And you thought Guns on a plane was a bad idea

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by habernac

no pistols? Come on, everyone needs one of these:

http://www.topglock.com/info/videog18.htm

Already illegal in Canada. Point?
With the difference in population taken into account, the school shootings, for an example, aren't really 10 times worse than here are they?

Just asking.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well I grew up with venison and moose meat and partridge to answer your first condescending question.

To answer your second you would have to look at Switzerland and Israel with a higher % of gun ownership there and then repeat your Anti-US style anti-gun argument.

Viel Gluck

Geez you are touchy.

What was condescending about my question? You didn't answer it, by the way.

I don't know what Switzerland and Israel have to do with anything, I was just pointing out that more guns do not equal a safer society and used the United States as an example. Was I wrong?

What does Viel Gluck mean?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Where did I say they were not a problem? I didn't.....typical CP liberals not reading what people wrote and making **** up.

What the?????? What the hell are you talking about. I said banning guns will not solve your problems. It only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. But for some reason you folk can't figure that out. You can't get it through your liberal brains that by banning guns thats all that happens....you think that criminals are going to abide by the law. Thats why they call them criminals. Good lord man... The firearms laws we have on the books now are stiff. The problem is the judges will not enforce them.

What??? It's funny that the same people that think it's ok for other countries to have nuclear capacities....think no person should have a firearm. Wake up.

Look... I never said that firearms are not a problem. All I said was banning them will solve nothing...nothing at all. The same reason why NK should not have Nukes is the same reason fully automatic firearms are illegal.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Just saying there is no need for them, because there isn't. Why would you need one?

Just because you don't hunt, target practice or collect firearms doesn't mean there is no need for them.

There is no need for collectable dolls....yet people collect them for a hobbie.

There is no need for need to go sky diving, bungie jumping, shooting a bow....but people do it for entertainment.

[jolinar of malkshor]

So does fertilizer and diesal fuel. So do propane bottles rigged up with a detonator.

I agree that firearms do provide a more effiecent way for these crazy *******s to kill people.....but get a grip.....if they really want them....the largest manufacturer of automatic weapons lies a few hundred miles south of us.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How many people do you know that use a gun to put dinner ON the table on a regular basis.?

I would wager that 99.9% of the meat consumed in this country was not killed by the person who is actually eating it. When is the last time you went out and shot something and brought it home and ate it? If you can actually remember doing such a thing, what percentage of your diet did that carcass represent?

But whatever. I've got nothing against hunting, per se, but it isn't a valid reason for everyone to own a firearm. If you are a hunter and you need a gun to hunt your food then fine. If you are a regular jackass on the street, there is no reason for you to own a handgun or assault rifle.

It seems so strange to me that people would argue that more guns = safer place to live. If that was the case, wouldn't the US be safer than, say, Sweden?

Not sure if you have ever been to a slaughter plant....but every cow is shot with a .22 cal rifle. So...pretty much all your beef is killed with a firearm.

Yes, yes...I know you mean hunters...let me tell you something...just because you live in the city...doesn't mean nothing happens outside the city limits. I would guess that I know atleast 10% of my friends and family hunt yearly and obtain moose, elk and deer meat on a regular basis.

Hunting however is not the only reason to have firearms. A lot of people like to target practice. Every farmer/rancher requires a firearm.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not sure if you have ever been to a slaughter plant....but every cow is shot with a .22 cal rifle. So...pretty much all your beef is killed with a firearm.

Hey thanks for the lesson, but I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't talking about what goes on in a slaughterhouse.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Geez you are touchy.

What was condescending about my question? You didn't answer it, by the way.

I don't know what Switzerland and Israel have to do with anything, I was just pointing out that more guns do not equal a safer society and used the United States as an example. Was I wrong?

What does Viel Gluck mean?

Good luck.

And I was pointing out that a high % of gun ownership does not equal more crime on it own. There are some asking for guns to be banned. While their hearts may be in the right place, it is a knee-jerk reaction that will only make them feel better about themselves and do absolutely nothing about the homicide rate. (in fact is could make it worse as happened in GB)

Was I wrong?

I'm just asking people to look at facts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Good luck.

And I was pointing out that a high % of gun ownership does not equal more crime on it own. There are some asking for guns to be banned. While their hearts may be in the right place, it is a knee-jerk reaction that will only make them feel better about themselves and do absolutely nothing about the homicide rate. (in fact is could make it worse as happened in GB)

Was I wrong?

I'm just asking people to look at facts.

