[Shnabdabber]

Crap Daradon, I went away for work and forgot to respond to your post. Sorry for the late reply.

I'd like to touch on all points, but your second last paragraph tells me we would likely see eye to eye on this (among others) situation anyways.

Now I'm not 100% on ALL the restrictions or otherwise in all states, but it's not as if any american can walk into any gun store in the US and walk out with whatever they chose. Many states already have background checks, as well as holding periods (the holding period was to try and eliminate 'crimes of passion') besides states that have laws that restrict certain types of firearms. In some states, the buying process is even more restrictive than what we have in Canada. For example Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords went and tried to purchase a 'assault rifle' as he calls the AR-15, and a model 1911 handgun chambered in 45acp. They ran a background check, which as a law abiding American he passed, yet there was a waiting period on the used AR he wanted to buy as checks are run on the rifle to ensure it was never used in a crime. So Kelly walks out with his 1911, and has to wait for his AR. Someone tipped off that Kelly (a vehement anti gun activist) was trying to purchase a AR and his twitter exploded on him. Of course, once caught, he claimed that he was trying to make a point on how easy it is to buy a AR (which he never walked out of the store with) and that while he planned on keeping his 1911, he was to turn over the rifle to local police for destruction. Subsequently, the store revoked his application for the AR based on that he lied on his application. Which is a felony, yet I don't see anyone going to arrest Kelly. So at best it was a cheap publicity stunt which only came to light once he was called on it, at worst he was making damn sure he had a AR before himself and others in the anti gun agenda make AR pattern rifles illegal.

Purchasing firearms is not nearly as easy as the anti gun crowd likes to make it sound.

But my question is, why does that matter? Why would a person buy a car to not use it? Same with the gun? Why would a person by a gun to not use it? Sure there may be the odd collector that just wants to buy a gun and keep it unloaded, especially historical guns (which I do believe there should be exceptions for) but that is such an infinitesimally small number. And is mirrored by people who buy cars to collect them anyway. It really doesn't help your argument any.

Those are great questions you asked, and I wouldnt know why anyone would buy a rifle/handgun and not use it. Only because all the firearm owners I know actually use them for lawful purposes. All the time. So I dont understand why you would frame that argument under the pretense of the firearms not being used anyways. Would you buy a car and then not use it? Why would you assume people buy firearms and not use them?

As for not needing the same level of paperwork and documentation for a vehicle on private property I have to ask again, why does it matter? For the majority of uses you need for a car, there are many strict rules. There is a licensing program. For a gun, there is not. You can argue all you want about people using it solely on their land, or buying it for the purpose and intent of that, but the fact of the matter is 1., this is obviously not happening as much as people think it is, and 2., you don't have these restrictions for public use either. It's a strawman.

Why does it matter? Because its done all the time perhaps? Many farmers and private land owners have vehicles that are neither registered nor insured because they never leave the farm. If they were to leave the farm and go down a public road, they would be breaking the law. I know plenty of farmers who have numerous firearms and they never leave the farm, never pose a threat to public safety so those same farmers get a little upset when they feel forced into registering private property that never leaves their private land. To your point #1 that it doesn't happen as much as people think, you must never visit rural Canada, and #2, firearms owners have PLENTY of restrictions on public use. Certainly more than vehicles. It's not a strawman in the least, and when I reread your second last paragraph, I'm again curious why you think this is a issue.

I'll hit another few arguments you've made recently. The one in response to UCB's comment about the damage a gun does, you replied with the typical, that's the exact reason you don't wants bans (or tougher rules I assume), alluding to the highly incorrect assumption rampant in NRA circles about guns making things safer. There is ZERO statistical evidence that backs that up, and in fact, there's a lot of evidence that proves the other side of the argument. If you've got statistical evidence that isn't gun lobby based, I'd love to see it, but all there is is a small handful of exceptional stories giving the illusion of circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is more guns make things more dangerous through misuse, incapable untrained users, and mistakes.

There is plenty of statistical evidence to back up my argument. Chicago, which has the strictest 'gun control' in the US, in the murder capital of north america. Nearly every single mass shooting (as defined by the FBI as being 4 or more victims) happens in gun free zones. John Lott has done major work in this area. However I realize that his work will be viewed as pro gun, so lets take a look at what Caillin Langmann discovered studying this subject in Canada.

