NationStates Jolt Archive

When my dad took me up to my grandparent's house...well let me begin my family's history...

Great great grandfather survived the great depression by hunting with a rifle that is hung in my grandfather's living room. (unloaded of course)

Great grandfather had the biggest gun store in town

Grandfather and grandmother loaded and armed weapons for the local cops for years and years with almost no misfires.

My father was trained very well with several guns mainly the rifle because my grandfather thought he was going to join the military.

As for me the first thing my father said was: "A gun is not a toy, and the second you think otherwise you'll pay for it. Respect it, maintain it, and never use it unless absolutely necessary."

I think the point is that most gun owners are responsible and very aware of their purpose. As in my family's case it was a rifle that carried our name through the depression and holds a great deal of admiration in our family. As cheesy as it sounds I'm proud that we hold something sacred.

My second point is that my uncle owns a grat deal of unregistered firearms, for nostalgia only, but do you really think banning guns will prevent people from owning them. Look back to proabition, just because it's illegal doesn't make it unattainable.

While the statistic on gun recovery is not wholly accurate of guns used overall, it does represent a significant slice, which is surely something that could be targetted by law enforcement officials.

The same is true for stopping guns at the border. Yes, it's impossible to know, but the drug parallel comes in again. It's impossible to know how much gets across American borders each year even though we know how much we stop. That doesn't mean stopping them is a bad thing.

Do you have a source for the estimated percentage?

Stopping them is a great thing. Punishing criminals is the whole point.

Oh, please. This argument has held no water for decades, even less so now with the strong anti-terrorism culture in the US. Your handgun, registered or not, is not going to save you from a rogue US government. Similarly, your attempt at an armed revolution will be classed as terrorism, and you'll find yourself the next Timothy McVeigh.

The only way people can justifiably say that the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the American government is if they also argue that Joe Blow next door should be able to purchase rocket-propelled grenades and SAMs.

You do realize that the second amendment covers "soldiers implements"-IE rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. Not RPGs and SAMs-those are considered ordnance and do not fall under the protection of the 2A. I'm debating whether rifle grenades fall under the 2nd-they're ordnance yet the common soldier can use them. Hmmm.....

You are aware that common men with muskets and captured cannons repelled a modern (at the time) british army that outnumbered and outgunned George Washington's army?

And look what a group of citizens (Branch davidians) did to the biggest alphabet agency? (ATF and FBI) They gave them a BLACK eye that will forever be known. The ATF got a tip from a tattle-tale that the brand davidians had automatic weapons , which they didn't (They were trigger modifications that made the weapons sounds fully automatic but didn't make them FA), and that they were "abusing" their children. So 66 (I think) civilians and children were burned alive because of bad information and the ATF/FBI. 4 of the JBTs were killed though. If it had been more like 50 I imagine that the feds would have seriously reconsidered the idea of laying seige to a private citizen's home.

When my dad took me up to my grandparent's house...well let me begin my family's history...

Great great grandfather survived the great depression by hunting with a rifle that is hung in my grandfather's living room. (unloaded of course)

Great grandfather had the biggest gun store in town

Grandfather and grandmother loaded and armed weapons for the local cops for years and years with almost no misfires.

My father was trained very well with several guns mainly the rifle because my grandfather thought he was going to join the military.

As for me the first thing my father said was: "A gun is not a toy, and the second you think otherwise you'll pay for it. Respect it, maintain it, and never use it unless absolutely necessary."

I think the point is that most gun owners are responsible and very aware of their purpose. As in my family's case it was a rifle that carried our name through the depression and holds a great deal of admiration in our family. As cheesy as it sounds I'm proud that we hold something sacred.

My second point is that my uncle owns a grat deal of unregistered firearms, for nostalgia only, but do you really think banning guns will prevent people from owning them. Look back to proabition, just because it's illegal doesn't make it unattainable.

Wow, that's a great story. Do you have any pictures of the rifle?

Wow, that's a great story. Do you have any pictures of the rifle?

Not that I know of, but I'll ask my dad for the name of the rifle in a little bit. (I'm about 400 miles away at college so I have to email). :)

You do realize that the second amendment covers "soldiers implements"-IE rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. Not RPGs and SAMs-those are considered ordnance and do not fall under the protection of the 2A. I'm debating whether rifle grenades fall under the 2nd-they're ordnance yet the common soldier can use them. Hmmm.....Which even further weakens the argument that the 2nd amendment must remain in order to provide the citizenry a way to defend themselves from a rogue US government.

You are aware that common men with muskets and captured cannons repelled a modern (at the time) british army that outnumbered and outgunned George Washington's army?You are aware that the British army at the time didn't have anything that much better than cannons and muskets? And that today's situation is entirely different?

And look what a group of citizens (Branch davidians) did to the biggest alphabet agency? (ATF and FBI) They gave them a BLACK eye that will forever be known. The ATF got a tip from a tattle-tale that the brand davidians had automatic weapons , which they didn't (They were trigger modifications that made the weapons sounds fully automatic but didn't make them FA), and that they were "abusing" their children. So 66 (I think) civilians and children were burned alive because of bad information and the ATF/FBI. 4 of the JBTs were killed though. If it had been more like 50 I imagine that the feds would have seriously reconsidered the idea of laying seige to a private citizen's home.So, you're saying that had the Branch Davidians shown sufficient force the FBI would have backed off? Get real. The black eye they got was for not doing their jobs properly, not verifying their intelligence, and proceeding in such a manner that it killed 66 people who were mostly no threat.

Do you have a source for the estimated percentage?

Stopping them is a great thing. Punishing criminals is the whole point.
That's just the thing. We don't have a percentage of the whole thing. All we know is that we do stop some, which you've agreed is a great thing.

Which even further weakens the argument that the 2nd amendment must remain in order to provide the citizenry a way to defend themselves from a rogue US government.

How? or is this the old " you can't defend against tanks and airplanes" routine which every revolution in the world has proven false.

You are aware that the British army at the time didn't have anything that much better than cannons and muskets? And that today's situation is entirely different?

How? See above.

So, you're saying that had the Branch Davidians shown sufficient force the FBI would have backed off? Get real. The black eye they got was for not doing their jobs properly, not verifying their intelligence, and proceeding in such a manner that it killed 66 people who were mostly no threat.

