Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So are you suggesting that every farmer who has to eliminate/control gophers from decimating their crops via rifles (the very registry in question made them criminals if they didnt register their guns)....are just nuts?

I don't think that is what Vulcan is suggesting at all, you're reaching there. He responded to a post by Calgaryborn saying he was going to do it for fun, and that is what he was speaking to.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I don't get how guns make people feel safer. There are just so many reasons why the presence of a gun, whether it's owned by a good guy or a bad guy, makes almost all situations worse.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. It presumes that the "good guy" or person defending his home/property is not properly trained in the usage of firearms. There are many people that are suitably skilled with a firearm, enough so that if there were some "problems" I'd back their chances of survival.

But that is just me.

[transplant99]

I never thought introducing poisons, of any kind, into our food supply was a very bright idea.

[NBC]

The Soviets did it for decades - still do in fact.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I don't think that is what Vulcan is suggesting at all, you're reaching there. He responded to a post by Calgaryborn saying he was going to do it for fun, and that is what he was speaking to.

maybe so, just responded to what he posted...but even if there are others who do use pests as target practice, I have no idea how that them classifies them as having a "screw loose". Quite the generalization to me.

[NBC]

I think for a lot of people it comes down to cultural differences - cross-Canada cultural differences. I've met a lot of Eastern Canadian urban dwellers and they seemed absolutely dumbfounded that someone would own a gun and use it to shoot things (animals). This is taken for granted among many rural communities where the practice is much more commonplace. Lots of farmers and ranchers that I know, when they are having a problem with an animal/animals, they usually solve said problem with a little bit of lead. Cow is sick and the vet can't help - shoot it. Coyotes killing chickens - shoot it. Gophers chewing up the canola field - shoot it. Some people fundamentally don't understand this way of doing things and like to pass it off as barbarism or a distinct lack of intellect.

Can't we all just get along?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I never thought introducing poisons, of any kind, into our food supply was a very bright idea.

Up to about 15 years ago, driving around the countryside southwest of the city, you didn't see a lot of hawks . . . . . then poisons were banned for use against rodents like gophers and the hawk population started to soar.

Some farmers still use poison surreptiously but its a really stupid, lazy idea.

I've trapped hundreds of gophers - northern pocket gophers - on my acreage and that seems to be the most humane way to go . . . . . set the trap, come back the next day and pick up the corpse, which has been killed fairly instantly.

(Don't go to Italy for three weeks and forget about the traps you've left out . . . that's an ugly, CSI-like cleanup.)

But that's only four acres.

There are guys who have businesses where they'll come to a farm or ranch and set out a billion traps for a fee.

Or, you can drive around in your beat-up old truck and shoot them out the window.

Cowperson

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by NBC

I think for a lot of people it comes down to cultural differences - cross-Canada cultural differences. I've met a lot of Eastern Canadian urban dwellers and they seemed absolutely dumbfounded that someone would own a gun and use it to shoot things (animals). This is taken for granted among many rural communities where the practice is much more commonplace. Lots of farmers and ranchers that I know, when they are having a problem with an animal/animals, they usually solve said problem with a little bit of lead. Cow is sick and the vet can't help - shoot it. Coyotes killing chickens - shoot it. Gophers chewing up the canola field - shoot it. Some people fundamentally don't understand this way of doing things and like to pass it off as barbarism or a distinct lack of intellect.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with you.

Shooting animals is a serious business. If you do it see how many times the gopher will spin in the air then I just don't like it. If you are doing it for your crop etc then that is acceptable. If you enjoy it too much I just don't understand.

Can you get along with my statements?

[NBC]

I can get along with anything!

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by NBC

I think for a lot of people it comes down to cultural differences - cross-Canada cultural differences. I've met a lot of Eastern Canadian urban dwellers and they seemed absolutely dumbfounded that someone would own a gun and use it to shoot things (animals). This is taken for granted among many rural communities where the practice is much more commonplace. Lots of farmers and ranchers that I know, when they are having a problem with an animal/animals, they usually solve said problem with a little bit of lead. Cow is sick and the vet can't help - shoot it. Coyotes killing chickens - shoot it. Gophers chewing up the canola field - shoot it. Some people fundamentally don't understand this way of doing things and like to pass it off as barbarism or a distinct lack of intellect.

Can't we all just get along?

Having a shotgun in a rural environment makes perfect sense. You don't know what sort of situation you can get into with wildlife.

But packing a pistol under your pillow in an urban environment is just stupid.

[edslunch]

I don't have statistics at hand but it seems like most stats I've seen in the past show the per capita firearm death rate in the US being significantly higher than other developer nations. The simplest answer to throw out is that this is a direct result of the freer availability of guns. But as other point out, guns don't kill, people do. Does this mean that the US just has a higher proportion of homicidal people?

