About Guns

[pepper24]

I am guessing there is a strong link that the USA which is pro-gun has a much higher murder rate than other western countries like the EU nations, Canada etc. which have just as many guns but mainly used for hunting not self defence. The pro-gun, pro 2nd ammendment mentality of the USA is out of date and pathetic.

I own a hunting rifle for hunting and I have 1 handgun for the shooting range which is kept at the range. IMO, you don't need assualt rifles and semi automatic pistols to hunt bucks. I would have no issue giving up my handgun if Canada went for a gun ban as long as they maintain the status quo for hunting.

[DementedReality]

here is my take ..

a) i have no desire to own, touch, shoot or see a gun
b) if you told me you had a gun in the house, i would no longer come over and would not allow my children to play with your children in your house. ever.

and here is the BUT
c) i fully support your RIGHT to own a gun and i am against gun control. really, pot is illegal, but its not hard to get. if someone wants a gun to commit a crime, the legality of guns will have no impact on their ability to aquire and use it.
d) i fully support the government creating strict and draconian PUNISHMENTS if your gun is used, on purpose or accidently, in a crime IF it is proven you did not properly store your gun and ammunition.
e) bullets should be taxed at a rate of about $10.00 per round. people would then think really hard about how many they keep in the house and in stock.

[pepper24]

The article fails to mention that 4/43 US Presidents (9.0%) have been assassinated by guns. Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy. Ronald Regean was also shot and has the honor of the only US President to be shot and survive. Teddy Rosevelt was shot during a presidental campaign. Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford all had failed attempts against them.

This adds up to 9/43 US Presidents (21%) have had successful and unsuccessful assassination attempts against them.

God Bless the 2nd amendment! USA! USA! (green text)

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

here is my take ..

a) i have no desire to own, touch, shoot or see a gun
b) if you told me you had a gun in the house, i would no longer come over and would not allow my children to play with your children in your house. ever.

and here is the BUT
c) i fully support your RIGHT to own a gun and i am against gun control. really, pot is illegal, but its not hard to get. if someone wants a gun to commit a crime, the legality of guns will have no impact on their ability to aquire and use it.
d) i fully support the government creating strict and draconian PUNISHMENTS if your gun is used, on purpose or accidently, in a crime IF it is proven you did not properly store your gun and ammunition.
e) bullets should be taxed at a rate of about $10.00 per round. people would then think really hard about how many they keep in the house and in stock.

guns are a lot different than drugs. they're bulky, difficult to hide, set of metal detectors, and are a lot more expensive to make. controlling them would be a lot easier than trying to control the drug trade. doesn't Britain completely outlaw personal firearms? what is their gun related homicide rate compared to the US or Canada?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

guns are a lot different than drugs. they're bulky, difficult to hide, set of metal detectors, and are a lot more expensive to make. controlling them would be a lot easier than trying to control the drug trade. doesn't Britain completely outlaw personal firearms? what is their gun related homicide rate compared to the US or Canada?

I'll have to find a link but I believe the UK is much, much lower than the US and a tad lower than Canada. I am sure the NRA will find a way to skew the stats.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

guns are a lot different than drugs. they're bulky, difficult to hide, set of metal detectors, and are a lot more expensive to make. controlling them would be a lot easier than trying to control the drug trade. doesn't Britain completely outlaw personal firearms? what is their gun related homicide rate compared to the US or Canada?

that wasnt my main point ...

i see no evidence that criminals are going to have a problem getting a gun.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Assault weapon by my definition has any of the following qualities:

1. fully automatic
2. designed for military applications (with the excpetion of long range sniper rifles)
3. the ability to fire a certain # of rounds per second ( I won't try to set that number).

Not to nitpick, but I disagree with your definition. The FN C1 A1 Canada's predecessor to the c series of rifles was a semi automatic assault rifle, which carried a 30 round clip carrying high calibre high velocity rounds with an insane range. It can also shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger as long as your shoulder surives.

To me fully automatic doesn't mean assault rifle. The uzi, MP series, or any kind of SMG would almost fall outside of the assault rifle category, but should be banned because of the ease of concealability.