Straw Man.

The BD's were not the majority of the population.

W/ this, you want to put MORE power in the hands of the Gov't?

That's just the thing. We don't have a percentage of the whole thing. All we know is that we do stop some, which you've agreed is a great thing.

Right. However, you stated that the "recovered" was a "large slice". Do they estimate that the recovered is an accurate representation of the illegal firearm market? If so, the smuggling is small potatoes even though various PD's and pundits here have stated it's the majority.

I agree. If guns were outlawed then only criminals would have guns and i would be one of those criminals; because i would not give up my gun. a gun is the best weapon to have however it may be really dangerous
-Fresh2Death

For those of you who are wondering who sleeps with a rifle next to them everynight, my uncle sleeps with a loaded rifle one in hand everynight and a pistol in the drawers next to the bed ;) (Also don't ask how he doesn't shoot it in his sleep, I dunno either)

(burglar) :mp5: (Uncle) :sniper:
X_X *dead burglar*

Which even further weakens the argument that the 2nd amendment must remain in order to provide the citizenry a way to defend themselves from a rogue US government.

You are aware that the British army at the time didn't have anything that much better than cannons and muskets? And that today's situation is entirely different?

An American army made up of farmers, bankers, and all other sorts of folk was able to rout the biggest and baddest army in the world. The same would apply now. Don't forget that a MAJORITY of Police Officers beleive that the public has a Right to keep and bear arms.

So, you're saying that had the Branch Davidians shown sufficient force the FBI would have backed off? Get real. The black eye they got was for not doing their jobs properly, not verifying their intelligence, and proceeding in such a manner that it killed 66 people who were mostly no threat.

Do you know that in the final days of the branch davidian seige the seige was costing so much money (thousands of dollars an hour) that it was becoming un economical to continue it? They were running out of money :D

For those of you who are wondering who sleeps with a rifle next to them everynight, my uncle sleeps with a loaded rifle one in hand everynight and a pistol in the drawers next to the bed ;) (Also don't ask how he doesn't shoot it in his sleep, I dunno either)

(burglar) :mp5: (Uncle) :sniper:
X_X *dead burglar*

Heck, that's nothing. When my old man was in the Army they took their guns into the shower with them after shooting. FYI hot water cleans out particle crap out of your gun really good, just blow dry it well and oil it and it's a done deal :D

To the people who responded to my post and demonstrated their complete inability to read to the end of a sentence, here, for your benefit is a repeat of what I said:

"But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes."

Read it VERY carefully (and it is word for word what I wrote originally, go back to p15 if you have any doubts) and you will see that I was refering to the age of the nation, not the maturity of individual members. To be 100% clear on this issue, the United States of America has only existed as an independent nation since 1776. It is still working out the kinks in how to run itself. In comparitive terms, the USA is a teenager, figuring out its limits and talents. The way I see it is this should be an exciting time, with a bright future full of possibilities. It certainly has its benefits over being archaic and in danger of becoming obselete.

Do you deny this? Do you want to claim that the USA has existed as a self-governed nation for as long as France, Britain or one of the many other European nations that have existed more or less as they are for thousands of years? Do you want to suggest that you have got it all figured out, working perfectly and do not need to seek to develop in any way? (Please note that I do not believe any nation on earth has reached this point. But seeing as you like to ignore these clarifications of mine, this comment may be completely wasted on you)

Do you need any more clarification? Or have I made myself clear now?

Try Social Security, and the popular conservative one, the selective service list. They've already got you. One more registration event isn't going to make it any worse.

You missed it--completely.

I don't want them to have a list of owners of FIREARMS--that's who they'd hit first.

I already know that I'm on the list with the Socialist Slave number and Selective Slavery.

If we follow this argument to the logical conclusion we wind up with the lawless society. Every law restricts the rights of law abiding citizens. That's what a law is. Something that restricts the rights of the people who obey it.


Yup, and to keep as close to freedom as possible, you need to limit laws to only the bare essentials--you let society figure the rest out.


I actually agree with you that firearms can prevent some amount of crime. Personally, I don't feel it's as large an amount as the pro-gun lobby likes to believe because of how guns empower weak criminals as much as they empower weak law-abiding citizens, but I will agree that there is some crime prevention going on.


Well, over 2 million crimes are stopped annually--I think that's enough justification for keeping them around.


I'll also agree that it's stronger in areas with concealed carry laws. Personally, I feel that if guns are legal in an area for the purposes of self-defense, then it simply makes sense to have a concealed carry law so that those without guns are as protected as those with.


How would they be protected? Look at Vermont--they don't have wild west shootouts, and they HAVE NO GUN CARRY OR REGISTRATION LAWS.


However, I still feel that while gun ownership may reduce the quantity of the crimes committed, they greatly add to the lethality of the crimes committed, and this is the primary reason for my stance against them.

So, you'd rather have thousands more potential deaths than we have today. 13,000 people are murdered (involving a firearm) in the US annually. If those 2 million other crimes aren't stopped by a citizen owning a gun, how many more deaths would there be?

Oh, please. This argument has held no water for decades, even less so now with the strong anti-terrorism culture in the US. Your handgun, registered or not, is not going to save you from a rogue US government. Similarly, your attempt at an armed revolution will be classed as terrorism, and you'll find yourself the next Timothy McVeigh.

The only way people can justifiably say that the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the American government is if they also argue that Joe Blow next door should be able to purchase rocket-propelled grenades and SAMs.

Hmmmm....I like the idea.

Anyway, if it were so easy for the US government to roll over a technologically outmatched force, the US military wouldn't still be in Iraq or Afghanistan today.

Each to their own. I don't like guns. I have never used one, let alone hold one. I don't think that farmers have to have guns. Any farmer I know just uses guns to shoot game and dogs. But again I can see why certain ppl do need them..or feel they do.

Which even further weakens the argument that the 2nd amendment must remain in order to provide the citizenry a way to defend themselves from a rogue US government.


At the time, the only more powerful weapon was a cannon. You can snipe gun emplacements with rifles. We were meant to cause a big enough concern to the current government as to stop them from trying anything. Now, with the disparity, it's only the sheer number of gun owners that would keep them at bay.


