar. When it comes to personal protection, there's no substitute for a firearm.

Amen Myrmidonisia. Guns will always be around no matter what and since they are, crooks will always get their hands on them.

I would rather be defended by a gun than let some creep kill me with his.

Responces in red.

Slavery, at the time when it was legal, was not considered morally wrong.Really I strongly suggest you read what the framers of the had to say about slavery and whole sordid tale of the 3/5ths comprimise. On the otherhand Capernicus was almost lynched for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Morality is subject to change. I think the possession and manufacturing of guns is morally wrong because guns have one purpose and one purpose only, to cause harm.So competitive shooting harms you how? How does hunting harm you?

And a hand gun is really going to be a match against nuclear missiles, amored assault helicopters, tanks and jet fighters?
Using geurilla tactics, yes. One gun has changed the world on several occassions.
P.S. The overthrow of your government has already become necessary.
OHHH look what a suprise anti American trolling *yawn*



The African and Native American tribesmen did have the ability to fight back. The problem was they were too stupid to realise that the Europeans were their enemies.
Beside blatent racism I was refering to Rwanda and Dharphor. Armed citizens could have prevented the Bosnian genocide. why do you think Hitler, Stalin and Mao were for gun control?

I do have a real concern about the radical Christian Right creating a Christian Taliban style America.


Are you really afraid of the Taliban? Wow. I guess Osama is more powerful than I thought, even if he is hiding in a cave somewhere.

I do have a real concern about the radical Christian Right creating a Christian Taliban style America.

I think we all do Unspeakable. Quick where's my gun. Gotta defend myself from them.

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607145

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607134

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607135

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607136

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607137

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607138

I might run out of bandwidth, but it's worth it.

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607144

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607148

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607149

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607151

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607143

http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=107085NsEe&i=607152

Good ads.

I do have a real concern about the radical Christian Right creating a Christian Taliban style America.
And you are going to shoot them all?

BTW, I have seen some radical Christian views touted by some right wingers here, and if I am not mistaken, you seem to support them on several issues?

And you are going to shoot them all?

BTW, I have seen some radical Christian views touted by some right wingers here, and if I am not mistaken, you seem to support them on several issues?

Either way too much is bad. I'm voting for whoever's far right of the center but not radically right....

Snip* pictures

And a picture is worth a thousand words.

I'm way to much in favor of individual rights to join the Right. I'm pro choice, pro Gay marriage, pro death penalty, pro gun and support the US being in Iraq.
You figure it out.


And if ever became necessary to take life to defend my rights I would do so as often as necessary to protect them.

I'm sorely disapointed that the ACLU doesn't take more 2nd amendment cases.
And you are going to shoot them all?

BTW, I have seen some radical Christian views touted by some right wingers here, and if I am not mistaken, you seem to support them on several issues?

This whole discussion has really degenerated in the last couple days. I'm not quite sure what it's become, but I guess the serious folks have left.

As I said in my first post, the folks that advocate gun control by banning guns from law-abiding citizens are about as idealistic as the communists that post here. By saying that, I mean that the advocates of gun control assume artifical conditions that have never and will never exist such as the total lack of gun manufacture.

Nice try folks, but no cigar. When it comes to personal protection, there's no substitute for a firearm.

If this is true, why is it that so many U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, who have carried guns, are now dead, and I, someone who has never owned a gun, is still alive and well?

[QUOTE]Really I strongly suggest you read what the framers of the had to say about slavery and whole sordid tale of the 3/5ths comprimise.

The framers of the ?

Really, I strongly suggest you read your own posts.

So competitive shooting harms you how? How does hunting harm you?

If guns where solely used for competitive purposes I would have no problem with them. But if people want to show off how good their aim is why don't they stick to free throw competitions?

Hunting for food is actually a better alternative to the mass production of livestock, hunting for sport is cruelty towards animals.

Using geurilla tactics, yes. One gun has changed the world on several occassions.

For the better?

BTW not one of the nineteen men who hijacked the planes on Sept 11, 2001 where carrying guns, suicide bombers do not use guns and in a democratic society the use of guns is unnecessary to over throw a government. An educated population should be sufficient.