Caillin Langmann, MD, PHD
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontairo, Canada

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

It doesn't even make logical sense. Sure, perhaps in the case of a home invader who is brandishing a knife or baseball bat, there may be a logical argument for a gun, barely. But in cases of gun vs gun, it isn't even logical, which is actually what your retort was implying. Gun v gun. All any logic dictates is that there is more chance for things to escalate, more chance for more people to get shot, and more chance for there to be mistakes and people outside the confrontation to get hurt. Heck, even police make mistakes on when to use their guns, and they are trained. Are you really telling me a populace in which everyone has a gun would be safer? It would eliminate most crime cause what, people would suddenly have 'healthy fear of wronging someone else?'

Again, based on who you believe, brandishing a firearm inside your home to protect yourself or family against a intruder with a edged weapon may not be the best course of action. Police used to (I say used to because they are currently changing their minds on this mantra) have what was called the 21 foot rule. That is, a dickhead with a knife, if inside 21 feet of you, may have a statistical advantage over those with a handgun. Based on the fact that you would have to load, point, and fire two rounds center mass. Using those guidelines you may have a valid point. However I would think most would like their chances better with a scattergun inside 21 feet of some criminal who means to do harm to you or yours. The point really is moot though, since americans (not canada as self defense is rarely justified in the courts eyes) view it as unethical to not have the ability to protect ones life and property.

I would agree that police do make mistakes with their firearms. this was just this Wednesday....

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/02/...me-controller/

Captain Crunch made a very valid point of police officers being trained to handle firearms. However, he assumes that joe taxpayer is a poor shot, trigger happy and useless in a armed confrontation. As a former member of the Canadian Forces I appreciate his opinion on these things. Surely though he must know that some of the most decorated snipers/soldiers in the field cut their teeth shooting on the farm/backwoods. Carlos Hathcock reinvented the Marine Core sniper by implementing techniques he used hunting as a boy with a .22 rifle. I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure he still holds the record for the Marines Wimbledon Cup, a 1000 yard shooting match which he set as a 18 year old. The guy was a crack shot before he ever entered the marines. A canadian soldier used to hold the longest confirmed kill at 2430m, only recently bested by a British solder by 45 meters. The canadian used to practice long range shooting as a boy and claims he used to shoot flys. Sounds ludicrous, until you see guys drive nails with a rifle over long distances. So I take offense that civillians are useless shooters, and many f class competitors, as well as Olympians and avid sportshooters would as well.

What makes more sense is that it just mean people would just shoot quicker, before the other person would could get their gun out. Criminals would shoot quicker before the other person would have a chance to react. Killing a lot of people who may have just been mugged. Yes, the criminals are still in the wrong, but that's small consolation to the person who is dead. There would be more Zimmerman types shooting sooner to protect themselves against threats possibly real but in most cases likely imagined or overblown. Good families at home would have more accidents shooting first and thinking later. You cited fear in one of your defenses, don't you see how this would ramp up the level of fear? It's a never ending spiral and it has to stop somewhere or it just gets worse.

Many assumptions made here, sorry but I don't agree. In a mugging in a dark ally? Yeah ok I agree. In a home, or public setting with a active gunman? Nope. Again I must clarify that when I mention fear, I would like to know why the anti gun croud fears a inanimate object, and instead doesn't seem concerned with the criminal element. In Canada, if we were allowed concealed carry, I wouldn't carry. Theres nothing to fear! But, and this is especially true in America, many people think differently. Once Chicago opened up CCW permits, they had a much, much higher rate of applicants for CCW than they did for Obamacare. In Chicago, I think that says a little bit about what those residents find important.

Finally, I want to touch on your other misconceived notion of logic in that banning guns would have no affect on gun murder rates. I get the idea behind what you are saying, and the very real example when compared to drugs, but to state there is no watershed mark where banning something doesn't help is ludicrous. Of course it will help. Drugs are more popular when they are legal. Look at cigarette abuse, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse compared to illegal drug abuse. Much higher rates. At one point not too long ago 50% of the public smoked. Now I think it's close to 25%. Does 25% of the public use heroin? Cocaine? Heck weed? Nope. Sure, some people still get high. But to suggest the ban doesn't prevent higher numbers makes zero sense, and again has no real evidence backing it up. And yes a lot of those drugs are more harmful than cigarettes and that may affect their popularity, but guess what, weed isn't. Shoot, there's more and more evidence that MDMA isn't. So no, your comparison doesn't fly. Yes a ban doesn't stop things from being used completely, but it does reduce it. Now the morals of such is another case, and I'm a bit of a libertarian on the matter, which is why I'm not against owning guns, just that there are some rules about it. I also think people should be able to do drugs, as long as it's responsible. I would argue for restrictions there as well. But it doesn't change the fact that yeah, bans do help.