You are aware that the British army at the time didn't have anything that much better than cannons and muskets? And that today's situation is entirely different?


Yeah, we've voted our freedoms away.


So, you're saying that had the Branch Davidians shown sufficient force the FBI would have backed off? Get real. The black eye they got was for not doing their jobs properly, not verifying their intelligence, and proceeding in such a manner that it killed 66 people who were mostly no threat.

Bingo. But they thought they had a right to go in in the first place. Don't get me wrong, they were seriously wacked, but until they actually commit real crimes--hurting someone else--you don't get to do shit.

To the people who responded to my post and demonstrated their complete inability to read to the end of a sentence, here, for your benefit is a repeat of what I said:

"But I hope that in time they will mature (I simply mean that the USA is a young nation, which it is compared to any European nation) and develop past their current attitudes."

Read it VERY carefully (and it is word for word what I wrote originally, go back to p15 if you have any doubts) and you will see that I was refering to the age of the nation, not the maturity of individual members. To be 100% clear on this issue, the United States of America has only existed as an independent nation since 1776. It is still working out the kinks in how to run itself. In comparitive terms, the USA is a teenager, figuring out its limits and talents. The way I see it is this should be an exciting time, with a bright future full of possibilities. It certainly has its benefits over being archaic and in danger of becoming obselete.

Do you deny this? Do you want to claim that the USA has existed as a self-governed nation for as long as France, Britain or one of the many other European nations that have existed more or less as they are for thousands of years? Do you want to suggest that you have got it all figured out, working perfectly and do not need to seek to develop in any way? (Please note that I do not believe any nation on earth has reached this point. But seeing as you like to ignore these clarifications of mine, this comment may be completely wasted on you)

Do you need any more clarification? Or have I made myself clear now?

Yeah, we read it, but then you put "develop past" in, implying (by utilizing the word "mature" initially) that you, or your nation, are somehow more evolved or advanced in your philosophy.

No, the US is not perfect, but we're not behind any nation--we're equal in pretty much every sense.

Your post(s) has(have) implied some sort of superiority, which, in general social interaction, breeds contempt.

Now think before you type--either you meant the insult when you first typed it, or you're ignorant of the concept of implication. There is the possiblity of low comprehension of the English language, I suppose.

Each to their own. I don't like guns. I have never used one, let alone hold one. I don't think that farmers have to have guns. Any farmer I know just uses guns to shoot game and dogs. But again I can see why certain ppl do need them..or feel they do.

THAT attitude is one I respect completely. It's close to the attitude I have as well--you let people choose what's best for them, until they infringe on another.

Someone being scared of what I might do is not infringing on them. They have to come to grips with their fears or concerns--it's all in their head.

I haven't shot anyone (hell, I shot a bird with a pellet gun when I was 13, felt like crap, and haven't hunted since), and I certainly haven't killed a person. Therefore, there is no LOGICAL impetus to restrict me from arms of any sort in any form. There are only fear-based reasons. Fear is not a reason to make a law.

This goes both ways--I have no desire to force anyone to own a gun.

Yeah, we read it, but then you put "develop past" in, implying (by utilizing the word "mature" initially) that you, or your nation, are somehow more evolved or advanced in your philosophy.

No, the US is not perfect, but we're not behind any nation--we're equal in pretty much every sense.

Your post(s) has(have) implied some sort of superiority, which, in general social interaction, breeds contempt.

Now think before you type--either you meant the insult when you first typed it, or you're ignorant of the concept of implication. There is the possiblity of low comprehension of the English language, I suppose.

LOL! Yes I suppose I did imply surperiority (and I have a perfectly fine grasp of the English language thanks), and maybe, subconsciously, I did mean to throw an insult out there towards America in general. I apologise for that.

Trust me on this, I have some pretty serious issues with the conduct of Britain and most of Europe too for that matter, we're not perfect, as I stated previously. But I do see countries that have abolished the death penalty, obey the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have made firearms unavailable to the public as being more developed, ie. further ahead, than those countries that have not done so.

I believe we should all be aiming towards a better future, one with happy healthy people all over the world. You cannot get to that point when the public carry deadly weapons around with them. Why can't you accept that your gun-related death figures speak for themselves? It's not 100% about availability of guns, it's about the other things I mentioned initially as well. But I do think that Michael Moore has a good point, a nation as scared as yours shouldn't have a lot of guns lying around. Sorry, but that is just common sense from where I'm sitting.

When I described the USA as less mature I was being perfectly fair, you haven't moved past these things yet, as many other countries have. We used to allow firearms, way back, but we got rid of them and continue to hold weapon amnesties for people who hold illegal firearms to hand them in. They're quite successful too.

You may never catch up, given how much younger your country is (assuming older nations continue to move forward and don't take a leap back), it is niave for you to deny being behind older nations in your social evolution. Also, behind does not mean unequal, we are all equal. You are stamping your own prejudice on there. I take it you consider a 15 year old to be less equal than a 30 year old? I consider them equal, but different.

The USA has policies that can be seen as less mature than some other countries. As percieved from across the pond many US individuals, institutions and organisations have an attitude of being reliant on weapons for control. Your government controls world politics by the threat of military action, individuals feel more in control with a gun around. I consider that a less mature attitude than one that doesn't rely on violence, or threat of, to solve problems. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Before you accuse me of further insults or insult me in any way again (as you did in your remark about my comprehension of the English language), please note that I am being calm and reasonable. If you can look at my comments objectively for a second before getting worked up about them you will see that I mean you no personal disrespect, I have not deliberatley insulted you, or anyone here. I am merely pointing out how your country can be viewed form without. Ok?

LOL! Yes I suppose I did imply surperiority (and I have a perfectly fine grasp of the English language thanks), and maybe, subconsciously, I did mean to throw an insult out there towards America in general. I apologise for that.

Trust me on this, I have some pretty serious issues with the conduct of Britain and most of Europe too for that matter, we're not perfect, as I stated previously. But I do see countries that have abolished the death penalty, obey the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have made firearms unavailable to the public as being more developed, ie. further ahead, than those countries that have not done so.