Does anyone dispute that the US has higher gun death rates? Does anyone care to speculate why that is?

[Calgaryborn]

If Canada drops the long gun registry and takes things back to where they were before the law was imposed people will still need a PAL to purchase a rifle from a store. Privately they could buy or be given a gun.

In order to get a PAL someone would still have to take a course of instruction and pass the government test. You do need 80% to pass. People often chose to just challenge the test which saves them money and time.

Without the registry I'm sure the government will still require safe storage of long rifles which means they are locked up or disabled when not in use.

I would love to hear stats on how many more people have restricted PALs since the long gun registry came in. I'll bet the sale of pistols has gone way up in Canada as well. Most of my hunting friends ended up taking their PAL after the new law came in.

Some just went with the free registration at first which gave them their POL-possession only licence. When they heard how easy the test was they went and got their PAL- possession acquisition licence. The fact that they couldn't even get rifles second hand without a PAL was also a motivating factor.

Now here is the kicker; Most of the people I know who challenged the non-restricted PAL decided while they were there to challenge the restricted PAL as well. It is easily 95% the same test. I'm sure it was the same everywhere. If you have to go through the trouble for one why not grab the restricted as well. Most of them ended up buying a pistol for target practice afterwards. After all it's easy once you got the licence.

So this is what the long gun registry accomplished in Canada:

1. Took long rifles out of the hands of mainly elderly Canadians who didn't want the fuss and intrusion of getting a POL.

2. Made other Canadians criminals because they refused to trust the government's intent enough to registry their firearms and themselves. Many who registered their favourite hunting rifle chose not to registry the shotgun they keep for defence.

3. Pushed a lot of Canadians who only had their Grandfathers old 22 rifle into a position where they got their PAL and now own a few more.

4. Increased the number of people who can own a restricted weapon in Canada.

5. Almost certainly more Canadians own and use restricted weapons today then before the law went in.

[PIMking]

NSFW!

NSFW!

[SeeBass]

If the constitution states that people have the right to own a gun then fine own a gun.
Does it also include bullets? If not make the manufacturing and owning of ammo against the law.
If people want to interpet the constitiution to fit their own personal point of view on so many topics, then I will chose my own version too.

[PIMking]

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Yasa

They don't have to have a firearm. Most citizens keep their firearms after their service in the military. They have an option of keeping it or giving it back. When they do keep it, it's full-auto function is disabled. I also believe they are required to have yearly training.

Their low rate of gun crime suggests that proper training results in lower gun crime.

Which is exactly what I've been saying for the past 30 threads we've had on guns here on CP.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I can see the thrill of shooting gophers for a 14 year old but a grown man doing it, you have to have a screw loose.

Obviously you've never grown up on a farm where gophers are a common problem and threaten the health of your livestock. Most notably by increasing the chances that they'll break a leg.

Also, I'm sure you've never been thrown from a horse and seriously hurt yourself because it stepped into a gopher hole during fall roundup.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tussery

Would be nice if some people could grasp that there is a huge illegal arms market in the USA that even regulation and banning would not stop. Again this goes back to why should I be punished for others wrong doings. I have never once used a firearm in anger, never once pointed a firearm at anything I did not intend to kill, and have overall been a safe and responsible gun owner. Why should I not be able to own a firearm to hunt or shoot recreationally? Because some silly Canadian says guns are bad? Go preach to your country and get all guns banned and removed from there first then come back and bark up my tree.

Don't mind him. He's only one of the long list of posters on CP who don't seem to understand that laws and regulations don't solve the underlying problem behind gun violence.

Like many of the US politicians, they all fail to realize that until they fix poverty problems and an unsecured border, gun crime will continue to increase and get worse.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TopChed

What are the requirements to own a gun these days anyways? Is it just walking into a store, picking one out, waiting a few days and registering it?

Obviously I know nothing about gun ownership, but what about a mandatory firearm training course before people can buy one legally? We make people pass an exam before driving a vehicle, why not do the same before you can own a gun?

There is a test you need to write in order to get your firearms license. But it only requires common sense for the most part, and is very easy to pass.

I don't think its enough. I agree that you should have to take an advanced course which you pay yourself.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I don't have statistics at hand but it seems like most stats I've seen in the past show the per capita firearm death rate in the US being significantly higher than other developer nations. The simplest answer to throw out is that this is a direct result of the freer availability of guns. But as other point out, guns don't kill, people do. Does this mean that the US just has a higher proportion of homicidal people?

Does anyone dispute that the US has higher gun death rates? Does anyone care to speculate why that is?

One factor is that a higher percentage of American citizens have been trained to kill and have lived through combat situations. Another is the large amount of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Violence has been spilling across that borders for years. The sub-culture within urban Black communities has always tended to be violent. I'm sure there are many others as well.