On the hand gun or rifle or fire arm ban. I don't think it would really make that much of a difference. Most of the gun seizures and gun crimes that we see now are committed with unregistered and altered weapons. Registering legitimate legal owners to me is useless, even if they get their weapon stolen, what good does it do, yes we know that the weapon is missing, but chances are that after the crime is committed it ends up at the bottom of a river, or lake.

The better solution to me, is enforcement of gun crimes with harsher penalties, and additional money that usually goes to the federal gun registry going to police officers dedicated to investigating gun crimes, and increased funding for customs officers to go after the weapons entering out country illegally.

Right now its more important to stop the influx of illegal AK-47's, and Armalite manufactured Uzi's coming in from China and Singapore, and to stop the handguns coming up in shipping containers and peoples cars from the States.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

guns are a lot different than drugs. they're bulky, difficult to hide, set of metal detectors, and are a lot more expensive to make. controlling them would be a lot easier than trying to control the drug trade. doesn't Britain completely outlaw personal firearms? what is their gun related homicide rate compared to the US or Canada?

All I know is that Britains gun crimes had increased by 35% in 2003 from 2002 and it was 10000 crimes involving firearms. (I had this argument a few years ago)
Found the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Another article

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...9520-19725690/

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

All I know is that Britains gun crimes had increased by 35% in 2003 from 2002 and it was 10000 crimes involving firearms. (I had this argument a few years ago)
Found the article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Another article

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...9520-19725690/

i have to question that second source of yours, from the article

The international gun league is headed by America where 90 out of every 100 citizens have a firearm.

so they're saying that 90% of all Americans own a gun? i find that just a little hard to believe

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i have to question that second source of yours, from the article



so they're saying that 90% of all Americans own a gun? i find that just a little hard to believe

I don't know how accurate that is, I just wanted the home office stats.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so they're saying that 90% of all Americans own a gun? i find that just a little hard to believe

sounds like they didn't correct their stats to include the possibility of people owning multiple guns and just did total guns divided by total population. that stat i could see being accurate.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

here is my take ..

a) i have no desire to own, touch, shoot or see a gun
b) if you told me you had a gun in the house, i would no longer come over and would not allow my children to play with your children in your house. ever.

and here is the BUT
c) i fully support your RIGHT to own a gun and i am against gun control. really, pot is illegal, but its not hard to get. if someone wants a gun to commit a crime, the legality of guns will have no impact on their ability to aquire and use it.
d) i fully support the government creating strict and draconian PUNISHMENTS if your gun is used, on purpose or accidently, in a crime IF it is proven you did not properly store your gun and ammunition.
e) bullets should be taxed at a rate of about $10.00 per round. people would then think really hard about how many they keep in the house and in stock.

Excellent post.

While I disagree with the ammo tax being that high, I definitely respect your point about not wanting to be in a house with firearms, or having your child over. It's a personal decision and should be respected by both sides of the argument. I also agree for the most part about your feelings on crimes committed with a stolen firearm, though I believe that would be a tough one to enforce.

Originally Posted by pepper24

The article fails to mention that 4/43 US Presidents (9.0%) have been assassinated by guns. Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy. Ronald Regean was also shot and has the honor of the only US President to be shot and survive. Teddy Rosevelt was shot during a presidental campaign. Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford all had failed attempts against them.

This adds up to 9/43 US Presidents (21%) have had successful and unsuccessful assassination attempts against them.

God Bless the 2nd amendment! USA! USA! (green text)

I think the frequency of American Presidential assassination attempts might have more to do with the President's station in the world, and a measurable amount of people that are sympathizers for a cause and/or mentally ill.

Plenty of assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents have occurred without firearms as well. Banning handguns and/or assault rifles would not have prevented Kennedy's murder.




I'm not going to argue that handguns don't make crimes easier, because they do. Do they lead to more crime? That's a tough sell.

The issue I have is with denying educated, experienced handlers of firearms their right to own/use something they enjoy.

I've been reading this forum for about a year and a half, and I've seen some disdain for the priorities of the local police department, as well as the Canadian justice system as a whole. Do you trust these people to protect you in a dangerous situation?

That's all I'm asking is for the ability to protect my home and family with whatever firearm I see fit. (no, not an automatic weapon)

I don't have a problem with requiring background checks, or classes before owning a handgun.