OHHH look what a suprise anti American trolling *yawn*

Again, my comments have never been anti-American. Unless you also consider someone who supports the invasion of Iraq to be "anti-Asian".

Beside blatent racism I was refering to Rwanda and Dharphor. Armed citizens could have prevented the Bosnian genocide. why do you think Hitler, Stalin and Mao were for gun control?

Besides using the race card and irrelevant examples, do you actually have a sound argument for possessing a gun?

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]



Besides using the race card and irrelevant examples, do you actually have a sound argument for possessing a gun?

There will never be a "sound" enough arguement for Hoplophobes such as yourself. You'll continue to troll around, asking the same questions over and over, making ad-hominems against individuals w/o an arguement of your own.

Have a nice day.

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

There will never be a "sound" enough arguement for Hoplophobes such as yourself. You'll continue to troll around, asking the same questions over and over, making ad-hominems against individuals w/o an arguement of your own.

Have a nice day.

Of course you would never do that. ;)

Responce in red
[QUOTE=Unspeakable]

The framers of the ?
Yeah proofreading was never my strong suit, it should read "framers of the Constitution"

Really, I strongly suggest you read your own posts.



If guns where solely used for competitive purposes I would have no problem with them. But if people want to show off how good their aim is why don't they stick to free throw competitions?
Beacuse I have no constitutinal right to a basketball.
Hunting for food is actually a better alternative to the mass production of livestock, hunting for sport is cruelty towards animals.
I eat what I kill
For the better?
sometimes
BTW not one of the nineteen men who hijacked the planes on Sept 11, 2001 where carrying guns, suicide bombers do not use guns and in a democratic society the use of guns is unnecessary to over throw a government. An educated population should be sufficient.
Again, my comments have never been anti-American. Unless you also consider someone who supports the invasion of Iraq to be "anti-Asian".


Besides using the race card and irrelevant examples, do you actually have a sound argument for possessing a gun?Explain how Dharphor,Rwanda and Bosnia are not good examples of why the citizenry need to be armed?

Out of couriosity how old are you? I find most of the really zealous anti gun crowd are <20 .

If this is true, why is it that so many U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, who have carried guns, are now dead, and I, someone who has never owned a gun, is still alive and well?

Out of couriosity how old are you? I find most of the really zealous anti gun crowd are <20 .

Does this mean there is hope for the future?

Yes as they get older people come to there senses. To quote Winston Churchill "Any man not a Liberal at 20 is a misanthrope, and not Conservative by 30 a fool."


Does this mean there is hope for the future?

Yes as they get older people come to there senses. To quote Winston Churchill "Any man not a Liberal at 20 is a misanthrope, and not Conservative by 30 a fool."

Interesting theory but not very sustainable when you consider that my uncles and aunts do not own guns, nor do my parents, or any teachers that I respect. I know several priests who are in their seventies that have never owned nor saw a need to own a gun as well as many of my neighbours. However, I do see a lot of children, who don't know any better, running around with water pistols and cap guns, pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and injuns.

I guess some people never grow up.

Just answer the question skippy. Just because your family doesn't own guns doesn't disprove the rule. For all we know you name is Sunshine and you live on commune and are a 3rd generation hippie. There a ton of people that also approve of the right to carry but choose not to. (Odd that pro-gun people say it's ok for people not to carry but not vice versa, also odd how many anti-gun people claim to be pro choice, because they don't allow people to choose to carry a firearm.) I also guess the preists you know were in Europe in the 30's and 40's. Oh and I*jun? Do you use the "N" word too. That is a racist and offesesive term. I see racism as a pattern with you. :upyours:


Interesting theory but not very sustainable when you consider that my uncles and aunts do not own guns, nor do my parents, or any teachers that I respect. I know several priests who are in their seventies that have never owned nor saw a need to own a gun as well as many of my neighbours. However, I do see a lot of children, who don't know any better, running around with water pistols and cap guns, pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and injuns.

I guess some people never grow up.

P.S. The U.S. hasn't been a democracy since the 2000 elections, pass it on.
Maybe not in the sense of democracy as "rule by Democrats."