Again I would point to the studies done by Lott, and for the purpose of keeping everyone happy, Langmanns study at McMaster. As well as stats Canada showing that a licensed firearm owner in Canada is over 3 times LESS likely to commit homicide than those who are not.

I would consider myself a bit of a libertarian too, and I would counter your drug argument with this. If you made all drugs legal, right now, would you do them? If heroin was legal and available would you start sticking a needle in your arm? I know I wouldn't, and I'm guessing most here wouldnt either. So, I view it as people should be able to make choices for themselves and be held responsible for their actions. Which is why I would want VERY harsh penalties for those who use firearms in a crime. But making reactionary laws that only hurt the law abiding and do nothing to stop criminals is not the answer. Like some sort of preemptive strike against regular capacity magazines, neutering them to some arbitrary number is gonna somehow stop criminals from unpinning magazines, or *gasp* changing magazines. It's ludicrous. Personal responsibility is key here, instead of wanting the 'gubberment' to fix everything for us, take care of us, make everything safe for us, how about people start exercising responsibility? And severely punish those who violate others right to life, limb and freedom? Thats what I want.

The point I was trying to make earlier about a registered piece of property having no inherent value to the owner, specifically in Canada, is due to the fact that registered firearms, one day viewed as "lawfully owned" are subject to the scrutiny of bureaucrats and can change law with the stroke of a pen and with no outside opinion from the firearms industry or otherwise. Then, the RCMP will issue owners that they have (I believe in the past it was) 20 days to hand over said firearm that never committed a crime from a lawful owner over to the RCMP for destruction. And dont even get me started on the supposed destroyed long gun registry thats been PROVEN to still be in use by the RCMP, a direct violation, contempt of Canadian parliament. But I digress.

Also, resorting to a gun ban is a escalation of the argument that is unnecessary and incorrect. I don't know why the pro gun crowd always goes there. No one (at least no coherent argument) has ever suggest a total gun ban. But for some reason, a lot of the pro gun crowd flips to that black or white reasoning right away. I don't think a gun ban is needed, I think the balance of rules (and culture differences) Canada has works pretty good for the most part. But it's still insane to trot out that argument, as the pro gun crowd does, then argue that a ban wouldn't make things a little better in the short term, and a lot better in the long term as guns are slowly phased out and the culture changes. It obviously would. People would hate it, and there would be pushback, and small difference in the beginning as guns would still be everywhere, but it would.

Whew, I think I had more, but that's pretty long already.

I think the reason why firearms owners view more restrictions as a confiscation plan is because it has happened in the past. We already have numerous gun bans in Canada, in particular Allan Rock in tableing his useless bill C-68, promised the industry as well as sport shooters, collecters, that a ban on certain guns was not the goal, they just wanted to licence firearms owners. Shortly after the bill passed all .32 and .25 caliber pistols were deemed prohibited. You could either hand them in to RCMP, or get another certification on your licence that allows you to posses (but not use) those pistols. There is no grandfather clause, so they become the property of the government overnight.

The registry in Canada was proven to be a gigantic, grossly expensive failure. Studies have shown that gun crime in Canada has been on a steady decline for 50 years. Gun ownership in the US has been on the rise, yet they currently have a 30 year low in gun crime. The number of police officers hurt by criminal gun fire is at a 100 (yes 100) year low. A poll of beat cops, officers in Canada shown that over 90% admit the registry did not help police solve, predict, or prevent crimes, and since the implementation of the handgun registry in Canada in the 1930's (1934 if I remember correctly) not a SINGLE crime has been solved through the use of the handgun registry. This was admitted by the RCMP in the supreme court of Canada.

Again, thanks for the well thought out post Daradon. I found it very interesting that you are a libertarian, I would suspect that we would agree on most political issues.