I believe we should all be aiming towards a better future, one with happy healthy people all over the world. You cannot get to that point when the public carry deadly weapons around with them. Why can't you accept that your gun-related death figures speak for themselves? It's not 100% about availability of guns, it's about the other things I mentioned initially as well. But I do think that Michael Moore has a good point, a nation as scared as yours shouldn't have a lot of guns lying around. Sorry, but that is just common sense from where I'm sitting.

When I described the USA as less mature I was being perfectly fair, you haven't moved past these things yet, as many other countries have. We used to allow firearms, way back, but we got rid of them and continue to hold weapon amnesties for people who hold illegal firearms to hand them in. They're quite successful too.

You may never catch up, given how much younger your country is (assuming older nations continue to move forward and don't take a leap back), it is niave for you to deny being behind older nations in your social evolution. Also, behind does not mean unequal, we are all equal. You are stamping your own prejudice on there. I take it you consider a 15 year old to be less equal than a 30 year old? I consider them equal, but different.

The USA has policies that can be seen as less mature than some other countries. As percieved from across the pond many US individuals, institutions and organisations have an attitude of being reliant on weapons for control. Your government controls world politics by the threat of military action, individuals feel more in control with a gun around. I consider that a less mature attitude than one that doesn't rely on violence, or threat of, to solve problems. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Before you accuse me of further insults or insult me in any way again (as you did in your remark about my comprehension of the English language), please note that I am being calm and reasonable. If you can look at my comments objectively for a second before getting worked up about them you will see that I mean you no personal disrespect, I have not deliberatley insulted you, or anyone here. I am merely pointing out how your country can be viewed form without. Ok?

Most of the states have laws that allow for citizens to carry firearms. While it is debatable that it has lowered crime, it hasn't caused it.

There are many social issues at play that contribute to the high crime rates in the US. Most of the crime is committed by unarmed individuals.

As for Moore, the accuracy of his "documentaries" is very low. To make his point, he blatantly lied about several things, misrepresented others, and performed some heavy editing of film to have people saying things they didn't at the places he claimed.

As for the whole "culturally immature" thing, along that route we should all adhere to the Chinese or Japanese who've had organized cultures that predate much of Western Europe.

I think if you made anyone who wanted to own a gun undergo strict training in responsibility of ownership and made sure all legally owned guns were well registered as to who owned the gun and where then you mught find you get less murders.

The issue is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. The Swiss are a common example for "Guns dont kill people", however the swiss undergo compulsary military service where they are trained in responsible gun ownership for a year in the army and the guns they own are well registered. This contrasts with the US where anyone can walk into a shop with no training or (real) check on their responsibilty and buy a gun.

Most of the states have laws that allow for citizens to carry firearms. While it is debatable that it has lowered crime, it hasn't caused it.

There are many social issues at play that contribute to the high crime rates in the US. Most of the crime is committed by unarmed individuals.

As for Moore, the accuracy of his "documentaries" is very low. To make his point, he blatantly lied about several things, misrepresented others, and performed some heavy editing of film to have people saying things they didn't at the places he claimed.

As for the whole "culturally immature" thing, along that route we should all adhere to the Chinese or Japanese who've had organized cultures that predate much of Western Europe.

I had no intention of hijaking this into a MM thread, I too have issues with him in certain respects, but he undoubetdly has a good point on this issue. Are you saying that there isn't a feeling of fear and paranoia in the USA? In which case, why have guns if you're not afraid of someone possibly trying to hurt you sometime, maybe? Do you think people who are afriad, consequently potentially jumpy and trigger-happy should be allowed guns? Do you not think that it's possible that allowing guns is a contributing factor to the overall general attitude to violence as a solution? What about the crimes involving guns? I'd say guns have something to do with those.

This theory that if guns are outlawed law-abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves is evidence of this paranoia. The number of crimes involving guns in countries that don't allow guns is uniformly lower than gun crime in America. Why ignore that fact?

And I think aspiring toward Japanese ideals sounds great! Not adhering to, I never used that word or implied it, but aspiring to be like them but in one's own way sound like the way forward to me :-)

There is you problem right there! You're from the UK you could never truly understand the US any more than the US could understand Cricket, High Tea and Welsh place names. You don't get it you never will ....let it go. (FYI the 2nd amendment is a provision for the violent over throw of the government a kind of bloody "do over" built into our system should it ever melt down)

I love the folk in the UK as a rule you are inteligent and well mannered but some things you just don't get our love of guns is one of them....you really don't get Hip Hop either those Chav fellows are laughable and Goldy Lookin Chains WTF???? :eek:


I'd like to make it totally clear at this point in time, that my views are not a personal attack on anyone of American nationality (except the person I really REALLY hate - whose name is mentioned somewhere herein).

There are times I am glad I don't live in the States. I live in the UK where guns really are banned. OK, I own an air rifle. Not as lethal as say, a 9mm, but I only ever use it if I'm going out up the the disused millitary rifle range on the top of the mountain, and that's just to shoot at some tatty china bought from a chairty shop for some mild entertainment.

What I don't understand is why the US Constitution has not repealed the "right to bear arms". It was my understanding (don't hate me, I'm foreign!) that they were only supposed to be used for defence of your country, or for hunting. Anyway, who hunts now that there are 24hour supermarkets all over the place? That's a seperate issue.

I don't have a problem with America or Americans on the whole. Actually - tha's a lie. There is one American I hate, and that's your leader. George W(anker) Bush. Why you people always seem to vote for the least intelligent leader, I'll never know.

This seems to be turning into a rant. I apologise and end it here.

Justin.

I had no intention of hijaking this into a MM thread, I too have issues with him in certain respects, but he undoubetdly has a good point on this issue. Are you saying that there isn't a feeling of fear and paranoia in the USA? In which case, why have guns if you're not afraid of someone possibly trying to hurt you sometime, maybe? Do you think people who are afriad, consequently potentially jumpy and trigger-happy should be allowed guns? Do you not think that it's possible that allowing guns is a contributing factor to the overall general attitude to violence as a solution? What about the crimes involving guns? I'd say guns have something to do with those.

This theory that if guns are outlawed law-abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves is evidence of this paranoia. The number of crimes involving guns in countries that don't allow guns is uniformly lower than gun crime in America. Why ignore that fact?