Interesting theory but not very sustainable when you consider that my uncles and aunts do not own guns, nor do my parents, or any teachers that I respect. I know several priests who are in their seventies that have never owned nor saw a need to own a gun as well as many of my neighbours. However, I do see a lot of children, who don't know any better, running around with water pistols and cap guns, pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and injuns.

I guess some people never grow up.

To paraphrase you:

Besides using the race card and irrelevant examples, do you actually have a sound argument for banning guns?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_purpose.jpg

"Injuns", Africans and Natives are stupid..... Keep digging.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

If this is true, why is it that so many U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, who have carried guns, are now dead, and I, someone who has never owned a gun, is still alive and well?

You didn't go into a warzone and face Automatic rifle. RPG, and Heavy machine gun equipped militants. We sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence to our enemies on our behalf.

Maybe not in the sense of democracy as "rule by Democrats."
And it certainly has never been a democracy in the sense of "mob rule", otherwise known as majority rule. That's what happens when the government is a republic.

If this is true, why is it that so many U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, who have carried guns, are now dead, and I, someone who has never owned a gun, is still alive and well?

Please explain the giant leap of logic that takes to make a connection between military action and civilian firearm ownership.

[QUOTE]Just answer the question skippy. Just because your family doesn't own guns doesn't disprove the rule. For all we know you name is Sunshine and you live on commune and are a 3rd generation hippie. There a ton of people that also approve of the right to carry but choose not to. (Odd that pro-gun people say it's ok for people not to carry but not vice versa, also odd how many anti-gun people claim to be pro choice, because they don't allow people to choose to carry a firearm.)

I don't think people should be allowed to carry firearms because I don't want to get shot. I don't support "pro-choice" if you are referring to abortion, but I don't stand outside clinics either because I have no intention of supporting the children that these women would bare.

I also guess the preists you know were in Europe in the 30's and 40's.

I made note of the Priests because they are some of the older people that I know. It's possible some of them attended seminaries in Europe during the 30's and 40's. Some of them have been to Spain, Portugal, Italy, but I don't know exactly when.

Oh and I*jun? Do you use the "N" word too. That is a racist and offesesive term. I see racism as a pattern with you. :upyours:

I guess you're not very good at recognizing sarcasm. You make assumptions about me (since you are unaware of my ethnic background) to cover the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say.

Maybe not in the sense of democracy as "rule by Democrats."

Or in the sense of "democracy" as in "let's count the votes".

P.S. I don't support Democrats anymore than I do the Republicans. Clinton was guilty of as many attrocities as Bush. However the world would be a lot better if some of you gun advocates put as much energy into defending the legitimacy of your government as you do in defending your pistoleras. ;)

You didn't go into a warzone and face Automatic rifle. RPG, and Heavy machine gun equipped militants. We sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence to our enemies on our behalf.

No one would have to go into a warzone if more people promoted international disarmament (this includes the U.S.) and pursued more diplomatic means to settle disputes.

I sleep peacefully at night because I do my best not to make enemies.

To paraphrase you:

Besides using the race card and irrelevant examples, do you actually have a sound argument for banning guns?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_purpose.jpg

"Injuns", Africans and Natives are stupid..... Keep digging.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

The key word is "paraphrase". And your post is entirely propaganda.

Please explain the giant leap of logic that takes to make a connection between military action and civilian firearm ownership.

My post was a response to the declaration that a fire arm is the best form of defence. For myself I have always found common sense works best.

With regards to the leap that is being made in comparing civilian firearm ownership and military action this is something you should ask your fellow gun toting civilians as they are the ones who resort to the argument that an armed civilian militia is required to maintain the integrity of the government.

The key word is "paraphrase". And your post is entirely propaganda.

So that would be a "No".

With regards to the leap that is being made in comparing civilian firearm ownership and military action this is something you should ask your fellow gun toting civilians as they are the ones who resort to the argument that an armed civilian militia is required to maintain the integrity of the government.
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and ; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and ; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

I will address the flaws in this article if you can provide me with a source (other than "Guns and Ammo" magazine) that acknowledges this event took place.

Also, I have already stated that guns cause harm and have no other practical purpose other than to cause harm. They are dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetents and, at best, a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced gun owner.

I will address the flaws in this article if you can provide me with a source (other than "Guns and Ammo" magazine) that acknowledges this event took place.