I could point out that another poster has provided statistical evidence to contradict your claim about Great Britain. But that is beside the point to me anyway. Gun control as a general social issue (though I do favour reasonable controls on guns) is not the same question as whether more guns will make a school safer. To me, it's a no brainer. There shouldn't be guns in the halls where our children are trying to learn. Students shouldn't have 'em. Teachers shouldn't have 'em. Principal Rambo shouldn't have 'em. I'm not even sure we disagree on this issue.

Gun control debates generally devolve into one side saying "gun control doesn't reduce gun violence on its own," and the other side saying "guns don't make us safer." Boiled down in that form, I hope we can all agree that it's at least possible for both statements to be true. Gun violence in the U.S. is off the charts for a developed country--but that may well have to do with systemic issues other than the simple presence of a lot of guns. There are plenty of guns in Canada--yet proportionately much less gun violence. Why? Probably due to the existence of a more stable society with less crime in general.

For me, gun control is about regulating the existence of deadly firearms and tracking them adequately so that when they're used in crimes they can be traced to their owner easily, making gun crimes easier to solve. I don't see why we can't accommodate the gun-lobby's desire for the "right" to own guns (a right that is incidentally NOT enshrined in the Canadian constitution, FWIW) and a desire on the part of society to be able to bring the criminals who use those guns for violence to swift justice. If we can agree on that, it becomes a matter of implementation.

[White Doors]

For me, gun control is about regulating the existence of deadly firearms and tracking them adequately so that when they're used in crimes they can be traced to their owner easily, making gun crimes easier to solve. I don't see why we can't accommodate the gun-lobby's desire for the "right" to own guns (a right that is incidentally NOT enshrined in the Canadian constitution, FWIW) and a desire on the part of society to be able to bring the criminals who use those guns for violence to swift justice. If we can agree on that, it becomes a matter of implementation.

True, but guns already have a 'fingerprint' of their own. Putting a sticker on them with a government registration number is needless to say, ineffective. GUN registry is a red herring meant to make everyone feel safer while doing absolutely nothing to make that the case.

Spending upwards of 2 billion on a registry is a huge waste of money. Spend it on education programs for gun safety. Spend it on crime prevention. Spend it on more police. Make the criteria to owning a gun more stringent. THE old FAC program could be revamped and improved which would make us safer than banning guns or registering them in my opinion.

By the way, the GB study is not unique. There is a general decrease in violent crimes in most western countries - this is a product of demographics more than anything. The fact that GB banned gun ownership and violence from firearms has actually gone up should be a red flag for anyone with a fair mind on the issue.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

True, but guns already have a 'fingerprint' of their own. Putting a sticker on them with a government registration number is needless to say, ineffective. GUN registry is a red herring meant to make everyone feel safer while doing absolutely nothing to make that the case.

That may be--but I'm not particularly interested in debating the pros and cons of an individual policy. Registering guns seems like it should be a non-issue to me: every day people register their dogs, their cars, their boats, in some cities they register their bicycles, and in both the U.S. and Canada, they register THEMSELVES. Why are guns special? In principle, I think registration is merely a way of keeping track of what guns are out there--and if that's all it achieves, I'm fine with it. It ought to be a simple, cheap program--the fact that the Canadian government is having trouble doing it cheaply is neither a surprise nor particularly relevant to the merits of the larger issue.

The "fingerprint" you speak of is useless without one of two things: a registry which includes ballistic fingerprints, or an actual gun to compare ballistics data against. It's hard to argue that the former wouldn't sometimes help police to do their jobs. With that said, you'll get no argument from me that police need more money, and that more money should be spent on education programs. These are separate issues.

As for the Great Britain study you refer to: I'd like to see some data on it. It's not that I don't believe that you've seen it, just that I'm interested in the methodology of wide-ranging longitudinal studies like that--and they often tend to be flawed. You may well be right that crime is on the decline in the developed world--I don't know. But it's interesting that one place this is NOT the case is the U.S., where gun laws are the weakest. I'm not suggesting that there's a correlation--just showing how the Great Britain argument may not work too well either. If the two places that violence rises are the place with the strongest gun laws and the weakest gun laws (I'm not convinced this is the case, but for argument's sake, let's say that's true...) then that indicates that at best there is no relation between gun laws and gun crime. If that's so, then that doesn't really address the other issues around gun control--since it was never conceived (or ought not to have been) as a form of social engineering anyway.