Two things I do have a problem with:

1. Folks that are delusional enough to think that outlawing certain types of firearms would get these firearms off the streets.

2. Folks that think people who enjoy guns and are willing to use them to protect life are a bunch of slack jawed, jingoistic yokels. USA, USA...

I really hope no one here is ever at the mercy of someone else without a reasonable way to defend themselves. It's a scary situation.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

Excellent post.

I think the frequency of American Presidential assassination attempts might have more to do with the President's station in the world, and a measurable amount of people that are sympathizers for a cause and/or mentally ill.

Plenty of assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents have occurred without firearms as well. Banning handguns and/or assault rifles would not have prevented Kennedy's murder.

21% of US Presidents with successful or unsuccessful assassination attempts against them is a startling stat. I'd have to do some digging but I don't think that any other Western, established country would have a similar stat. I doubt that it's even be close. I am also guessing that it's Americans with access to guns doing the deeds, not foreigners, but I'd have to check on this as well.

The 10 that I listed (Ford had 2 attempts against him) all involved or intended to involve firearms. Which assassination attempts haven't involved firearms?

[Montana Moe]

I'm not saying these were going to be successful, just that firearms are not needed to attempt it. Most, if not all wannabe and successful assassins were U.S. citizens. Most, if not all were also deranged and/or political sympathizers looking for recognition individually or within their sphere of influence.

I stand by my opinion that it is the President or candidates position in world politics that makes for the frequency of these attempts, not the availability of firearms. If the U.S. were of a lesser global standing, these attempts would not happen as often.

Quick and dirty source for other attempts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Assasinations

John F. Kennedy
December 11, 1960: While vacationing in Palm Beach, Florida, President-elect John F. Kennedy's life was threatened by Richard Paul Pavlick, a 73-year-old former postal worker. Pavlick's plan was to serve as a suicide bomber by crashing his dynamite-laden 1950 Buick into Kennedy's vehicle, but the plan was disrupted when Pavlick saw Kennedy's wife and daughter bidding him goodbye.

Richard Nixon
February 22, 1974: Samuel Byck planned to kill Nixon by crashing a commercial airliner into the White House. Once on the plane, he was informed that it could not take off with the wheel blocks still in place. He shot the pilot and copilot before killing himself. The events surrounding this assassination attempt were portrayed in the film The Assassination of Richard Nixon.

George H. W. Bush
April 13, 1993: Sixteen men, in the alleged employment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was foiled when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins.

Bill Clinton: First assassination attempt
September 12, 1994: Frank Eugene Corder flew a single engine Cessna into the White House lawn, apparently trying to hit the White House. The President and First Family were not home at the time. Corder was the only casualty.

George W. Bush: Second possible assassination attempt
September 11, 2001: On the morning of 9/11, President George W. Bush was at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, Florida.He woke up around 6:00 AM and prepared for his morning jog. A van occupied by men of Middle Eastern descent arrived at the Colony Beach Resort and claimed they had a "poolside" interview with the President. They did not have an appointment and were turned away.It is possible this was an assassination attempt modeled on the one used on anti-Taliban fighter and Northern Alliance military leader Ahmed Massoud two days earlier.

First verified assassination attempt
May 10, 2005: While President George W. Bush was giving a speech in the Freedom Square in Tbilisi, Georgia, Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live Soviet-made RGD-5 hand grenade towards the podium where he was standing and where Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and their two wives and officials were seated. The grenade was live and had its pin pulled, but did not explode because a red tartan handkerchief wrapped tightly around the grenade kept the firing pin from deploying quickly enough.

Also the rumored assassinations of Taylor and Harding.

Once again, these are thwarted and/or possible attempts. The only two that may have been successful were the rumored murders of Taylor and Harding.

Firearms may make it easier, but making them illegal certainly won't stop assassination attempts.


Trying to get the thread back on topic...

Banning any sort of firearm will not deter criminals from getting their hands on them.

Accidents will still happen, innocents will still die, even without handguns or assault weapons, however they are defined.

Criminals intent on killing someone, or entering your home for property or worse are not going to stop because handguns are banned or restricted. I just want a fair shake, I would hope others would expect the same.