Also, I have already stated that guns cause harm and have no other practical purpose other than to cause harm. They are dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetents and, at best, a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced gun owner.

Since you obviously didn't read the article, it provides sources. Are you incapable of doing research on your own?

It's already been shown that firearms have other uses besides your generalization of "causing harm". Your computer is dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetants and a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced hacker. It should be taken away and/or heavily regulated.

[QUOTE]Since you obviously didn't read the article, it provides sources. Are you incapable of doing research on your own?

Doing research to prove your argument is the equivalent of doing research to prove the world is flat.

It's already been shown that firearms have other uses besides your generalization of "causing harm". Your computer is dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetants and a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced hacker. It should be taken away and/or heavily regulated.

Computers may cause harm, cars and airplanes have definitely caused harm, but they have a practical purpose that isn't designed around causing harm. This is what sets most tools apart from fire arms.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Doing research to prove your argument is the equivalent of doing research to prove the world is flat.



Computers may cause harm, cars and airplanes have definitely caused harm, but they have a practical purpose that isn't designed around causing harm. This is what sets most tools apart from fire arms.

So, once again, you have no arguement.

Once again, firearms have other uses besides your base generalizations.

Mary Ann Talley returned to her South Los Angeles, Calif., home from a walk to find herself confronted by a burglar armed with a tire iron. Talley retrieved a handgun she kept for protection and shot the suspect, who died the next day. (Monterey Herald, Monterey, Calif., 8/24/05)

Would you rather she be raped and/or killed?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_getwhat.jpg

My post was a response to the declaration that a fire arm is the best form of defence. For myself I have always found common sense works best.

With regards to the leap that is being made in comparing civilian firearm ownership and military action this is something you should ask your fellow gun toting civilians as they are the ones who resort to the argument that an armed civilian militia is required to maintain the integrity of the government.

They ARE the best form of defense, period, short of energy shields and phasers.

Do you know what happens when ONE guy with a rifle goes to a bank and holds up? They call swat, helos, and every available police officer to that scene. It gets COSTLY. Not to mention the media....Now imagine it x80 million. There are a LOT of gun owners in America, and even if only 1 out of every TEN decided to fight back, you've still got 8 million...and if only 1 out of every 10 of those decided to fight back, that's 800 thousand.....

responce in red

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]

I don't think people should be allowed to carry firearms because I don't want to get shot. I don't support "pro-choice" if you are referring to abortion, but I don't stand outside clinics either because I have no intention of supporting the children that these women would bare.
But you will anyway out of your tax dollars anyway.



I made note of the Priests because they are some of the older people that I know. It's possible some of them attended seminaries in Europe during the 30's and 40's. Some of them have been to Spain, Portugal, Italy, but I don't know exactly when.
Ask the preist not if they own guns but if they believe in the right of self defense in the face of genocide


I guess you're not very good at recognizing sarcasm. You make assumptions about me (since you are unaware of my ethnic background) to cover the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say.1st Racial or ethnic slurs are never funny nor can they be used sarcasticly. Any time they are used it is rascism.

So were the people in Rwanda, and Bosnia better off with out guns? I want an answer.

You are foolish and niave...it is not your enemies you need to fear it people who mearly do not care about you. The serial killer or criminal doesn't hate you, you are simply an object.


No one would have to go into a warzone if more people promoted international disarmament (this includes the U.S.) and pursued more diplomatic means to settle disputes.

I sleep peacefully at night because I do my best not to make enemies.

Hitler's words and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than any of my guns. Should we bar speach and driving?



[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Doing research to prove your argument is the equivalent of doing research to prove the world is flat.



Computers may cause harm, cars and airplanes have definitely caused harm, but they have a practical purpose that isn't designed around causing harm. This is what sets most tools apart from fire arms.

Start addressing!


source 1 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm) other contempory sources (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm)



I will address the flaws in this article if you can provide me with a source (other than "Guns and Ammo" magazine) that acknowledges this event took place.

Also, I have already stated that guns cause harm and have no other practical purpose other than to cause harm. They are dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetents and, at best, a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced gun owner.

Hitler's words and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than any of my guns. Should we bar speach and driving?Speaking and driving are absolutely necessary. Owning a gun is not.