And I think aspiring toward Japanese ideals sounds great! Not adhering to, I never used that word or implied it, but aspiring to be like them but in one's own way sound like the way forward to me :-)

There's no more "fear" on average than that of having a fire extinguisher.

The majority of gun crime in the US is by criminals w/ illegally owned/obtained firearm on other criminals. Criminals in the US tend to be more violent than in other countries. That gets into a cultural thing which is why comparisons between nations aren't valid. What was crime in the UK BEFORE the ban? What was crime in Canada BEFORE the registration?

As for "paranoia", you can look at Washington DC for a prime example. Handguns were banned, crime skyrocketed, and the police were/are not obligated to protect people. You can make all the assumptions you like, the FACT is that the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are law-abiding and do not contibute to the crime level.

Japan, also the worlds highest suicide rate, just recently (20 years or so)allowed women to own property (following western culture) and is just as racist as most other cultures.

I have no problems with the swiss model of gun control, consider the swiss are allowed to keep their military weapons after service.
I think if you made anyone who wanted to own a gun undergo strict training in responsibility of ownership and made sure all legally owned guns were well registered as to who owned the gun and where then you mught find you get less murders.

The issue is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. The Swiss are a common example for "Guns dont kill people", however the swiss undergo compulsary military service where they are trained in responsible gun ownership for a year in the army and the guns they own are well registered. This contrasts with the US where anyone can walk into a shop with no training or (real) check on their responsibilty and buy a gun.

LOL! Yes I suppose I did imply surperiority (and I have a perfectly fine grasp of the English language thanks),


Yeah, I figured you did have a decent grasp. :)


and maybe, subconsciously, I did mean to throw an insult out there towards America in general. I apologise for that.


And I apologize for being a weenie about it.


Trust me on this, I have some pretty serious issues with the conduct of Britain and most of Europe too for that matter, we're not perfect, as I stated previously. But I do see countries that have abolished the death penalty, obey the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have made firearms unavailable to the public as being more developed, ie. further ahead, than those countries that have not done so.
[/quote}

I guess we're going to have to disagree on that one.

[QUOTE=Froudland]
I believe we should all be aiming towards a better future, one with happy healthy people all over the world. You cannot get to that point when the public carry deadly weapons around with them.


Well....that's an opinion. There is a city in Georgia where it is law that every adult own a firearm. They don't have any crime rate to speak of.


Why can't you accept that your gun-related death figures speak for themselves?


Because you can't blame a societal effect on a tool. You can only blame an effect on human behavior. The murder rate might very well go down in the US, but not far, were guns banned. It's our society, not the weapon.


It's not 100% about availability of guns, it's about the other things I mentioned initially as well. But I do think that Michael Moore has a good point, a nation as scared as yours shouldn't have a lot of guns lying around. Sorry, but that is just common sense from where I'm sitting.


Ah, I see now...you're getting your "facts" from Moore. There's the problem. If he were actually doing documentaries, you would have had the whole story about Columbine.


When I described the USA as less mature I was being perfectly fair, you haven't moved past these things yet, as many other countries have.


There you go again--thinking that giving up the right to self defense is being more advanced. You have to cut that out...


We used to allow firearms, way back, but we got rid of them and continue to hold weapon amnesties for people who hold illegal firearms to hand them in. They're quite successful too.


Buy back programs in the US don't meet with the same success the European programs have.


You may never catch up, given how much younger your country is (assuming older nations continue to move forward and don't take a leap back),


You mean like France voting itself back into serfdom at one point? Please, stop maintaining that your way is the more advanced method--it isn't. It's just different.


it is niave for you to deny being behind older nations in your social evolution.


Actually, we can make the claim that we take what's there already and go even higher...


Also, behind does not mean unequal, we are all equal. You are stamping your own prejudice on there. I take it you consider a 15 year old to be less equal than a 30 year old? I consider them equal, but different.


Valid point.


The USA has policies that can be seen as less mature than some other countries. As percieved from across the pond many US individuals, institutions and organisations have an attitude of being reliant on weapons for control. Your government controls world politics by the threat of military action, individuals feel more in control with a gun around. I consider that a less mature attitude than one that doesn't rely on violence, or threat of, to solve problems. Do you see what I'm trying to say?


Yes, I do, however, not having the ability to use force for defense just keeps everything in a quagmire of, "Yes you will. No I won't" Humans are animals. We have instincts in addition to our intellect. If someone doesn't get the concept of you-will-not-attack-others, how do you stop them, if you don't have a viable means of defense? The police cannot be everywhere at all times. The police in the US aren't even responsible for the safety of people. You're right--it's very different between our two countries. Here's the difference: I'm not going to tell you how you may or may not defend yourself. That's all I'm asking for.


Before you accuse me of further insults or insult me in any way again (as you did in your remark about my comprehension of the English language), please note that I am being calm and reasonable. If you can look at my comments objectively for a second before getting worked up about them you will see that I mean you no personal disrespect, I have not deliberatley insulted you, or anyone here. I am merely pointing out how your country can be viewed form without. Ok?

I know you do mean well, and I admit, I jumped the gun (pun fully intended). Why not let me go about my life as I see fit, as I will let you go about yours? I haven't done anything to anyone with a gun--in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. I live my life that way--until someone actually goes out and commits violence, they shouldn't be fettered in any fashion. It's the concept of freedom--no rules (or a very limited set) on a person until they abuse the system. There is no reason to pre-emptively strip the rights of millions because thousands may or may not commit a crime.

Bans stop specific types of violence--they don't stop violence itself. I have problems with medicines that treat symptoms, but don't cure anything.

You missed it--completely.

I don't want them to have a list of owners of FIREARMS--that's who they'd hit first.

I already know that I'm on the list with the Socialist Slave number and Selective Slavery.
It is my belief that you, good sir, are paranoid.

It is my belief that you, good sir, are paranoid.

While he is a bit paranoid...

Historically, registration of firearms has always led to confiscation. Russia, Germany, UK, Australia, Washington DC, Chicago, Il, and Toronto Canada is going in the same direction.

While he is a bit paranoid...