[White Doors]

Many posters here were arguing for the banning of guns in Canada. I showed that there were no correlation to a reduction of gun crime n other countries that have done that. I'm not arguing that more guns make is safer, but certaily there is more evidence that they do than there is for the opposite.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Many posters here were arguing for the banning of guns in Canada. I showed that there were no correlation to a reduction of gun crime n other countries that have done that. I'm not arguing that more guns make is safer, but certaily there is more evidence that they do than there is for the opposite.

You are of course forgetting about the neighbour to the south, whose weak gun laws are accompanied by high rates of gun violence.

If anything, the data are inconclusive. I disagree that there is "more evidence" that guns make us safer. There isn't very good evidence either way, and it's so hard to generalize because crime rates are dependent on so many social factors other than guns. It would be interesting to see whether violent crime depends more on social inequality--that might be kind of revealing; I wonder if any studies have been done about that.

Also--and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth--I'm not sure anyone was advocating the "banning" of guns altogether. I could be wrong, but I think most people want to see strict controls of guns, not banning of guns--though an argument could be made that a gun whose sole purpose is to kill a person probably doesn't belong in our just society.

[White Doors]

You are of course forgetting about the neighbour to the south, whose weak gun laws are accompanied by high rates of gun violence.

Actually, that's not true either, states where they have carry licenses, have some of the lowest crime rates.
And let's not forget about Switzerland and Israel which have a higher % of gun ownership than Canada and pistols and automatic guns are allowed.

[White Doors]

Also--and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth--I'm not sure anyone was advocating the "banning" of guns altogether. I could be wrong, but I think most people want to see strict controls of guns, not banning of guns--though an argument could be made that a gun whose sole purpose is to kill a person probably doesn't belong in our just society.

And all people should make the exact same amount of money in a 'just society'. Alot of dangerous legislation has been put through under the 'just society' clause. When the majority start to trample of minority rights for the reasons of a 'just society' - people should be standing up and taking notice.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And all people should make the exact same amount of money in a 'just society'. Alot of dangerous legislation has been put through under the 'just society' clause. When the majority start to trample of minority rights for the reasons of a 'just society' - people should be standing up and taking notice.

I am sorry but this is NAZI talk....you...you NEO con!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And all people should make the exact same amount of money in a 'just society'. Alot of dangerous legislation has been put through under the 'just society' clause. When the majority start to trample of minority rights for the reasons of a 'just society' - people should be standing up and taking notice.

Well, I'd be interested in seeing the stats on both the individual states and on gun ownership in Switzerland. Right off the bat, it looks like the variable here is a stable society--which pretty much substantiates my point that the correlation is very poor either way. As I've said, I don't think of gun control as a way of reducing crime--that's the same kind of thinking that leads to imposing curfews on youth in order to reduce property crimes--it may make us feel better, but doesn't address the core problems, which are probably different. In order to reduce crime you have to address the root causes of crime, which are always variable and context-dependent.

With that said, I see nothing wrong with reducing the number of untrackable weapons out there and giving our law-enforcement professionals additional tools to help them fight crime. Canada's gun registry program is probably too expensive and clunky to do the trick--but that doesn't mean that the only alternative is no gun control at all.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Actually there are some people that have said that banning all guns is the way to go.

FLASHPOINT

like what Scotland did.

Outlawed guns. Solved the problem.

Worried about security? Buy a dog. When your kid plays with it, they won't wind up dead.

JOHNNYFLAME

Yep I like the idea of outlawing things as well. I would ban the having or making of guns in Canada.

MR.COFFEE

I'm pretty sure there are other ways to kill ducks and geese and control their population, even if it is a big problem- which I'm not sure it is.

Get real. People don't need guns. What on earth do you need a gun for? Self defense? Mmhmm...

Just saying there is no need for them, because there isn't. Why would you need one?

HABERNAC

OK. How about we just ban hand guns and automatic weapons?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

OK--fair enough. I interpreted JohnnyFlames' remark as sarcastic, but either way I see your point.

I'm not in the "ban guns altogether" camp. But strict limitations on handguns and assault weapons is fine by me.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

--but that doesn't mean that the only alternative is no gun control at all.

I don't think anyone is saying no gun control...at least I am not saying that. I am saying that banning firearms will do nothing at all and I think that responsible people should have the right to own firearms.

Some people in CP world think that it is legal to own automatic assault rifles and any kind of hand gun. Canadian gun laws are strict. If you want to take your handgun to the firing range....you have to get permission from the firearms officer to transport it there and back.

Most Canadian police agencies do not allow their members to carry their firearms while off duty. Most US agencies do. I think they should be allowed to carry them when they are off duty if they so choose....but....we can't even trust a police officer when he is off duty.