14 Killed in Binghamton NY rampage

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Uhhh, everytime I hear this excuse I get sick!

There are more guns in the USA than adult people, how many of them are protecting a friggen goat or pig?

Very stupid argument.

There are a very similar amount of guns to people in Norway and Switzerland....and in the latter they are used specifically for civilian defense, and they don't have huge violent crime rates.

By any account, they are considered 'peaceful' countries. At least according to the people who did studies on their society/culture.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well sure...except for that whole annoying constitution thing getting in the way.

Were you aware that women vote in the United States?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

You want to argue freer access to weapons? Washington DC has banned firearms since 1976, and their crime rate is 8x the national average, while other states that allow CCW have very low crime rates?

Good grief. Have you seen photon's sig regarding correlation and causality.

There are socio-economic situations (large urban centers with a disproportionate difference between the haves and have-nots with a very ethnically diverse population, not all of whom get along....) that plague the situation in D.C.. Comparing crime in D.C. vs Montana is ridiculous.

Washington D.C. also has the highest number of civil servants in America. Are you going to claim now that civil servants are the cause of violent gun crime?

Edit: Postal workers may be further proof to the latter theory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

My genius plan involves police raids like the story I linked to.

Or McGinty's new federal-provincial program:
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o...527-gun-nr.asp

There is lots that the police and government can do to crack down on criminal activity involving weapons.

And I have no problem with the government conducting raids like that to seize illegal firearms. I would encourage it too. But you have to realize that without tougher laws pertaining to criminals that are caught using a firearm to commit a crime, or any crime in general.....that they have access to illegal firearms 24 hours after they are released?

I mean here in Calgary, gang members are being caught and released the SAME day.

Really don't see how that has anything to do with creating 'gun laws.' You think the government should raid the homes of law-abiding citizens throughout Calgary?

Face it, Canadians fire millions upon millions of rounds safely, at shooting ranges, or when they go hunting....every year. What does it help to take away their guns? For those of us who have some common sense in regards to safety with firearms, the chance that an accident happens with our guns is very little compared to the rate of accidents that happen with a car.

The Canadian Firearms Safety Course says that responsible gun owners should have their firearms locked up in a gun safe, WITH a trigger lock, AWAY from the ammunition. Or, they suggest removing the bolt, and locking it up somewhere else away from the rest of the gun. Pretty sensible advice, and anyone with common sense is bound to follow it.

Around here, the police are giving classes on firearm safety every year, and talking to the guy who looks after the guns for the RCMP, he said it does a hell of a lot more to teach safety to gun owners, than to want to restrict or ban them from owning firearms.

Its all about being responsible.....like with anything else.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Good grief. Have you seen photon's sig regarding correlation and causality.

There are socio-economic situations (large urban centers with a disproportionate difference between the haves and have-nots with a very ethnically diverse population, not all of whom get along....) that plague the situation in D.C.. Comparing crime in D.C. vs Montana is ridiculous.

Washington D.C. also has the highest number of civil servants in America. Are you going to claim now that civil servants are the cause of violent gun crime?

Edit: Postal workers may be further proof to the latter theory.

So, the high amount of gun crime in Washington DC has nothing to do with their VERY strict gun laws?

Meaning that gun laws don't work?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

All those gangs in Calgary sure don't have a problem getting access to guns. Even assault rifles that are banned under our laws.

Do you think the manufacture them? They seize hundreds each year at our border and officials figure they only catch about 5%.

Originally Posted by Azure

I really have no problem with certain gun restrictions.....although I do think law-abiding citizens should be able to own certain versions of the assault rifle

Where do you think they'll end up? Registered guns provide thousands of opportunities for theft and misuse, as collectors and target shooters can become targets for theft for gangs and organized crime. Over 1000 registered handguns were stolen from law-abiding citizens in Ontario alone last year.

Originally Posted by Azure

but you're living in a delusion if you think ANY kind of gun law will stop gun violence.