Historically, registration of firearms has always led to confiscation. Russia, Germany, UK, Australia, Washington DC, Chicago, Il, and Toronto Canada is going in the same direction.
That's not because one inherently leads to the other, but because for the most part gun control advocates seek to ram measures down the throats of gun freedom supporters rather than seeking middle ground. If the movement for gun control focused on not alienating those who support guns things would have been quite different, which is precisely why I asked if you, a gun freedom supporter, could get onboard with a system that merely registers guns. In the cases you have listed, the gun control majority just forced it's will upon others, which is why they then confiscated: the opposition had already been defeated and ignored. If gun freedom advocates were willing to consent to registration, they would be in a position to strongly oppose banning, whereas if they oppose registration and it goes through, it becomes very unlikely that they will be able to stop a ban either.

That's not because one inherently leads to the other, but because for the most part gun control advocates seek to ram measures down the throats of gun freedom supporters rather than seeking middle ground. If the movement for gun control focused on not alienating those who support guns things would have been quite different, which is precisely why I asked if you, a gun freedom supporter, could get onboard with a system that merely registers guns. In the cases you have listed, the gun control majority just forced it's will upon others, which is why they then confiscated: the opposition had already been defeated and ignored. If gun freedom advocates were willing to consent to registration, they would be in a position to strongly oppose banning, whereas if they oppose registration and it goes through, it becomes very unlikely that they will be able to stop a ban either.

How would they be in a position to stop a ban? All of the cases cited were nickel& dimed until firearms were no longer available. Just one more thing added to the "reasonable gun control list" using the death by a thousand cuts.

In DC and Chicago, registration was touted as "reasonable measures against crime" . It did nothing to stop crime. W/I a few years, the registration stopped , the offices were simply closed and officials started collecting the firearms of those when it came time to re-register.

It is my belief that you, good sir, are paranoid.

No more so than those that created my country.

How would they be in a position to stop a ban? All of the cases cited were nickel& dimed until firearms were no longer available. Just one more thing added to the "reasonable gun control list" using the death by a thousand cuts.

In DC and Chicago, registration was touted as "reasonable measures against crime" . It did nothing to stop crime. W/I a few years, the registration stopped , the offices were simply closed and officials started collecting the firearms of those when it came time to re-register.

It's always "boiling the frog". Nothing ever seems illogical or irrational when you take little baby steps here or there. "What's the harm in giving in just this little bit?" Historically, we've now seen what happens.

Gun grabbers don't want to compromise--they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. They don't stop with one little goal.

How would they be in a position to stop a ban? All of the cases cited were nickel& dimed until firearms were no longer available. Just one more thing added to the "reasonable gun control list" using the death by a thousand cuts.

In DC and Chicago, registration was touted as "reasonable measures against crime" . It did nothing to stop crime. W/I a few years, the registration stopped , the offices were simply closed and officials started collecting the firearms of those when it came time to re-register.

Again though, and maybe I'm wrong about DC and Chicago, but I'm pretty sure in the majority of those cases those in favour of gun freedom took their stand against registration, a measure that would be far more popular than an outright ban. I'm saying had they let registration go (I personally don't believe that registration is bad in and of itself, merely the things it can lead to, and I think you agree from what you've said) and focused their resources on fighting the measure that would truly push it over the edge they would garner more popular support. Clearly, in DC and Chicago, opposing registration did not work. I would say that instead gun freedom advocates should let registration go and pick something more contentious that they be able to win. Like you said though, it's an issue of a thousand cuts, and I don't know where the good spot to draw the line is. All I know is that the registration line didn't work out so well from the gun freedom point of view, so it might be time to reevaluate how to best fight for gun freedom.

Again though, and maybe I'm wrong about DC and Chicago, but I'm pretty sure in the majority of those cases those in favour of gun freedom took their stand against registration, a measure that would be far more popular than an outright ban. I'm saying had they let registration go (I personally don't believe that registration is bad in and of itself, merely the things it can lead to, and I think you agree from what you've said) and focused their resources on fighting the measure that would truly push it over the edge they would garner more popular support. Clearly, in DC and Chicago, opposing registration did not work. I would say that instead gun freedom advocates should let registration go and pick something more contentious that they be able to win. Like you said though, it's an issue of a thousand cuts, and I don't know where the good spot to draw the line is. All I know is that the registration line didn't work out so well from the gun freedom point of view, so it might be time to reevaluate how to best fight for gun freedom.

Registration IS contentious in that it has NO practical value in fighting crime. It's ONLY purpose is for the Gov't to know who legally owns one. It is the PRIMARY step for Hoplophobes to ensure to remove ALL firearms from those who actually follow the laws. Once again, this has been proven historically over and over. Here in the US, it is a contest we can and have won because we struggle against it.

The criminals will not register and if a registered one is stolen, it can still be used in crime.

"Ballistic Fingerprinting" was touted as another wonder crime solver. It is also a defacto registration as only LAC's would do it and then the Gov't has a record of what you own. It has been dumped as worthless wherever tried.

The line has been drawn against registration because, while I would like to see some wonder law that absolutely guarantees the rights of firearm owners, it won't happen.

Registration IS contentious in that it has NO practical value in fighting crime. It's ONLY purpose is for the Gov't to know who legally owns one. It is the PRIMARY step for Hoplophobes to ensure to remove ALL firearms from those who actually follow the laws. Once again, this has been proven historically over and over. Here in the US, it is a contest we can and have won because we struggle against it.

The criminals will not register and if a registered one is stolen, it can still be used in crime.

"Ballistic Fingerprinting" was touted as another wonder crime solver. It is also a defacto registration as only LAC's would do it and then the Gov't has a record of what you own. It has been dumped as worthless wherever tried.

The line has been drawn against registration because, while I would like to see some wonder law that absolutely guarantees the rights of firearm owners, it won't happen.

While I agree that it's not as effective as it could be, I have read of a good number of cases where the gun registry in Canada has assisted in solving and preventing crimes.

While I agree that it's not as effective as it could be, I have read of a good number of cases where the gun registry in Canada has assisted in solving and preventing crimes.

I would like to see those.

How did it "prevent" crimes?

It would only "solve" crimes in the event that someone used a firearm illegally and left it at the scene.

What about the 400K to 3 million estimated owners that have not registered not to mention the millions of firearms?

Are those "good number" of cases worth over 1.5 billion dollars that could have been better spent in education or crime prevention?

Why has gun crime/murders increased slightly and other crime remain relatively steady after the registration?