I'm a Marine Corps veteran with 20+ years experience using multiple types of weapons, from daddy's shotgun to a .50 cal machine gun. I'm of sound mind, and have never run afoul of the law other than a speeding ticket. Does anyone really have an issue with someone like me protecting my house with a pistol?

If you're going to lump me in with some FOB gangbanger who gets a $100 .380 from his buddy, then I guess we know who is being irrational when it comes to guns.

[Dan02]

Bill Clinton: First assassination attempt
September 12, 1994: Frank Eugene Corder flew a single engine Cessna into the White House lawn, apparently trying to hit the White House. The President and First Family were not home at the time. Corder was the only casualty.

not sure that one exactly qualifies as a assination attempt, unless of course you're counting the Iraqi Journalist hucking his shoes at Bush a assination attempt too.

1. Folks that are delusional enough to think that outlawing certain types of firearms would get these firearms off the streets.

If you don't think that outlawing certain firearms will decrease the amount of firearms on the street then i suggest the fool might be looking back at you in the mirror. Eliminate? no it won't, reduce? most certainly will.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Dan02

not sure that one exactly qualifies as a assination attempt, unless of course you're counting the Iraqi Journalist hucking his shoes at Bush a assination attempt too.

If you don't think that outlawing certain firearms will decrease the amount of firearms on the street then i suggest the fool might be looking back at you in the mirror. Eliminate? no it won't, reduce? most certainly will.

As I said before, these were not exactly stellar attempts, but to link the number of assassination attempts strictly to the availability of firearms is a bit myopic, in my opinion.

I would suggest that people who are looking to commit a crime with a gun are not exactly concerned with whether it is outlawed or not.

Illegal gun trafficking is a pretty lucrative business already, I would assume it would only become moreso.

The only area in which there would be an impact would be in the theft of firearms from private residences. These firearms would be assumed to have been turned in during the "Great American Gun Giveback."

Plus, the last time "assault weapons" were restricted under the Brady Bill, any existing firearms that fit the bill were grandfathered in. It wasn't like you were required to turn them into the local police department, you just couldn't purchase them.

I'm pretty sure the scofflaws found ways around that.

[Phanuthier]

I enjoy going to the firing range for leasure (used to go alot more a few years ago then now) but I would have no problem getting rid of them or limiting them to firing ranges IF it meant taking them off the streets. Unfortunately, the people that end up using it to kill people will get their hands on it anyways.

[HalifaxDrunk]

Originally Posted by Ice

it was pointless to defend myself in the event of an intruder seeing as the gun was locked up in one gun locker and the ammo in another. It was just for fun/sport.

Originally Posted by DementedReality

here is my take ..

a) i have no desire to own, touch, shoot or see a gun
b) if you told me you had a gun in the house, i would no longer come over and would not allow my children to play with your children in your house. ever.

It is entirely your prerogative to stay away from guns but I feel that is a bit of an overreaction.
Instead of educating yourself how the person stores their guns you just outright rule out going to someones house? In the case of Ice's example above how is it dangerous if they are locked away properly? Another factor is if they use a trigger lock on a gun, no way are kids gonna pick it.

If you are this adverse to being around guns I hope you or your kids never enter a Canadian Tire or a Walmart. Chances are the guns & ammo are easier to get out of their glass cabinets than a proper gun locker.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

I'm a Marine Corps veteran with 20+ years experience using multiple types of weapons, from daddy's shotgun to a .50 cal machine gun. I'm of sound mind, and have never run afoul of the law other than a speeding ticket. Does anyone really have an issue with someone like me protecting my house with a pistol?

When your away and some teen breaks into your house looking for spare change finds it and it ends up on the streets I have an issue.
The only reason you feel the need to protect your home with a pistol is because of your fear of the bad guy having one.But in the end your house is just as secure if you protect it with daddys shotgun.

Handguns are made for killing people..period. If the law stated 10 years in jail for possessing one even the gang members would think twice about carrying them.

[llama64]

Will banning guns keep them out of the hands of criminals? Of course not. They are criminals.

The argument no one seems to be explaining is how arming the average joe will actually reduce crime. Explain that one to me. Because in my mind, the more guns that are out there, the more the likelyhood someone will get shot/killed by one. Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun related incidents.