Why is it delusional to think that a total ban with very harsh penaties for even possession would not work? the Ontario government is committed to getting handguns off its streets before they are used in crimes. That is why the Ontario government continues to press the federal government to ban handguns now. Before Canada turns into USA part 2.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Here's a thought: maybe if these corporate jerks didn't downsize, these people would still have a job (Therefore, earning income), then he wouldn't have to go home to a bitching wife because there's no money, then he wouldn't go out on a killing spree.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Do you think the manufacture them? They seize hundreds each year at our border and officials figure they only catch about 5%.

Oh, and so your version of tough gun control would magically 'seize' all those weapons at the border and stop them from coming over.

Where do you think they'll end up? Registered guns provide thousands of opportunities for theft and misuse,

.002 percent of registered firearms are stolen each year. Not exactly a number that screams get rid of all firearms.

as collectors and target shooters can become targets for theft for gangs and organized crime. Over 1000 registered handguns were stolen from law-abiding citizens in Ontario alone last year.

If you lock up your guns in a safe, its pretty tough for someone to get in. Unless they come in with a blow torch.

Why is it delusional to think that a total ban with very harsh penaties for even possession would not work? the Ontario government is committed to getting handguns off its streets before they are used in crimes. That is why the Ontario government continues to press the federal government to ban handguns now. Before Canada turns into USA part 2.

Good luck with that.

I'm sure all those violent criminals are going to run to the police to give up their firearms.

[Azure]

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani Taliban militant leader Baituallah Mehsud claimed on Saturday responsibility for an attack on a U.S. immigration centre in New York state in which 13 people were killed.


"I accept responsibility. They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to U.S. drone attacks," Mehsud told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...5330GP20090404

[Azure]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI on Saturday ruled out Pakistani Taliban militant leader Baituallah Mehsud's claim that he was responsible for an attack on a U.S. immigration assistance center in New York state in which 14 people were killed.
"Based on the evidence, we can firmly discount that claim," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/topNew...38883420090404

[Azure]

Not too mention that you have the issue with serial numbers being removed, and the guns being impossible to trace.

Which probably includes a lot of the illegal weapons throughout the country.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bans are useless to me.

If someone is hell bent on using a gun for a crime and he wants to get away with that crime he's not going to buy a gun and register it. He's going to find someone who's selling guns on the street that aren't registered and have had their serial numbers removed.

If you want to be efficient then screw the bans and make it an automatic life sentence with no parole for any gun related crimes period.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not too mention that you have the issue with serial numbers being removed, and the guns being impossible to trace.

Which probably includes a lot of the illegal weapons throughout the country.

Do you have a one track mind?

Again

Make it very very scary to get caught with a gun, do criminals drive around with dead bodys in their trunks for weeks on end?

The only way to get rid of guns is to make the punishment of getting caught with one so harsh that even the mobsters would be afraid to have one.

Right now it's a slap on the wrist to get caught with a handgun, selling an ounce of cocaine puts you away longer on first offense.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you want to be efficient then screw the bans and make it an automatic life sentence with no parole for any gun related crimes period.

This!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Do you have a one track mind?

Again

Make it very very scary to get caught with a gun, do criminals drive around with dead bodys in their trunks for weeks on end?

The only way to get rid of guns is to make the punishment of getting caught with one so harsh that even the mobsters would be afraid to have one.

Right now it's a slap on the wrist to get caught with a handgun, selling an ounce of cocaine puts you away longer on first offense.

Do you have a one track mind?

There are a lot LEGAL, registered handguns in Canada owned by law-abiding citizens. You want to put them away from life too for simply owning a handgun?

I absolutely AGREE to putting away people for life if they use a gun to commit a crime. ABSOLUTELY agree.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you have a one track mind?

There are a lot LEGAL, registered handguns in Canada owned by law-abiding citizens. You want to put them away from life too for simply owning a handgun?

I absolutely AGREE to putting away people for life if they use a gun to commit a crime. ABSOLUTELY agree.

Did you miss the part where I said BAN HANDGUNS COMPLETELY and have them turned in and destroyed.