I would like to see those.

How did it "prevent" crimes?

It would only "solve" crimes in the event that someone used a firearm illegally and left it at the scene.

What about the 400K to 3 million estimated owners that have not registered not to mention the millions of firearms?

Are those "good number" of cases worth over 1.5 billion dollars that could have been better spent in education or crime prevention?

Why has gun crime/murders increased slightly and other crime remain relatively steady after the registration?

Well let's start with just the information:

"In June 2000, the firearms registry played a pivotal role in uncovering what is believed to be one of the largest and most sophisticated firearm smuggling rings in North America. Firearms program staff became suspicious and alerted police when faced with an unusual number of requests to transfer firearm parts. The investigation led to a Montreal-based importer, a Toronto area firearm dealer and a US resident. This partnership and co-operative approach involved Canadian Customs, Ontario's Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit, Montreal police, and the firearms registry staff in Miramichi and Ontario, as well as the RCMP. It resulted in the seizure of nearly 23,000 firearms and prohibited components.

Last summer in B.C., an individual involved in divorce proceedings became upset in a courtroom and later threatened to kill those involved in the proceedings including his spouse, her lawyer and the judge. After checking the registry, police determined that the suspect had recently received a firearms licence and had three handguns registered to him. The investigation led to an arrest and seizure of the guns.

An individual in British Columbia with a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate (the precursor to the new licence) attempted to purchase several firearms over a two-week period. The background check indicated numerous prior convictions and several recent incidents involving criminal and violent activities. His licence was suspended pending further investigation. The sales were refused. The individual later attempted two more times to purchase firearms until his licence was revoked and his firearms seized.

A Nova Scotia woman called the program's notification line with a concern that her estranged husband was applying for a licence. He planned to indicate that he did not have a spouse on his application form because she had refused to sign it. Concerned for herself and the safety of her children, she later filed a complaint with the local police agency to generate a reference on the new Firearms Interest to Police (FIP) database (a reference log which indicates that an individual has recently been involved in a violent incident, has a history of mental illness or other information relevant to a firearms licence application). If her husband tries to obtain a licence in the future, it will automatically prompt an investigation.

This same FIP database matched several cases of domestic abuse to valid licence holders in Quebec. Their licences were revoked.

In Atlantic Canada, an individual threatened to obtain a gun and use it in the workplace to express his anger. Police prepared a warrant and conducted firearms registry checks. These determined that the suspect had nine firearms (both restricted and non-restricted) registered to him. The firearms, along with a prohibited weapon, were seized.

A court hearing was held in Alberta for an individual who had been refused a licence. The licence was refused due to a psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant should not have firearms. In addition, there were a number of discrepancies in the individual's application form and a history of criminal convictions. The Firearms Officer's decision to refuse the licence was upheld by the judge.

As a result of a criminal harassment investigation in Western Canada, a search warrant was executed on a residential address after a check of the firearms registry revealed that a suspect had restricted firearms registered to him. Firearms were recovered inside the suspect's house, including 15 handguns, 3 machine guns, and a total of 9 rifles and shotguns.

Police obtained a gun that had been stolen from a residence in Newfoundland 15 years ago. They managed to locate the gun in Quebec during a transfer of ownership through the registry and returned it to the original owner."

That's from February 2003 on this site (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30840.html).

So as for the questions:

The first two you can answer by reading the examples.

Next two deal with the same thing. They're certainly a problem, but we have made a dent. One of the problems with the program is that is was badly implemented. While it has met with some modest success, it made registration a hassle for gun owners, which made them less likely to register. My friend's dad had his forms sent to five different cities before he finally got approved. The government also charged people to register their firearms, which also caused people to be more hesistant. Registration should have been free, which would have cost the government more money, but at the same time had the program been better managed it would have cost less anyway.

I'll be quite honest: I can't answer the last one. My only possible explanation is that crime rates would have shot up even more were it not for the registry, as crime rates are determined by more than just how well controlled guns are, as we both agree.

Well let's start with just the information:

*snip*

I'll be quite honest: I can't answer the last one. My only possible explanation is that crime rates would have shot up even more were it not for the registry, as crime rates are determined by more than just how well controlled guns are, as we both agree.


Those are good. However,As of 2005 , approx. 15,000 revocations or denials have occured. Those reasons vary. That's over $100,000 per denial. Quite a few of those references seem like "pre-crime" concepts to me.

The "Firearms Interest to Police (FIP) database (a reference log which indicates that an individual has recently been involved in a violent incident, has a history of mental illness or other information relevant to a firearms licence application)" bothers the hell out of me. If you don't like your neighbor, a call to this could flag them.

The thing is, the registry hasn't made a dent in your crime. You can't even state that w/o it crime would have increased as the loosening of laws in the US was occuring at the same time as a decrease in crime (no causality implied). Previously, CA politicians had promised no registry or banning of handguns. Along w/ the registry, quite a few types of handguns were banned totaling an estimated 500,000 previously legally owned firearms.

Now Toronto wants to "collect" all legally owned firearms. What's the next step?

Those are good. However,As of 2005 , approx. 15,000 revocations or denials have occured. Those reasons vary. That's over $100,000 per denial. Quite a few of those references seem like "pre-crime" concepts to me.

The "Firearms Interest to Police (FIP) database (a reference log which indicates that an individual has recently been involved in a violent incident, has a history of mental illness or other information relevant to a firearms licence application)" bothers the hell out of me. If you don't like your neighbor, a call to this could flag them.

The thing is, the registry hasn't made a dent in your crime. You can't even state that w/o it crime would have increased as the loosening of laws in the US was occuring at the same time as a decrease in crime (no causality implied). Previously, CA politicians had promised no registry or banning of handguns. Along w/ the registry, quite a few types of handguns were banned totaling an estimated 500,000 previously legally owned firearms.

Now Toronto wants to "collect" all legally owned firearms. What's the next step?
Last bit first, and it goes back to what I was saying before. I support registration, but not this collection policy. That's why I was saying you guys could get more support if you didn't go all out at registration and waited for any sort of ban; you'd get the support of people like me.

As for for the FIP, it's the same as CFS. If you don't like your neighbour, a call to the CFS could get them into a serious pickle, but that doesn't mean that the CFS is bad.

