[worth]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I call BS on that, a knife can only harm someone within my reach, a gun can harm anyone that I can get within my crosshairs...put it this way would you rather face a thug with a knife or a gun? As long as you can outrun the thug the knife is (relatively) harmless (unless he goes all ninja and throws it at you), fat chance to out run a bullet.

Riddle me this...if you want to intimidate a potential criminal wouldn't it be best to carry your gun out in the open...good idea?

I just don't get the logic that the most practical answer to violent crime is more weapons...

I like the Chris Rock solution...just make bullets cost $5000k each



Whatever for?

The practical answer isn't weapons. However taking away weapons from law abiding citizens doesn't deterr crime no matter which way you look at it. Thus, I want to be armed.

Even if crime wasn't a problem, I would still want to carry.

I live a prepared lifestyle. I would bet that if the power went out and the water shut off, most people would have a tough time coping. I try to minimalize my dependance on others and put more of the decision making in my own hands. Perhaps this came from the Army, perhaps it's a hobby, but perhaps it's also good common sense. I could tell you 1000 reasons why I would want to be armed. But it's for those reasons I can't think of that I truley want to be armed.

A weapon can be used for hunting. If it came down to it you could use a pistol to hunt, although rifle would be much more sutiable.

Also, we all saw the chaos Hurricane Katrina brought with it. Looting, murders, rape roving bands of criminals. If I had been there, I would much rather have been armed than not.

Some of you may find this silly, however I believe it to be true. If we look back in history, some of the governments that instituted strict gun control laws were those such as Hitlers Germany, Stalins Russia as did Mao. Some would argue this opened up the gates to tyrrany in those countries. If the people aren't armed, then what does a tyrranical government have to fear? I'm sure you're all probably laughing by now, saying that can't happen here, but i'm sure if you asked someone in 1930's Germany, they'd say the same thing.

Speculative, but this was not what I said. I specifically said that the presence of concealed handguns is an infringement upon my right to feel safe in public. If I have no idea where the immanent danger is, my right to safety is erased, and my need to carry a concealed weapon escalates through a perception that mortal danger exists where it once did not.

I'm sorry. I don't see how a person carrying a legal weapon is a threat to your security or infringes upon your right to feel safe.

Who determines what constitutes a "life or death situation"?

Canadian criminal code. And after you've killed someone, the judicial system.

I never suggested that tough gunlaws reduce crime, but "crime" is a pretty broad designation for a wide spectrum of offenses ranging from petty theft to mass murder. I would argue that the presence of concealed handguns will certainly increase death. This is sufficient enough of a reason for my vociferous opposition.

Possibly. But would it not be the criminal and the concealer dying? I believe urban encounters take place within 18 feet. I don't see bystanders as a huge problem.

What constitutes "sane"? What were the results of your last psychoanalytic evaluation?

Appropriate evaluations done by the Canadian Firearms Centre meaning background check, having other people (prominent people of society like doctor, cop) sign off that they declare you fit to own a gun (which you have to do to get a firearms license).

Who determines what constitutes an "appropriate" measure of defense? As someone who has never once felt the need to defend himself with a handgun (you should know that I have travelled widely through the US, the UK, and have spent time in Israel, which is one damn, scary place), I feel that I can adequately defend myself from harm without the need of a handgun. Furthermore, I feel that in the absence of concealed weapons, I am in significantly less danger. I feel much safer in the UK and in Canada than in the US; why would that be, do you suppose?

Again, criminal code. Well, i'm glad you feel that way.

Too often, someone is accidently killed by a handgun. Furthermore, I would argue that if public venues were suddenly littered with concealed weapons, death would increase.

Source?

But this is not the issue. You can buy whatever the hell you want for all I care. What I have a problem with is you concealing a weapon in a public place that could kill me at a distance of more than 100 feet. I am not opposed to gun ownership, but this is fundamentally different that the right to conceal a lethal weapon.

I can't buy whatever I want. The government won't let me.

OK.

Then how does you right to conceal a weapon help to solve the problem of "illegal guns"? How, exactly, will your right to conceal a weapon aide in reducing crime committed with "illegal handguns"?

It doesn't. but not allowing them doesn't solve the problem either. By me having a concealed weapon I can better protect myself and my family if I had to.

The more people that are carrying guns the more likely they are to "pull out their concealed weapon and just start shooting random people." The more accessible guns are to people in public the more likely people are to use them, makes perfect sense.

Source?

Again, ilegal guns are easily accessable. Why is the issue not about those? Do you know any criminals who take the PAL course and write 2 tests and wait 2 months for their license and then buy a gun to go shoot someone?

How is this attributed to guns exactly? That people can't carry guns so they commit more crimes? I don't get it.

The point is banning guns doesn't have an effect on crime as many would assume and claim. Essentially what we're saying with gun control is crime will decrease if we have this, right? If not...why the hell do we do it?

The problem in Britain and everywhere else is not the amount of guns on the street, it's the criminals. Eliminate criminals by going after criminals, not going after guns, because they'll just use something else.

Where do you think the illegal weapons are coming from? Underground weapon factories? Nope. They are all purchased legally at one point. I don't think that all these guns are being stolen by their law abiding owners. They can sell them illegally and report them stolen. Suddenly said weapon can be used anonymously and is untraceable. For 97% of the people who own guns, don't need them. I would like to see guns more or less compeletly banned, realistically I know this won't happen, but we could ban semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Which serve no functional purpose.

Serve no purpose? Give me a break.

So in Canada, you're not allowed to have one at all under any circumstances?

Uhhh...no. All Bolt, pump action weapons are legal and many semi automatic center fire weapons are also legal, but with a 5 round mag limit.

Pistol mags are capped to 10 rounds.

And I have absolutely no desire to cozy up and get familiar with handguns. Why should I have to do so in order to legitimize your right to conceal a threat to my life?

Your comparison between a handgun and a knife is just silly. To kill someone with a knife would require an insatiable will to carry out the act. To kill a person with a gun requires only that the bearer load, pop the safety, and fire. My kid could do all of that! It's pretty hard to accidently stab someone to death.
Furthermore, I also find it more than a little disturbing that you would choose to conceal a lethal weapon even if there were no threat. Why? The more you type, the more it seems to me that you have no desire for public saftey, but appear to have some deep-seeded insecurity through which you are compensated by the presence of a loaded pistol. Why should I ever trust someone who exhibits these qualities to make the determination of when it is ok to fire his weapon?

You don't, i'm just pointing out the obvious.

The point of the knife example was to show that if someone wants to kill someone they will just find another way to do it if there is no gun. Pretty simple.

I personally believe your fears of accidental shooting are illfounded. If a weapon is properly taken care of secured and used responsibly there is no chance that it will misfire.


Oh, you got me. yes, I have no desire for public safety. I drive on the right side of the road blindfolded, which is no easy task, and whenever i'm at the gas station, I always smoke even though i'm not a smoker. You've talked to me for 10 minutes on an internet board and you've got me all figured out.

Anyway, I can't continue this on because it's taking me 45 minutes to write out responses.

If you wish to carry on this conversation there are more knowledgable people at www.canadiangunnutz.com that would gladly answer any questions for you.