Turn to post #22

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Did you miss the part where I said BAN HANDGUNS COMPLETELY and have them turned in and destroyed.

Turn to post #22

And that is going to solve gun crime? You seriously have deluded your thinking to the point where you think taking guns away from law-abiding civilians is going to stop all gun crime? That by banning handguns, criminals will suddenly stop bringing guns over the border?

You remind me of the Brady Campaign, and their hardline stance against guns, despite studies done to show that what they propose makes absolutely no sense.

If we ban pistols to prevent use in crime, the effect will only be to confiscate over half a billion dollars in property from those who legally possess roughly 1,000,000 registered pistols.

Project Cannon and Operation Gunrunner in 1994 both found that about 90% of pistols recovered and/or purchased "from the street" were unregistered and could not be traced in Canada.

Good luck banning them. There is only one form of viable gun control.

By "gun control", you should mean attempting to keep firearms out of criminal hands (through background checks) and educating users (so accident rates can be reduced and kept low, and they learn how to properly store firearms), then it would be hard to find someone to disagree with you. If, however, you think that prohibitions, confiscations and other such limits on law-abiding Canadians are necessary, then I suggest that is rather like taking equipment away from Jill and Jack -- and even banning hockey altogether -- because Paul hit Jane with a stick. The result is that those not hurting anybody are the ones punished.

We've had increasing "gun control" in Canada since the late 1800s -- most of it from 1978 to the present -- and only since 1974 have the murder rates been this high. Before 1968, when nearly any law-abiding person could legally purchase almost anything, our murder rates were roughly 'half' what they have been since 1974: a 20+ year period of the toughest "gun control" we've ever had.

Since 1933, accidental death or injury caused by firearms has dropped consistently, to now, only .25/100,000 people. Why? Because of volunteer educational work by certified instructors, and increased awareness by the RCMP to educate the general public about safe gun use. THAT is called a viable gun control solution. Banning guns is not viable, nor will it ever work.

Even in the US, accidental deaths or injuries have dropped at roughly the same rate as here in Canada. All because people are being educated about gun use.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

We've had increasing "gun control" in Canada since the late 1800s -- most of it from 1978 to the present -- and only since 1974 have the murder rates been this high. Before 1968, when nearly any law-abiding person could legally purchase almost anything, our murder rates were roughly 'half' what they have been since 1974: a 20+ year period of the toughest "gun control" we've ever had.

Yet again you have a problem with correlation and causality. You infer that tighter gun control has led to more murders. I think the rise in gang membership and growth in the drug trade *might* have something to do with the situation. Just maybe?

But in any case, I'd love to see a link to your numbers. Here's what I'm reading:
http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2008/...tscan-reports/

Canada’s homicide rate has been on a general downward trend since the mid-1970s and last year it declined another three per cent.

[Devils'Advocate]

Man fears Obama's gun control plans; shoots three cops:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/...burgh_shooting

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Yet again you have a problem with correlation and causality. You infer that tighter gun control has led to more murders. I think the rise in gang membership and growth in the drug trade *might* have something to do with the situation. Just maybe?

No, I infer that tighter gun control hasn't helped to reduce the amount of gun crime. I've already said that twice now.

If rise in gang membership and growth in the drug trade has lead to more murders, and more gun crime, how does banning guns work to reduce membership in gangs and the growth in the drug trade?

But in any case, I'd love to see a link to your numbers. Here's what I'm reading:
http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2008/...tscan-reports/

My numbers are from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

from 1974 to 1993 the Canadian homicide rate was roughly 2.4 murders per 100,000 persons and from 1946 to 1965 it was about 1.1 per 100,000.

The information is from a book, so I can't link to it. And the StatsCan website only does homicide rates back to 1996 far as I can tell.

Either way, your information is probably correct. All I'm saying is that strict gun control has not equaled in a drop in homicide rates with a firearm. Sometimes the homicide rate has gotten worse, sometimes its gotten better.

Showing that strict gun control hasn't necessarily helped to reduce gun crime.

Of course, maybe the gun control laws in Canada are structured the wrong way. You can't really account for that though.