The fifteen thousand number ignores the approximately 900,000 confiscations, destructions, disarmings and other actions that put guns out of commission if they haven't been registered.

Last bit first, and it goes back to what I was saying before. I support registration, but not this collection policy. That's why I was saying you guys could get more support if you didn't go all out at registration and waited for any sort of ban; you'd get the support of people like me.

As for for the FIP, it's the same as CFS. If you don't like your neighbour, a call to the CFS could get them into a serious pickle, but that doesn't mean that the CFS is bad.

The fifteen thousand number ignores the approximately 900,000 confiscations, destructions, disarmings and other actions that put guns out of commission if they haven't been registered.

And it goes back to what I was saying, the "collection" wouldn't even be an issue if the registration wasn't in place. My line is drawn a few steps behind yours. The majority of the US presently supports my line.

The 900,000 also included "deletions" meaning errors in the original registry of firearms alone which also doesn't account for the millions of firearms estimated to exist.

W/ the 15K denials, there have been approx 2 million registrations. Before the new registry the NIJ estimated 3.5 million legal owners. They later lowered that (convienently) stating that about 1 million no longer owned firearms. That still leaves over 400K unregistered owners. Other estimates were as high as 5 million original owners.

Over 1.5 Billion and no determined effect on crime.

This is a good conversation. I'm quite enjoying talking with someone who is reasonable.

And it goes back to what I was saying, the "collection" wouldn't even be an issue if the registration wasn't in place. My line is drawn a few steps behind yours. The majority of the US presently supports my line.

The 900,000 also included "deletions" meaning errors in the original registry of firearms alone which also doesn't account for the millions of firearms estimated to exist.

W/ the 15K denials, there have been approx 2 million registrations. Before the new registry the NIJ estimated 3.5 million legal owners. They later lowered that (convienently) stating that about 1 million no longer owned firearms. That still leaves over 400K unregistered owners. Other estimates were as high as 5 million original owners.

Over 1.5 Billion and no determined effect on crime.

The majority of Canada supports my line. It's a good thing we're from different countries, eh?

You keep harping on the number of people who haven't registered their guns and the costs. As I've said before, this has been a massive boondoggle in terms of implementation. At the same time, we have seem some examples of it working. For an exorbitant cost? Yes. Did the cost have to that high? No. Could the program be more efficient? Yes. At the same time, it's all about baby steps. A lot of government programs don't work right at first, but that doesn't mean they won't prove effective over the long run. That number of unregistered guns will be cut down over time because we will recover more guns. The costs will become more efficient over time because the initial input was the really high cost as opposed to maintenance costs, which are minimal. Most importantly though, the program will become more efficient over time. Some of the deadlines for registration didn't kick in till 2003, which means we only have two years with the program running at full capacity, and I would imagine that like any government program there are still bugs to be worked out. Is this how I would have solved our woes from firearms? No. At the same time, it's not a bad idea.

This is a good conversation. I'm quite enjoying talking with someone who is reasonable..

It is nice have a debate w/ someone who doesn't spout the whole "you Rambo, gun-nut, sociopath, thing.



The majority of Canada supports my line. It's a good thing we're from different countries, eh?.

It definately shows how cultural differences can determine political and social preferences.

You keep harping on the number of people who haven't registered their guns and the costs. As I've said before, this has been a massive boondoggle in terms of implementation. At the same time, we have seem some examples of it working. For an exorbitant cost? Yes. Did the cost have to that high? No. Could the program be more efficient? Yes. At the same time, it's all about baby steps. A lot of government programs don't work right at first, but that doesn't mean they won't prove effective over the long run. That number of unregistered guns will be cut down over time because we will recover more guns. The costs will become more efficient over time because the initial input was the really high cost as opposed to maintenance costs, which are minimal. Most importantly though, the program will become more efficient over time. Some of the deadlines for registration didn't kick in till 2003, which means we only have two years with the program running at full capacity, and I would imagine that like any government program there are still bugs to be worked out. Is this how I would have solved our woes from firearms? No. At the same time, it's not a bad idea.

See, again this is where I disagree w/ you. You assume the system will get more efficient and crime will drop. I assume that Gov't programs(especially ones like this) are inherently flawed by beaurocracy and will progress to even stricter measures that have dubious or no effect on crime levels.

See, again this is where I disagree w/ you. You assume the system will get more efficient and crime will drop. I assume that Gov't programs(especially ones like this) are inherently flawed by beaurocracy and will progress to even stricter measures that have dubious or no effect on crime levels.

I find that a satisfactory disagreement. People just see some things differently. I think we've pretty much established our opinions on this by now. We ended have a lot more in common than we had different in the end. Do you have anything else to add?

I find that a satisfactory disagreement. People just see some things differently. I think we've pretty much established our opinions on this by now. We ended have a lot more in common than we had different in the end. Do you have anything else to add?

Umm... I like Canadian Bacon. :)

As do I.

*shakes Kecibukia's hand*

You sir, are an upstanding fellow.

...I think this thread is going to die now...

As do I.

*shakes Kecibukia's hand*

You sir, are an upstanding fellow.

...I think this thread is going to die now...

*shakes back*

Probably, unless the Hoplophobes come back demanding all guns disappear NOW!!! w/ quotes from HCI to back them up. :)

*shakes back*

Probably, unless the Hoplophobes come back demanding all guns disappear NOW!!! w/ quotes from HCI to back them up. :)

Or I could do something irrational and stupid. But I won't. :D

I will make a comment on an observation, and follow up with a question, though.

I'm seeing it more and more on the gun debate: People ending on an agreeing-to-disagree note, and leaving it at that. It's nice, but it doesn't get anything done, either way.

So how do we rectify this whole secuirty/freedom debate? We have those that believe that freedom needs to rule first, and that allows for fewer security precautions and the chance for more injuries in a global sense (responsible individuals will obtain training, and won't be a cause of injuries or safety issues). Then we have those that want security first, and that infringes on rights and freedoms (but may compensate for those individuals who are not responsible by preemptively punishing the law-abiding). Both allow for some kind of increase in crime, and both can possibly mitigate some.

Well duh. That's the whole point isn't it? Ít's outlawed so therefor you are a criminal if you have one :rolleyes: