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

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm really on the fence as far as this issue goes....I don't own guns, have never fired one and so I'm not vested in that way. On the other hand some of my best friends are avid hunters and have dozens of guns. I know that people like that aren't using them illegally and shouldn't be treated as criminals.

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

Calgary Polce Chief Rick Hanson is against the registry.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

"The gun registry has done little to make the streets safer," said Police Chief Rick Hanson.
"For the years it's been in effect, there are more guns on the street today - handguns and prohibited weapons - than I can ever recall, and that's since the gun registry has been implemented," added Chief Hanson.
But in Calgary, officers use the registry as an investigative tool and say it doesn't work when dealing with gangs and drug dealers.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/colu.../13855616.html

He thinks the political argy-bargy over the registry "totally ignores the real issues" and "does a disservice" and "creates this belief the registry will solve the gun violence in this country."
"The only people benefiting are the bad guys. While watching the debate rage they still pack their guns and face insignificant sentencing. The criminals can laugh at the laws," says Hanson
"The bad guys are not registering their guns but they're shooting in the streets and killing people while law-abiding citizens are criminalized. It's absolutely ridiculous."


He is in the minority however....(maybe not according to CC's post below)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm really on the fence as far as this issue goes....I don't own guns, have never fired one and so I'm not vested in that way. On the other hand some of my best friends are avid hunters and have dozens of guns. I know that people like that aren't using them illegally and shouldn't be treated as criminals.

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

Thats not really true according to this survey

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats not really true according to this survey

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome

The constable's name in this article made me laugh.

[mikey_the_redneck]

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?

If I remember right, it goes something like this:

-take gun safety course, demonstrate safe usage (better part of a day)
-write the test, pass is 80% I believe
-send in test with additional documentation (much like getting a passport)
-recieve picture I.D. in the mail, and now you can go shopping.

There is additional testing if you want to own a handgun(restricted license), and in Canada you can't own a small concealable pistol (there is a minimum barrel length for handguns).

-All automatics are banned...
-You can buy semi-auto rifle's (AR-15 with restricted lisence) but only a 5-6 shot magazine capacity.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm really on the fence as far as this issue goes....I don't own guns, have never fired one and so I'm not vested in that way. On the other hand some of my best friends are avid hunters and have dozens of guns. I know that people like that aren't using them illegally and shouldn't be treated as criminals.

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

Keep in mind, the "gun registry" that everyone is referring to will affect long guns, not pistols. Part of the reason the police aren't using the tool is because crimes with legally bought long guns are very seldom - and impractical.

The program costs a TON of money and could probably be better spent elsewhere. If that 2 billion or w/e was put back strictly into law enforcement, you'd see much more noticeable results.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If I remember right, it goes something like this:

-take gun safety course, demonstrate safe usage (better part of a day)
-write the test, pass is 80% I believe
-send in test with additional documentation (much like getting a passport)
-recieve picture I.D. in the mail, and now you can go shopping.

There is additional testing if you want to own a handgun(restricted license), and in Canada you can't own a small concealable pistol (there is a minimum barrel length for handguns).

-All automatics are banned...
-You can buy semi-auto rifle's (AR-15 with restricted lisence) but only a 5-6 shot magazine capacity.

This, + about 6 weeks to 3 months waiting time for your PAL while the RCMP makes sure you're a decent person, i.e. reference checks and criminal background checks.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

Do you think that's actually true though? Let's assume they do. They check the registry and it shows that there are no registered guns in a house that they are about to go into. So what? That doesn't mean that there couldn't be unregistered guns in that house, and the police would be stupid to enter said house without exercising the same caution that they would if there was a registered gun inside. Either way, it makes absolutely no difference to how a police officer should handle such a situation.

[SebC]

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.

That would work if we were an island like New Zealand (which, incidently has tough gun laws and low gun violence). Unfortunately (on this issue), sharing the longest land border in the world with a country born out of violence severely hampers our ability to restrict access to guns.

[puckluck]

Guns are bad. America is bad. Coincidence?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by tussery

Which would be Switzerland, and the crime rate is pretty low there. The US may have the largest amount of privately owned guns, but not every household has a gun. Switzerland every household pretty much has to have a firearm.

Myth: Switzerland proves guns don't increase murder rates.
Fact: Switzerland now has strict gun control laws.

I love this argument,since the late 90's the Swiss laws for gun ownership are pretty much like Canada's but before the new laws the Swiss were 2nd behind "you know who" for handgun related murders per capital.

Edit: found a site that has pre-1999 stats.

Summary

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.



Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:
Percent of households with a handgun, 1991
(1)United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2) Handgun 1992 Handgun MurderCountry Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05

By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Actually that is an interesting question. Everything thats out there from the police seems to suggest that the registry is really useful. They say things like "we don't go into a house without checking it first" and things like that.

I'm really on the fence as far as this issue goes....I don't own guns, have never fired one and so I'm not vested in that way. On the other hand some of my best friends are avid hunters and have dozens of guns. I know that people like that aren't using them illegally and shouldn't be treated as criminals.

I suppose that if the police are adamant that this is a useful tool though I defer to them. They use the thing on a daily basis and are one of the most affected groups. If they had no use for it then I would say get rid of it, but when the experts in the field say its useful then I'm not sure what the rush is to get rid of this?

Police will also tell you that they never go into a house without expecting they've got weapons inside.

Of course the police would check to see what weapon registered to a home they have to enter. That is common sense. It also is only logical that having that information is better than not having it.

The better question would be: Is there a better place that that money could be spent? I'll bet those same police could find 20 better ways for that money to be spent.

[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 could type out a hundred scenarios, but the gist will be that "as a good guy", me having a gun to "protect" myself during a burglary or a robbery, would likely mean that pulling it out would force either me or the bad guy to use a gun. So now who wins? I guess I could kill a guy for entering my house. I wouldn't want to have that on my conscience, especially if it was a 16 year old just trying to be cool. If my wife was getting raped, I'd have no problem pulling the trigger many, many, many times, but what are the chances of that?

If a bad guy has a gun, and I'm the unlucky victim of his B&E or whatever, he's either going to shoot me, or not. If I pull out a gun and blast him before he does me, then I'm still screwed. I'm either traumed, going to court, or both. TBQH, I'm happier knowing that if I get surprised, there's a baseball bat stashed behind the door, and if I think my life is in danger, I've got a better chance of resuming a normal life after using a baseball bat than a gun.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

It's my god given right to accidentally shoot my mothers face off while defending myself from the King of England's militia. Read the old testament.

I'm stealing this for Facebook.

[will26]

This is actually a good read. But in my opinion, the self defense argument of owning a gun is just a cover up of the goal to achieve that male bravado owning a gun entails. And knowing you have a gun some where in your house will just tempt you to use it for some other thing like fooling around, which is already an extreme case.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

If you've got issues with people breaking into your residence while you're home, then you probably have even bigger issues with people breaking in while you're not home and that gun you're keeping for self-defense is now in the hands of a criminal.

[NBC]

All of you bleeding heart, hoplophobic, anti-gun pinkos will be desperately sorry you wanted to "ban guns" when the zombie apocalypse hits.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

-You can buy semi-auto rifle's (AR-15 with restricted lisence) but only a 5-6 shot magazine capacity.

.22 cal LR semi-automatic rifles come with a standard 10-shot magazine. Or at least they used to.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by will26

This is actually a good read. But in my opinion, the self defense argument of owning a gun is just a cover up of the goal to achieve that male bravado owning a gun entails. And knowing you have a gun some where in your house will just tempt you to use it for some other thing like fooling around, which is already an extreme case.

Coincidentally, I was at a corporate function at an indoor gun range a few weeks ago where, among other things, we were blasting away with a shotgun, AR-15 (I think), a Glock, a Colt .45 and some kind of Smith & Wesson cannon.

That was a lotta fun!!!

I'm not a gun owner and had last been shooting gophers as a teenager out on my grandpa's farm . . . . . but pistols in particular are pretty easy to use and apparently, most modern one's don't have safety's (or so we were told) which surprised me.

The most common weapon for home defence in America is the shotgun, our instructor told us.

The farmer in the valley can occasionally be seen spending a summer afternoon driving out in his field, shooting gophers through the drivers side window of his truck . . . . . . which I've subsequently learned is a very common habit among the farming community and a bit of an inside joke.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

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.

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?

[NBC]

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?

Especially now that you can no longer buy strychnine to poison them. Gophers - or more specifically Richardson's ground squirrels - that is.