# This thread just boggles my mind



## Blue Apple (Feb 8, 2006)

Would you carry a handgun if the law allowed you to do so?

http://www.fenderforum.com/forum.html?db=&topic_number=696506

:2guns:


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

There are many people in Canada, myself included, who wish we had same. Then it wouldn't just be criminals walking the streets with guns, and they might think twice about pulling one knowing the intended victim might shoot back. States who have implemented CCW have generally (as with all generalizations, there are of course exceptions) seen gun crime rates go down, and very very few CCW permit holders are ever convicted of a gun crime.

My son was recently beaten by a gang - jaw broken, gets the wiring taken out on Friday. He's a small boy (19, skinny), was walking with 1 male friend who has a disabled arm, and 4 grade 12 girls. 6 punks jumped out of a car, beat the 2 boys badly, and chased but didn't badly harm the girls. You know where I'm going here, amiright?

OK just in case I'm not clear, I'm NOT talking about retribution. If one of the victims had pulled a gun, do you think 6 assaults would have taken place? No, they would have boogied back into their car and got lost.

Gunfights do NOT erupt on the streets between CCW holders and bad guys. High level handling and safety training is required....no CCW permit holder is going to discharge a gun where innocent bystanders might be hurt UNLESS THEIR VERY LIFE IS IN PERIL.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

keto said:


> There are many people in Canada, myself included, who wish we had same. Then it wouldn't just be criminals walking the streets with guns, and they might think twice about pulling one knowing the intended victim might shoot back. States who have implemented CCW have generally (as with all generalizations, there are of course exceptions) seen gun crime rates go down, and very very few CCW permit holders are ever convicted of a gun crime.
> 
> My son was recently beaten by a gang - jaw broken, gets the wiring taken out on Friday. He's a small boy (19, skinny), was walking with 1 male friend who has a disabled arm, and 4 grade 12 girls. 6 punks jumped out of a car, beat the 2 boys badly, and chased but didn't badly harm the girls. You know where I'm going here, amiright?
> 
> ...


I know that there are WAY many more people in the States, but man their crime is off the hook! I like to think that we as Canadians are WAY more civilized cause we do NOT allow licence to carry. I'm not getting into a debate on guns or anything but handguns are made for one purpose only and that's killing our fellow mankind. In regards to your son, I'm very sorry that happened, but if he had a gun, likely somone would have gotten killed and your Son would be facing some serious penalties (regardless if he was defending himself) Maybe some martial arts are in order? Nuff said.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Carrying Guns is the DUMBEST thing in the world. Unless your a on duty cop naturally. Keto, i feel you man, but do you think that if you kid had a gun it would have soloved anything?...2 things would have happen...it would have been so scared he would have taken the gun out, and shot someone, then it's prison for life...or..he would have taken the gun out, be overforced easily, the other kid beats the shit outa them anyway for pulling a gun on them...if not kill your son.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

al3d said:


> Carrying Guns is the DUMBEST thing in the world. Unless your a on duty cop naturally. Keto, i feel you man, but do you think that if you kid had a gun it would have soloved anything?...2 things would have happen...it would have been so scared he would have taken the gun out, and shot someone, then it's prison for life...or..he would have taken the gun out, be overforced easily, the other kid beats the shit outa them anyway for pulling a gun on them...if not kill your son.


I second that.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

There are times in the past I wish I was carrying, never had any real trouble but when people threaten to kill you, it would be nice to have an 'equalizer'.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Guns are great, but anti-gun people seem to be confused by guns. The problem with the US isnt the guns, its the lack of training, and some of the guns they allow. In Switzerland, everyone carries a gun, but you dont see the crime they have in the US. Everyone is trained during their lifetime about guns. The US gets a bad rap about everyone carrying a gun, but that is not true. Many states dont allow that. Unfortunately the states that do allow the total freedom of selling, allow trafficing of guns from their state to other states, and thats how criminals often get their guns. (That or through the ports of Vancouver, Canada surprise!) These states that allow total freedom, not only turn a blind eye to this, they allow guns that shouldnt be sold to anyone who wants to buy. Uzis are probobly the most dangerous gun out there, and they shouldnt be on the street. Even with proper training on an Uzi, they are still dangerous. I have no problem with guns, and I think if the US ever visited Switzerland and learned about their gun system, and maybe even their education system (as in the places where you send your kids), the US could once again be a wonderous place............


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I'd hate to live in a place where I thought I had to carry a gun to feel safe.

I'd also hate to ever have to shoot someone and live with that after.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When people note that "crime rates have gone down" in this jurisdiction or that one, following the introduction of laws that increase the carrying of concealed handguns, the real comparison to make is not between that of two points in time within that jurisdiction, but rather between the best point in time of that jurisdiction and other jurisdictions where such weapons are NOT permitted. I'm certain that there are things done in Moscow that reduce street crime, just as there were many things the Taliban did during their hayday that reduced crime in Kabul. But on their best days, are either of those two cities the equal of the average Canadian city?

You can never completely disconnect the impact of any piece of legislation, whether weapons-related or otherwise, from the prevailing cultural and historical context where it is applied. My lord, can you imagine what the ability to carry concealed weapons would do to the Paris suburbs, to Bagdhad, or even to Toronto. Just try to imagine what such a shift would have done in New York City in the months following 9/11.

Besides, with the greying of the population, and the mistrust that occurs as urban centres become more diverse, the thought of people with slowed reaction time placing more of their faith in what's in the glove compartment than in their fellow human being does not bode well.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

I am not a supporter of getting rid of guns completely from our society. As I think doing so would make sure that only criminals had guns, leaving law abiding citizens at their mercy.
That being said, I do think that strict control of how guns are implemented in society need to be enforced. I don't have a problem with citizens carrying guns under strict guidelines. Such as regular psychiatric testing, extensive training program and licensing etc. Perhaps even a good requirement, if there are some who want to carry guns, is to require them to become auxiliary policeman and have them volunteer a certain amount of hours a month. We can't have people just carrying guns like its the wild west. 
My self I would not be a candidate for carrying a gun because honestly I don't feel at all comfortable with them. But I'm not opposed to others carrying if it can be made a positive thing.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I would hate having to be a crook and arming myself with bigger and badder weapons rather than being content with simpler smaller means in robbery... I mean, the 12-gauge is SO noticeable... but if the mark is prepared you bet I'd have to be MORE prepared.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> I would hate having to be a crook and arming myself with bigger and badder weapons rather than being content with simpler smaller means in robbery... I mean, the 12-gauge is SO noticeable... but if the mark is prepared you bet I'd have to be MORE prepared.


There are a few countries trying that theory and it's not working out for them either :smile:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

No. Why? You'll shoot yer eye out.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Oh No !!! Not Again !!!!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I sign virtually every post, "Peace", not because I'm some lapsed or latter day or wannabe hippie, but because I mean it. Guns are designed to kill people. I am opposed to killing people. We are already outgunned by crooks, so if it became legal to carry a gun for protection, expect to be *further* outgunned by crooks. I will not contribute to this downward spiral of stupidity.

Furthermore, I will not be drawn into a debate on it and my mind won't be changed by reading opinions here. Nonetheless, I have stated my own opinion so it doesn't appear that I would agree with guns by my silence. 

Regardless, GC should pull a gun on this thread and kill it.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> I sign virtually every post, "Peace", not because I'm some lapsed or latter day or wannabe hippie, but because I mean it. Guns are designed to kill people. I am opposed to killing people. We are already outgunned by crooks, so if it became legal to carry a gun for protection, expect to be *further* outgunned by crooks. I will not contribute to this downward spiral of stupidity.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


So the solution is to just continue being gunned down by the smaller guns. Yes the ultimate solution is to clamp down on criminals using guns in crime but that doesn't happen. Until then I'd rather see at least some intimidation against the crooks from the public.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Guns arent designed to kill people. Everyone has the choice of not shooting someone, shooting a warning shoot, or even shooting at a non-lethal target on your body. Those people choose to kill people, its not the guns choice. Just like a knife, car, drugs, machete, shovel, etc are not desgned to kill people, peole have choosen to use them that way. The people who designed those items are brilliant, the people who use them to kill are morons. Unfortunately Sturgeon's Law works on sets and subsets of people as well.........


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Perhaps if many people had more faith in the 'system' to protect them they wouldn't feel the need to take their personal protection into their own hands. They may have lost their faith due to examples from personal experience, media reports or whatever. Repeated examples of young girls like Jane Creba don't help.

That being said, how do you get such people to regain their faith? Scold them for being stupid enough to believe the papers? Lecture them with complicated statistics, demanding that they accept them as gospel?

Poor salesmanship and not likely to work.

The only thing I can think of is more public examples of people who illegally used guns (and here I don't equate a failure to register as equivalent to shooting up a busload of nuns and orphans!) being apprehended, tried, convicted and then sentenced with with what would be commonly accepted as sufficient punishment.

Things like concurrent sentences for multiple murders, double time for pre-trial custody, mandatory release after 2/3 of the sentence, life NOT meaning life and other points don't help the common impression.

Scolding people who have lost their faith only makes them tune you out as an elitist. Controlling the system so that they have no EFFECTIVE input into how it operates only makes them more contemptuous of it and more likely to think that they are left on their own for protection.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers but one thing I've learned about human nature is that once someone has lost faith with you then no amount of demanding, scolding or arguing will get it back. You have to SHOW them or they just ignore you!

Maybe if Jane Creba had been some mayor's daughter...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I'll keep my answer brief. NO.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Wow. Bill, very well put.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*Guns*

I am not a supporter of guns.. i would not like to see Canadians carrying heat in there glove box.. 

It will just bring road rage to a whole new level.


I have heard too many stories about people keeping a loaded hand gun in a bedroom incase of home invasion and ,they end up getting killed or they kill a family member.

The USA is full of crime, and Mexico is worse.What we need in Canada is not legal hand guns but stiffer laws , more cops and the Guardian Angels to patrol the streets, in major cities., and areas of concern.

Rick


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've been through threads like this a dozen times or more on music forums. One of the things that people forget far too often is that the role of weapons in a community varies considerably with the community. If you raise sheep somewhere that is NOT a 15 minute drive to the nearest Wendy's drive-thru window, a loaded shotgun or 22 rifle can be an essential aid to keeping your livestock safe. If you trap, you need a weapon. Do you "need" a weapon in Thornhill or Richmond? Personally, I don't think so. But the point is that there are VERY logical reasons for the presence of weapons in some parts of the country, where in others there is some dispute or points to discuss. This difference in context was one of the reasons why the firearms registry floundered - it assumed a one size fits all strategy, or at least was perceived as such.

Need is a separate issue from type of weapon, though. Just as livelihood-based need is separate from some personal-safety-based need.

The thing I always find bizarre about discussions about the "benefits" of citizens walking around with concealed weapons is that reaction-time is always left out of the discussion. The person who is intent on using a weapon would always have the upper hand, in terms of reaction time, over someone walking around with a pistol in their purse, glove compartment, or nightstand who is not prepared to use it. And if everyone walked around prepared to use a weapon, I'm not so sure that would be a particularly safe area.

For my part, the greatest aid to personal safety is to have enough people and lighting that there will always be witnesses, but not so many people that the irritability that results from crowding would work its magic. That, and not owning the sort of things that others covet, or showing them off.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Marc, I respect your intellect and opinion. I would, however, interject a couple of points in answer, which I am putting in bold below. Your first paragraph I agree with, so am editing out for space' sake.



mhammer said:


> The thing I always find bizarre about discussions about the "benefits" of citizens walking around with concealed weapons is that reaction-time is always left out of the discussion. The person who is intent on using a weapon would always have the upper hand, in terms of reaction time, over someone walking around with a pistol in their purse, glove compartment, or nightstand who is not prepared to use it. And if everyone walked around prepared to use a weapon, I'm not so sure that would be a particularly safe area.
> 
> *No argument about reaction time, but what if you're not the intended victim and focus? Someone else's life might be saved. Crooks know this too, and know they don't have eyes in the back of their heads. Oh, and though I favour licensed carry, I think the glove box is a ridiculous idea. You either have it on you or you don't - that's not directed at mh.*
> 
> ...


Again, no insult intended just a counter argument. I think you said earlier above that people will not agree on this topic, sadly I agree.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*guns*

I watch alot of US court TV, and sometimes its not the low-life you have to keep an eye on, not to get ambushed.
There was a case 2 years ago where a Fireman got sick and tired of all the noise next door to him, The kids would play basketball on the driveway and things like , then they had a 4th of July celebration , and set off some fireworks around 11 30 pm.

The fireman was in bed trying to sleep, he got up and went to a Kitchen drawer and pulled out a loaded 9 mil.
he went outside and there where 5 young adults around 20 yrs old.. He aimed the gun at one guy and the guy said , put the gun away and go back in the house.. he shot him in the chest, the guy fell down and said you F---Ing shot me.. the fireman stood over him and put two more bullets in his chest, then there was a guy and his girlfriend sitting on a blanket.. they didn't even see him do it,. and i suppose thought the shot where fireworks.

He put two bullet each in there backs and , they fell.. the next two people where farther away and said please don't shoot us.
He shot them both but the guy got hit in the arm and his girlfriend got hit in the hand.
The guy pulled the trigger again and the gun was empty.. he turned around and walked in the house.
End result 3 dead.. his reason.. he said he Snapped..

He had a wife and 2 kids.. he house was full of guns.. he was a collector.. there where many hand guns loaded with safety on.
He even had a M16..

So this is a rare event , but it just shows you, that you never know when somebody could go over the deep end.

Years ago i was riding my Motorcycle downtown and stop at a traffic light, i looked over and seen a young guy and girlfriend having a verbal fight. He looked at me and i just turned away.. before i knew it, he rushed across and hit me in the head. I had a helmet on so i didn't get hurt, but i almost lost the bike.. he was here and gone in seconds.
it happen so fast.
I often thought what if he had a hand gun on him, would he have shot me.. His emotions where running very high and he wanted to take out the problems he was having on somebody.
I happened to have eye contact with him, nothing else..I never said nothing to him.

There are people out there on the edge, that certainly shouldn't have excess to a weapon., such as a hand gun

Rick


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Yes.

kkjuw


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

I used to pack frequently when I had to go to the seedier parts of Vancouver (keep you legal lectures to yourselves pls.). I stopped because I was concerned what *if* I had to use it... death is forever.


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

One point that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. To take a human life is a terrible thing, even when the use of force is completely lawful.

If you are in law enforcement, and you exercise lethal force, your career is effectively over, even if you survive the suspension from active duty, investigation, and trial which will follow.

If you are a private citizen, you will be bankrupt by the time you get through the lawsuits from the criminal, or the criminal's family...assuming you are fortunate enough to escape being charged with a felony yourself.

At least that is how it was in the U.S. when I lived there.


----------



## Big White Tele (Feb 10, 2007)

I dont know how safe I'd feel with a gun in my pocket, knowing that everyone else on the street had one as well.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Guys, let's head over to some guns 'n' ammo forum and talk about tubes and fuzz pedals for a bit.


Good grief, I just found one, and it's a scary place: http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeromain?id=5
Tough guy, John Wayne fantasy, silverback posturing, chest beating, alpha male macho supremacy over rabbits it seems. It's Elmur Fudd meets Ted Nugent. Lots of MacCain/Palin sigs too. Scary, I'm not going in there alone...at least without packing heat.
_These_ are the people with guns? I hope they stay south of the border.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Guys, let's head over to some guns 'n' ammo forum and talk about tubes and fuzz pedals for a bit.


Your VERY funny ...


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Guys, let's head over to some guns 'n' ammo forum and talk about tubes and fuzz pedals for a bit.


<Elmer Fudd>

I'm game to be a wascal. Uhuhuhuhuhuh kkjuw

</Elmer Fudd>


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I would be happy if hand guns were restricted to law enforcement agencies.

They have no use other than to kill people. Target practice is a smoke screen. You could do that with lazers or video games.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Big White Tele said:


> I dont know how safe I'd feel with a gun in my pocket, knowing that everyone else on the street had one as well.


Thats exactly what you want all the thiefs to feel like. 

This is an interesting debate for us Canadians. Because most of us are looking at it in a different way. We are looking at it mostly from a safety standpoint. Many south of the border are actually in love with guns. I know many people over there that have multiple guns. If it were me and I was looking at owning one for safety, I would have one small gun. There would be no need to have 10 of them. But the culture over there is a bit different. Not that they are bad people, they have just grown up with the things. Outside of law enforcement, I have only ever seen two hand guns in my 46 years here in Canada. They were owned by a friend of mine and he invited me to go target shooting at a gun range one day. 

Not all, but many Americans take fierce pride in their guns. If you were to visit friends here in Canada they might show you their stamp collection or maybe a coin collection. In the states they might show you their gun collection. These are very nice people, I lived in the Detroit area 3 days a week for 12 years (in my former job) and have many friends over there. I may also point out that in all those years I never seen a hand gun on the street or ever witnessed an act of violence of any kind. But I knew that 1 in 3 probably owned one or more guns. 

There is a huge flea market off the highway heading into Detroit. I used to go there once in a while for the general flea market. But at least once a month they would have a gun show there and it was friggin packed. They just love guns. You should go into a Bass Outlet or any other similar Outdoors store. The gun sections are huge. 

Like I said, I lived over there at least 3 nights a week for 12 years. I shopped there, did groceries, went to movies and an bowling allies and all the things I do here at home. I never ran into an issue with guns or violence.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats exactly what you want all the thiefs to feel like.
> 
> This is an interesting debate for us Canadians. Because most of us are looking at it in a different way. We are looking at it mostly from a safety standpoint. Many south of the border are actually in love with guns. I know many people over there that have multiple guns. If it were me and I was looking at owning one for safety, I would have one small gun. There would be no need to have 10 of them. But the culture over there is a bit different. Not that they are bad people, they have just grown up with the things. Outside of law enforcement, I have only ever seen two hand guns in my 46 years here in Canada. They were owned by a friend of mine and he invited me to go target shooting at a gun range one day.
> 
> ...


And yet, the per capita gun violence in the US is undeniably higher than it is in Canada.

When you DO get to see the gun violence, it's often very "up close and personal".


I'll take the paper cuts you get with your neighbour's stamp collection, thank you.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> And yet, the per capita gun violence in the US is undeniably higher than it is in Canada.
> 
> When you DO get to see the gun violence, it's often very "up close and personal".
> 
> ...


I am not advocating either way. I don't even want a gun. Never have. I simply throw out my personal views based on my 46 years of life experience. I still think it's a culture thing. When we were kids and a police officer might walk into a store or something you would look at that gun and be... amazed, scared... because we never seen guns anywhere. Certainly not in our homes. But in the states a kid of 10 or 12 may have seen guns a thousand times. So they are not so wowed as we were when they seen one elsewhere. 

I am a firm believer that if you want to commit an act of violence against another human being you are going to do it with or without a gun. depending on the severity of the situation you are going to beat them to death with your bare hands. It's the person, it's what's inside them that makes them do what they do. I know that I could never do that to someone without a very, very good reason. It is just not inside of me to do it. But that is not to say I would not defend myself or my family. The same as any one of you would do. I challenge any one of you to tell me that if you had a family member in a life or death situation and you had a weapon at your disposal that you would not use it. Any weapon. You could live your whole life (and I hope you do) and not face that situation. 

These people, the majority of us, I would not care one iota if they owned a gun. Because I know that they are like me. They would never use a gun or other weapon for reasons other than personal protection. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are cracks. You will always get the odd one that slips through the cracks. You will also always have those that cannot live within the confines of a civilized, structured society. It is those people that cannot be trusted. 

Guns killed millions in the first and second world wars. They probably could have had fist fights and maybe solved the issues. But I am glad our side won. Killing is ugly, it will never be pretty. But so far, it has been a neccessity in some cases. 

PS: you can also buy booze anywhere in the States and just about anytime. sigiifa


----------



## Jimi D (Oct 27, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Guns arent designed to kill people. Everyone has the choice of not shooting someone, shooting a warning shoot, or even shooting at a non-lethal target on your body. Those people choose to kill people, its not the guns choice. Just like a knife, car, drugs, machete, shovel, etc are not desgned to kill people, peole have choosen to use them that way. The people who designed those items are brilliant, the people who use them to kill are morons. Unfortunately Sturgeon's Law works on sets and subsets of people as well.........


Huh? The sole reason for the existence of handguns is to threaten or kill your fellow man. The sole reason for carrying one is to be able to threaten or kill people. There is no other "raison d'etre" for these weapons: killing people is EXACTLY and ONLY what they are designed to do. It is why they exist. Period. 

As for the idea that "training" somehow offsets power: shooting a warning shot? where? straight up in the air? not much threat there, but shooting anywhere else risks hitting someone/something not involved... and I love this: "shooting at a non-lethal target on your body"... Anyone who has fired a handgun (and yes, I've done it, lots - my father was a policeman and a hunter and he damned well made sure his boys knew how to shoot!) knows that the chances of hitting what you are aiming at with an easily carried handgun at a range of more than ten or fifteen feet are crap unless you're being very careful, very precise, and very controlled... Unfortunately, when threatened with violence or death, most people are none of those things, and so are very unlikely to hit anything at all...

Case in point: I remember sitting in Ralphs on St. Laurent & Smyth Rd. with my brother back around 1989-90 getting comfortably pissed when some nutcase went off his meds and pulled a .22 pistol on his "friend" in a corner booth... He emptied the thing (five rounds) at the guy sitting across the table from him in the corner, and with those five rounds he managed to chew up the wall and the bench, but he never hit his intended target - every shot missed, from maybe 6 feet away. Brilliant! So, he ran away. Then the cops came and took his name and had him collared in a couple hours... Of course, if everyone there had been carrying a handgun, there would have been fifty gun-ho drunks firing wildly at one corner of the bar. I'm sure that would have proved very helpful...

As for Switzerland, sure they have conscription - everyone learns to use a weapon. They certainly have different carry laws (based on "need", at the discretion of the Canton), but I don't believe for an instant that "everyone carries handguns". They have highly restrictive licensing laws, so getting your handgun in the first place is no mean feat, and they have a strong municipal police presense (they have automatic weapons!) and a culture that accepts that anyone might be subject to a "police check" at any time (always carry your papers in Switzerland). The idea of "need" is open for debate, but the suggestion is that if you don't have a good reason for carrying your weapon (and I don't think "self defense" qualifies), the police will relieve you of it. 

The simple facts are that where a significant number of people in a population carry handguns, the number of deaths due to gunshot wounds leaps up exponentially, and it's easy to see why. It is, after all, really hard to kill someone when you have to use a knife, an axe, a shovel, whatever... You have to get up close and personal to do that, and the vast, vast majority of people living in the Western world are not reflexively capable of that level of violence. Personally, I also feel very comfortable with my ability to defend myself against anybody who cares to threaten me with a knife or a bat or whatever. Bring it on... Guns, otoh, are different. Any ****ing idiot can pull a trigger. Guns make killing too easy.

Bottom line: I wouldn't live in a country where people were permitted to carry handguns, and any culture that permits and encourages it has serious, deeply-rooted problems, imho.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jimi D said:


> The simple facts are that where a significant number of people in a population carry handguns, the number of deaths due to gunshot wounds leaps up exponentially, and it's easy to see why.



Exactly right.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Jimi D said:


> Bottom line: I wouldn't live in a country where people were permitted to carry handguns, and any culture that permits and encourages it has serious, deeply-rooted problems, imho.


9kkhhd +1!

I have to wonder though about our morbid fascination with this subject. it keeps popping up quite regularly on this, and I suspect other, boards.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I was at a dinner for a Swiss researcher who was in town, and was surprised to learn that, although the law requires you to keep the weapon in your home (so as to be available to defend your country), the ammunition itself is to be kept separate in a sealed container and any sign that the seal has been broken without justification is punishable by law. The rifle is for national civil defense by a militia and for NO OTHER USE. In some respects, this is a more direct and literal implementation of the American constitutional amendment about militias being essential to the freedom of the state. The part about the weapon being kept deliberately unloaded is often lost on folks who will raise the example of Switzerland as a place chock full of weapons but low in weapons-related homicide.

My own views on weapons were forged around 1962 or so. My sister and I were at home with our babysitter, when the doorbell rang. It was the older brother of the babysitter there to tell her that their little brother had blown a hole through their little sister with a shotgun, while pretending to be "The Untouchables" (a TV crime drama popular at the time, and replete with tommy-gun shootings). It was one of the saddest days of my life.

For some of us, it is the tragic "unintended" uses of weapons that lead us to want them out of public reach, and to want them secured when in public reach. It's the kids who use them innocently but fatally. It's the suicides. It's the domestic homicides. And it's the nutbar firefighters, and people in traffic jams, for whom a bit of swearing or finger-gesturing (or shoe-throwing) just doesn't seem to be sufficient. If you wouldn't keep explosives around the house, why on earth would you keep firearms around?

As for the oft-touted scenario of defending one's family, in my five and a half decades, living from one coast to the other, I have yet to actually meet anyone faced with such a situation. In a culture that grows ever more impatient as result of all those things and habits that teach us that *right now* is our God-given entitlement (cellphones, downloading, microwave ovens, air travel, easy credit, etc., etc.), and a culture that encourages us to yield to any impulse we may feel, whether carnal, economical, hedonistic, or anger-driven, devices that bring instant power and the outward appearance of instant conflict resolution are not exactly in anyone's best interests.

But again, I fully accept that people in this wonderful country live very different lives.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> 9kkhhd +1!
> 
> I have to wonder though about our morbid fascination with this subject. it keeps popping up quite regularly on this, and I suspect other, boards.


The pro-people feel the need to try and counter the mass disinformation from the anti's. They anti's feel the same way about the pro's.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Jimi D said:


> when some nutcase went off his meds and pulled a .22 pistol


In my mind your whole message was lost with this one sentance above. How did this person get possesion of a gun? What maniac sold him one? 

The question you ask yourself is would you do that? first, would you go drinking with a loaded gun in your pocket? Would you pull it on a "friend"? Would you kill someone over a simple argument or dis-agreement? Of course not. You are talking about, very frankly, lets get down to it here... retards. Someone that is actually not all there to begin with. They are retarded, plain and simple. You don't give guns to these people. But on the other hand note this. If you want something bad enough you are going to get it. If this retard wanted a gun that bad and knew the right people (which clearly this low life knows) he will aquire a gun, much cheaper than you and I would aquire it legally. They "have" to have it. Either to use in their profession (robbery, drug dealing etc) or to be "cool".

Would any of you own a gun for those reasons? if so put yourself in the retarded category. Seriously. 

I can tell you this for certain. If I owned a thousand guns none of you would ever have to fear me. I am not retarded. I wont go to a bar with loaded hand gun. I wont flash it to my friends to amaze and entertain them. I wont rob you or threaten you with it. I am not retarded.

Let me tell you about the kind of people you need to fear. About 20 years ago I clipped out of the paper a story of a dude about 20 years old. He was left with a 2 year old boy of his girlfriends, I think she was out trying to score at the time. He was held up with this guy in a hotel room in St Kitts. They had a picture of the little guy in the paper. Had the sweetest face you ever seen. Well I guess the little guy was crying over something and this dude had taken about all his mind could handle. He proceeded to throw that child off every wall in the hotel room. He bashed his skull in, broke his back. His Mother could not recognize him. I literally could not sleep for about 3 nights after that. I clipped it out and put the story away. I thought to myself, as all you sane people here would. "How in God's holy name could you ever do that to a two year old child?" I will tell you why... he was and is RETARDED. Or whatever politically correct 21st century label you want to put on a mentally defective unit.

These are the people you need to fear friends. Not me, not Mike, not Kurt and not 99.9% of us here. Give that guy a gun and he will end up using it for purposes not intended. 

But what you need to clearly understand is that these people have fallen through the cracks. They WILL commit violence against the rest of us. With a gun, with a knife or with their bare hands. Only difference is maybe you are not 20 pounds like that little guy was and instead he will use the gun on you.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Milkman said:


> They have no use other than to kill people. Target practice is a smoke screen. You could do that with lazers or video games.


I've been shooting handguns for close to 40 years now.

You might be surprised to find out I have never killed anyone. I have enjoyed years of punching holes in paper though.

And anyone that has come out to the range with me has really enjoyed it.

So, IMO you are very wrong, target shooting IS a sport. Actually an Olympic sport I think. If you'd rather play video games, that's great. Have fun. I find them extremely boring and not worth my time.

However, target shooting fits nicely within our gun laws. Guns are locked up, in a gun safe, in the basement. Ammunition is kept separately, not in the same safe. You need permits to buy and to own, you need a permit to transport to the range. Every gun owner I've ever met is 100% responsible. Which makes sense, the guys you have to worry about are the ones that get a gun without a permit.

I remember something I read in a Gun magazine years ago, the author suggested, and I tend to agree, the best weapon for self defense is still a really good dog.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Again just throwing in my viewpoints in bold.



Jimi D said:


> Huh? The sole reason for the existence of handguns is to threaten or kill your fellow man. The sole reason for carrying one is to be able to threaten or kill people. There is no other "raison d'etre" for these weapons: killing people is EXACTLY and ONLY what they are designed to do. It is why they exist. Period.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> ...


Actually, carry permits ARE available in Canada. Not very many are issued. Will that be American Van Lines or Allied coming to do the move for you? 9kkhhd:wave::smilie_flagge17:


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

As MOOH said - PEACE. I am a supporter of private ownership of firearms but do not own any myself. A more liberal interpretation of concealed carry laws leaves me rather uncomfortable. There would likely be vigorous debate over what tests would be required for a private citizen to carry a firearm.
Nontheless - I go back to my first sentence - PEACE. We, as a society, need to take a step back and chill out. We get wound up and angry over so many little things. If we all worked a little harder at not being offended and putting daily happenings into perspective, giving the other person a break or some space then maybe our collective blood pressure would go down.

PEACE and UNDERSTANDING

Brian


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I would be happy if hand guns were restricted to law enforcement agencies.
> 
> They have no use other than to kill people. Target practice is a smoke screen. You could do that with lazers or video games.




Lasers or video games? You have got to be kidding me. I'm not quite sure how I'd target practice with a laser, and I'd really like to note that video games have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Particularly as in video games I've haven't seen many 'target' shooting games, it's mostly all about killing virtual people. I'm going to do myself a favor and ignore the bulk of this thread, and we all know it aint going anywhere anyway, but that was just funny.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just to clarify, it is my understanding that, as an effectively conscripted member of the Swiss militia, one is obliged to have a rifle at the ready in one's home such that no one has to issue you a rifle should you ever be required to serve a military role. I gather the idea is that if Hannibal ever comes elephant-riding over the Alps again, they just phone you up, you go home, open up the closet, grab the rifle and can of bullets, and show up for duty. And, as noted, the bullets are kept separate from the weapon and are to be sealed unless there is a military requirement to open them.

While one would certainly expect sanity to be a pre-requisite of being able to access a weaon, unfortunately sanity is not a sufficient condition for responsible use of a weapon, whether that weapon has a trigger or five fingers. I would rather not use Scott's term "retarded" since it has particular meanings within the clinical community and has a pejorative use outside of it. So I will simply say that social insight, and lack thereof, is a principal cause of aggression, violence and homicide. People generally tend to respond to perceived threat with aggression, but when they don't understand other humans particularly well, they tend to overinterpret the benign AS threat. It's the "You talking to me? Are YOU talkin' to ME?" phenomenon. As can be expected, when overall reasoning is compromised, by mind/mood-altering substances, capacity to judge the motives of others is also compromised, and mistaken perception of threat can be increased.

There is also the anger and frustration born of misinterpreting what people want or think. There is a research literature, for example, that examines understanding of infant crying. The researcher plays recordings of infants crying to adults and asks them to interpret what the infant is crying about. When adults who have been referred (or self-referred) to programs for physical abuse, or high risk of physical abuse, are compared against age-matched adults who have no history of abuse, they tend to misjudge what the infant is crying about significantly more often. The kid may be crying because the diaper is all pissed up, or because they are overstimulated, and the "regular" adult can tell from the tone of the cry, but the abusive parent thinks the kid is hungry or tired. Of course, if you misjudge the infant's needs/motives, and respond to THAT, obviously the kid will not stop crying. Naturally, the adult gets frustrated by the child's seeming inability to stop crying, and starts to think of the infant as deliberately trying to piss THEM off.

The long and the short of it is that it is not enough to simply know that a person is "not nuts" in order to predict that they will be a responsible weapon owner/user. And the laundry list of other things you'd need to know about them to be able to assure _a priori_ that they would be low risk is essentially what a parole board would need to know to judge risk to re-offend. And of course, I think we are all familiar with how seldom that gets done well, and how resource consuming it is.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Stealing Mooh's post in another thread as part of my new year resolution to stop taking stuff so seriously. And I think this thread needs a bit of levity after all the raging firemen and baby bashers.

[youtube=Option]zlfKdbWwruY[/youtube]

I know I know, kkjwpw


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

This topic comes up again and againkqoct
Guns were invented for war.In was watching a documantary where this guy goes around the uk looking for things to blow up,it was pretty cool actually.At one point in this show they showed what was probably the first gun.It was a very crude cannon that instead of shooting cannon balls shot a very large arrow.So yes,guns were invented to kill people.And to the comments about mentally unstable people being kept away from firearms,well the fact is most people with schizophrenia are more likely to be shot rather than to shoot any one.Of course there are exceptions as with all things but that is the plain truth,google it or live in ignorance,wont matter to me.Now i for one would not buy a handgun,maybe a rifle for hunting moose or caribou and shot gun for water foul and grouse but that is it.Owning a gun is a privilege,i was brought up as a trappers son and was taught never to point a gun at anyone,not even a toy gun!If i ever owned a gun it would be for hunting as i was taught all guns are good for."Eat what you kill" was in my upbringing and i am not a cannibal kkjuw


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Just to clarify, it is my understanding that...


There is a flaw in the comparative logistics means of supplanting an argument that holds social ramifications or actions at its heart when contrasting differing nations and the behaviours of those nations. Mr. Hammer has the start of some clarifications, and good observations of the human side of the equation, that are needed parts of just such a discussion. The information needed though is really a lot of reading, and far more reading than most people will want especially in the face of an arguement:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

That document is simply a ranking of nations based on health care and where Canada is seated in that list. It is maybe interesting to note that Switzerland does sit higher in the ranks than Canada. What does that mean? How does Switzerland having a longer life span than Canadians affect the discussion of owning lethal weapons? Does it aid the discussion to not the Swiss all own guns? Does it detract by showing Canadians have not the same level of personal health?

To hold a reasoned discussion on the topic "why does Switzerland have so many guns and so little violence?" you do need to know all the things that are the same and all the things that are different between these nations. In 15 minutes of general reading on-line, I have found that the population of Switzerland can be equivalent to the population found within a 1 hour drive of Mississauga. That one hour drive represents far less land than the country of Switzerland, even though Canada as a nation is on the opposite end of the list of nations-by-size than Switzerland. Do we have elevated crime due to overcrowding or failing to make effective use of the space this nation holds, or due to the lower levels of oxygen found in crowded urban centers (hehe that was a debate I had in university 20 years ago)? Do we hold fear more because in our congested means of living we breath in far more automotive and industrial pollution? Does our elevated rates of obesity by comparison relate to side chemical shifts that can affect neurotransmitters resulting in a greater level of general social paranoia in Canada than in Switzerland? (Yes. there have been studies that have shown a psychology shift in people with excesse fat, in Canada that is nearly 19% of the population, 1 in 5 people not thinking clearly).

Sure, Switzerland and a lot of European nations (not sure of the exacts but then, I don't care) have mandatory military training at 18. These same nations very very rarely make the news in their own countries let alone on the world stage for criminal atrocities. To ponder the "why" and the "what makes them so different" is really an errand so complex as to almost be a lost cause, certainly a lost cause in a guitar forum. 

Why does Switzerland work? Its been around about 800 years, they have had 800 years of practice at making it work... our 100something pales in comparison and really the way Canada has been going it is very doubtful we will make 800 ever ourselves. We are not founded on the needs of mutual trust and cooperation and protection; we are a nation founded by independently driven pioneers that took wagons alone across land that often saw the families die before getting where they were going. How we arrose is by a means so vastly different than Switzerland, there can be virtually no comparisons made about our national-psychology to them.

For myself, I do not nor will I own a gun. I, like many, cheered this song:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjHior0RfU]nOjHior0RfU[/youtube]


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Tuli Kupferberg, my favourite octagenerian rascal and lifetime member of legendary beat musicians The Fugs, says there are basically only 3 jokes: I'm stupid, you're stupid, and we're all stupid. That video nails the 3rd one right on. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLQi8JWfdM


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> The information needed though is really a lot of reading, and far more reading than most people will want especially in the face of an argument.


Couldn't agree more. Far too many sorts of partisan comparisons tend to be made on the basis of very select examples and selective depictions of those contexts. You can't just pluck a policy or expectation from "here" and apply it "there" willy nilly.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The amazing thing about the US, is that Im sure at sometime, someone might have thought that if you handed out guns to everyone, all the whackos would end up killing each other off and you'd have only the best people to build a society. For some reason, that country has never run out of whackos. (My dig at US whackos for the day.)............


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

xuthal said:


> i ever owned a gun it would be for hunting as i was taught all guns are good for."Eat what you kill" was in my upbringing and i am not a cannibal kkjuw



We have several in the house (locked up of course) The Crossbow scares me more than the guns. But I have learned to really enjoy venison and Wild Turkey.... We host wild game evenings and it's amazing how different it is from the wrapped stuff in the grocery store. 9kkhhd


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> We have several in the house (locked up of course) The Crossbow scares me more than the guns. But I have learned to really enjoy venison and Wild Turkey.... We host wild game evenings and it's amazing how different it is from the wrapped stuff in the grocery store. 9kkhhd


I am a firm believer that if we as a nation decided to eat wild meat and organically raised animals instead of the processed cow,solmonila infested poultry,and tapeworm infested pork we would bring down childhood obesity and would be much more healthier.In my community the risk of diabetes in natives is growing.Thats what happens when a peoples diet is drastically altered.It also shows how unhealthy the foods we eat are.
But i digest....
Guns have only one use as i see it,to feed your family when hard times come.With that said i dont think we should ban guns entirely.Just the handguns.


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

I for one would be carrying. I love and respect guns, though I don't currently own any.

I agree that we could do it and not wind up like the US - keep tabs and lots of regular required training.

On another note, it completely boggles my mind that cops are not required to carry a sidearm when they are off duty. I believe they _can_ in Calgary, but I'm not 100% on that point. I have a friend who, a couple of years ago was off duty and out for dinner with his wife, when he was recognized by a known gun-packing fellow (and friends) who was put away by him a few years earlier. It was a very stressful event and could have easily ended badly, but most likely would not have gotten to the point it transgressed to if my friend had been armed.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

A shining example of why we appear to be mature enough as a culture to pack heat - look at this and the political thread. Two topics guaranteed to get locked within three pages at most any other forum. We have handled ourselves for the most part very civilized with words hiding behind an IP address only the admins can see.

How much more responsible would we be IRL?

I for one would feel very safe with any of you so far if you were armed :smile:

Cheers!


----------



## Jimi D (Oct 27, 2008)

keto said:


> The simple facts are that where a significant number of people in a population carry handguns, the number of deaths due to gunshot wounds leaps up exponentially, and it's easy to see why.
> *"The simple fact" ?? I'd rather see backup on that, source?*


Here's some fast ones about our neighbour to the south - you can google more if you feel so inclined. The simple truth of the matter is that anyone who denies a direct correlation between access to handguns and gun violence is delusional. Literally. We're talking a suitable case for treatment. In fact, that kind of myopia should be grounds for denying someone a gun license in any civilized country... but I digress...


> Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
> The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
> American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
> *and my personal favorite:*
> ...


Canada has a population approximately 1/10th of the US, but our gun violence is less than 1% (or 10% PER CAPITA) of what theirs is... We're very similar countries in many, many respects, but Canada's gun laws are stricter - even though we have nearly as many firearms PER CAPITA in private hands. Go figure... 



keto said:


> Actually, carry permits ARE available in Canada. Not very many are issued. Will that be American Van Lines or Allied coming to do the move for you? 9kkhhd:wave::smilie_flagge17:


Carry permits are damned hard to acquire in this country, and that's the way I like it. 

I have no problem with rifles and shotguns. I have no problem with hunting. I am a HUGE supporter of Ducks Unlimited and I grew up in a culture of hunting, fishing and trapping. Firearms per sé are not something I am overly concerned about. Handguns, however, are a completely different issue. I advocate the highly restricted ownership of handguns, with very strict licensing and carry laws. That's pretty close to what we have now, but I'd like to see things made more efficient and accountable.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Ok, I just can't stay away.



Jimi D said:


> The simple truth of the matter is that anyone who denies a direct correlation between access to handguns and gun violence is delusional.


Not so.

For example, Canada's homicide rate (per 100k) is roughly 1.9 right now. It's late and I'm citing Wikipedia so correct me if that's off. According to 2006 stats, again apologize for being lazy and not getting more recent data, New Hampshire and Utah (two states with minimal gun control, there are even hundreds of Canadians with CCW permits issued from Utah), have rates of 1.0 and 1.8 per 100k. However, the same source states that Louisiana had a rate of 12.4. 

There is no direct correlation between access to guns and gun violence. There is more to crime stats than that. If only it was that easy, but it's not.

After writing a handful of papers on the subject, I can honestly say that I firmly believe that access to firearms does not equate to misuse of said firearms. As has already been mentioned, take a look at Switzerland. I believe other factors including gang violence, drugs and the nature of the black market economy, and failings in our various medical and social welfare systems as it relates to mental health are the problem.

I'd also like to note this, from Stats Can.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/081023/dq081023a-eng.htm


> Gang-related homicides continue to increase
> 
> Gang-related homicides, which include the killing of gang members as well as innocent bystanders, have been increasing since this information was first collected in 1991.
> 
> ...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

dwagar said:


> I've been shooting handguns for close to 40 years now.
> 
> You might be surprised to find out I have never killed anyone. I have enjoyed years of punching holes in paper though.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you haven't killed anyone. That's a good quality.

Would you not enjoy target shooting with a device that simuated the ral thing in a non lethal way?

bang

a digital hole appears in the blue screen at the end of the range? Heck we could even throw in the smell of cordite and devise a way to make the gun recoil.



I've been to a gun range. I've been trap shooting. I've hunted, both with long guns and with bows.

I maintain that the core purpose for a handgun is to kill people.

Not everyone who owns one will do so, but as they can't be uninvented I'd prefer to see them severely restricted.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

happydude said:


> Lasers or video games? You have got to be kidding me. I'm not quite sure how I'd target practice with a laser, and I'd really like to note that video games have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Particularly as in video games I've haven't seen many 'target' shooting games, it's mostly all about killing virtual people. I'm going to do myself a favor and ignore the bulk of this thread, and we all know it aint going anywhere anyway, but that was just funny.


Ok,

People on both sides of this issue are pretty much firm in their opinions.

If you think that the technology to simulate the experience of shooting a conventional gun is unavailable or impossible, then THAT's the funny one.

If all you want to do is to develop the ability to put a hole in a sheet of paper from a distance why do you need a device that is purpose designed to kill people?

I guess I'd laugh too, but I don't really find guns funny.

To each their own eh?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I maintain that the core purpose for a handgun is to kill people.
> 
> Just my opinion of course.


I dont want to pick on you Milkman, because you have correctly qualified your statement as opinion, but I would like to address this sentiment. From the time that the human race was Neandrethal or **** Erectus, we were hunters and gatherers. If you believe this, then you can see the invention of the gun as being for hunting. However, there are people who believe in Kane and Abel instead, and I can definately see how they see the gun as being invented to kill people, because of the implications of the story. I think you can combine both of these and see that guns are for hunting and weapons are for killing. No one needs an Uzi. It is useless for hunting, and they are dangerous. We need to make sure people who are anti-gun try to make a distingtion between guns that are made for hunting and weapons made solely for killing. However, I am a fan of certain handguns for their excellence in engineering, and design. But I have no problems if the law said I could collect these guns if they were disabled for use. If the triggers were removed and kept seperate, and a false trigger were installed you can still admire the unit. As was pointed out with Switzerland, ammo is sealed. But do you honestly believe that if the US had the same system, there would be lower levels of gun crime? They would break the seal and still kill each other. Americans kill Americans because they seem to want to, its not the guns fault. People need to realize you cant uninvent a gun. You cant sweep it under the rug. It has to be dealt with, and a ban only allows those willing to break the law to own guns. And to combine a point by Jim with a point by you, I also would hate to live in a society where I need a gun to feel safe, but I would also hate to live in a society where only the cops and governments have guns............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I dont want to pick on you Milkman, because you have correctly qualified your statement as opinion, but I would like to address this sentiment. From the time that the human race was Neandrethal or **** Erectus, we were hunters and gatherers. If you believe this, then you can see the invention of the gun as being for hunting. However, there are people who believe in Kane and Abel instead, and I can definately see how they see the gun as being invented to kill people, because of the implications of the story. I think you can combine both of these and see that guns are for hunting and weapons are for killing. No one needs an Uzi. It is useless for hunting, and they are dangerous. We need to make sure people who are anti-gun try to make a distingtion between guns that are made for hunting and weapons made solely for killing. However, I am a fan of certain handguns for their excellence in engineering, and design. But I have no problems if the law said I could collect these guns if they were disabled for use. If the triggers were removed and kept seperate, and a false trigger were installed you can still admire the unit. As was pointed out with Switzerland, ammo is sealed. But do you honestly believe that if the US had the same system, there would be lower levels of gun crime? They would break the seal and still kill each other. Americans kill Americans because they seem to want to, its not the guns fault. People need to realize you cant uninvent a gun. You cant sweep it under the rug. It has to be dealt with, and a ban only allows those willing to break the law to own guns. And to combine a point by Jim with a point by you, I also would hate to live in a society where I need a gun to feel safe, but I would also hate to live in a society where only the cops and governments have guns............



I thought I was clear, but....


I said HANDguns.

Yes, rifles and shotguns are more geared to hunting.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

kksjur I was thinking about this very thing this morning, about how friendly and civilized we are over here compared to other boards. Sometimes I think that's why a certain person may or may not have left. Certainly why some other people have been banned. It's very nice that we can come here and espouse contrary opinion with out being called a troll or a moron!

BTW, I'm with you MM Ban all handguns! 9kkhhd

Cheers!

Lisa


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Debate and discussion (civilized and with respect) is part of the reason a lot of us log in here every day. I enjoy reading all the different takes on all the subjects we discuss. The cornerstone of our rules and regulations is "respect all opinions". If that rule is observed by everyone than I feel that any subject is open for discussion. 

As for this one, I have stated earlier that I don't own any guns. Don't feel I need any right now. Have never been a hunter. Love to fish though. However, I do strongly believe that violence, of any kind is rooted in the individual. You still have to be able to take a hand gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger. You have to have a very good reason in order to do that. Without the very good reason, then there is something else, something sinister, evil or "mental" going on. I also strongly believe that we have a growing problem in this country with youth violence and the amount of hand guns and automatic weapons being used (primarily on each other) ie gang vs gang or in use with robbery etc. 

Where are they getting these weapons? We need to put a stop to the illegal import and dealing of these weapons. it is not your average citizen that needs to be feared with gun ownership. Just yesterday another random gun battle in Toronto. A youth chasing two others firing a gun. Where are they getting these guns?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Eventually, guns will become obsolete, so there wont be much of a debate later. I can see in the near future when we send off an intelligent flying nanobot that can inject something to induce stasis. It will make hunting safer and at least it wont be killing any innocent bystanders when criminlas get their hands on them............


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Where are they getting these weapons? We need to put a stop to the illegal import and dealing of these weapons. it is not your average citizen that needs to be feared with gun ownership. Just yesterday another random gun battle in Toronto. A youth chasing two others firing a gun. Where are they getting these guns?


Unfortunately as the News Headlines attested last year, If they don't have guns they use knives... That Stabbing that happened a few weeks ago in Oshawa affected me deeply. WTF? I was _happy _that the police killed the perp and I could not believe I felt that way, but to stab a 3 year old and the rest of that family???? In most cases it seems to be kids killing kids, guns are one thing, but man, stabbing someone is up close and personal.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

happydude said:


> Not so.
> 
> For example, Canada's homicide rate (per 100k) is roughly 1.9 right now. It's late and I'm citing Wikipedia so correct me if that's off. According to 2006 stats, again apologize for being lazy and not getting more recent data, New Hampshire and Utah (two states with minimal gun control, there are even hundreds of Canadians with CCW permits issued from Utah), have rates of 1.0 and 1.8 per 100k. However, the same source states that Louisiana had a rate of 12.4.
> 
> There is no direct correlation between access to guns and gun violence. There is more to crime stats than that. If only it was that easy, but it's not.


I think if we allowed guns here, the stats would change. We have alot of ****heads as well here. However, I would blame the ****heads and not the guns.........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Gun lovers always maintain that the problem with gun violence is the people involved, not the easy access to handguns.

Pitbull owners have similar opinions about their beloved animals.



Both tend to ignore the nature of the beast.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Starbuck said:


> Unfortunately as the News Headlines attested last year, If they don't have guns they use knives... That Stabbing that happened a few weeks ago in Oshawa affected me deeply. WTF? I was _happy _that the police killed the perp and I could not believe I felt that way, but to stab a 3 year old and the rest of that family???? In most cases it seems to be kids killing kids, guns are one thing, but man, stabbing someone is up close and personal.


Exactly what I am talking about. I used the word "retarded" in my other post. Well thats just me and the way I talk some time. But there is something wrong. Deeply wrong with some of these kids today. Violence seems to come so easily to them. There is no denying that youth today is not what it was when I was growing up. The "tough" guys I grew up with would just beat the shit out of you when they wanted something. Now it's knives and guns.

The problem has been ignored and magnified IMO by the way we as a society have sissified and babied that generation. They have been given everything on a silver platter and if they don't get what they feel they deserve they take it. The laws have become too lax and they are very simply "getting away with murder"


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> Gun lovers always maintain that the problem with gun violence is the people involved, not the easy access to handguns.
> 
> Pitbull owners have similar opinions about their beloved animals.
> 
> ...


Mike, I think you have to split that in two groups, at least for this discussion. There are truly "gun lovers". I have met many of them. But there are also legit gun collectors and gun owners. Like millions of people that own one gun for personal reasons. In order to debate this issue we cannot lump everyone into the "gun lover" category. I certainly don't love them, don't even own one but I don't see banning them from your everyday Joe as the answer to the violence going on today.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Ok,
> 
> People on both sides of this issue are pretty much firm in their opinions.
> 
> ...


You know, I typed up a more professional response but I deleted it for a better analogy. Using technology to simulate firearms is like having a Real Doll. It simulates the same thing, but it just aint the same. largetongue

To each their own indeed.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> I think if we allowed guns here, the stats would change. We have alot of ****heads as well here. However, I would blame the ****heads and not the guns.........


Well, apparently, Canadians own more guns per capita than are owned (or at least known about) in the US. But then, consider how many of us live in the north, or hunt.
Scott said:


> The "tough" guys I grew up with would just beat the shit out of you when they wanted something. Now it's knives and guns.


Perhaps that's because of more individuals, per capita, attempting to be "the tough guy". You know, that *other* kind of child soldier.

We're off to visit with my wife's family and their assorted in-laws tomorrow. One of them was a detective in the Jane/Finch area for a number of years, prior to his retirement a few years ago. He has many stories to tell. As for keeping handguns out of Canada, he scoffs at any such objectives. As far as he's concerned, getting restricted weapons into Canada is as easy as asking your vacationing aunt to drive a vintage car back from Arizona for you that you purchased off e-bay from a collector. Meanwhile the wheel wells or seats are chock full of stuff, and your unsuspecting 70 year-old aunt does not fit the profile border guards would scrutinize more closely.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> Well, apparently, Canadians own more guns per capita than are owned (or at least known about) in the US. But then, consider how many of us live in the north, or hunt.
> Scott said:
> Perhaps that's because of more individuals, per capita, attempting to be "the tough guy". You know, that *other* kind of child soldier.
> 
> We're off to visit with my wife's family and their assorted in-laws tomorrow. One of them was a detective in the Jane/Finch area for a number of years, prior to his retirement a few years ago. He has many stories to tell. As for keeping handguns out of Canada, he scoffs at any such objectives. As far as he's concerned, getting restricted weapons into Canada is as easy as asking your vacationing aunt to drive a vintage car back from Arizona for you that you purchased off e-bay from a collector. Meanwhile the wheel wells or seats are chock full of stuff, and your unsuspecting 70 year-old aunt does not fit the profile border guards would scrutinize more closely.


Whats the age old saying? "Where there's a will, there's a way". This is what needs to be fixed, if at all possible. Not Joe Blow and his legal gun collection.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

In reference to another thread here about BluRay and TV, I watched the movie Lethal Weapon the other day streamed as linked by STC here on my computer. I like the series. Same of the Die Hard series. Both these shows do use LOTS of guns and LOTS of violance as their focus. Though I am part of a changing means and focus of life, on the forfront as all of us on-line really are, stil for me these movies appease the animale side of my genetics, a part that has not changed in humans in hundereds of years. The Romans may no longer throw Christians to the Lions, that is not to say people would not pay to see that done again today.

Now, sitting and reading this thread today, I was going to quote and mention something I already did say, when I realised the movie Lethal Weapon 2 does illustrate a great part of what I was thinking. There is, near the end, a fight in the home under construction, where the officer Roger Murtaugh uses a nail-gun to dispatch the assailants.

I think for the average age of posters here I see, I think many have seen the movie and know this referance. Pertainent to this thread is that a TOOL was used as a LETHAL WEAPON.

In the hands of police, military officers, and security guards, hand guns are a tool. They are part of the job of protection and enforcement. That said, they are very rarely used, the people involved have to file forms and justify their use, and the rules they follow are many (and still we as a society feel not so many as that we can make them follow more). This is why the taser has become such a HUGE deal. Not because of the few deaths, but because the police are using tasers more than teargas or guns. You look left thats a tasering. You raise your hand to ask a question thats a tasering. You move your right foot, thats a tasering. You clear your throat, thats a tasering. Ok, the "are tasers too much for cops to use" could also be its own thread as well (and probably should be). I am just saying here that the rules that controle the use of the tool (the gun) are many.

In the hands of hunters and farmers and people that live in the bush, rifles are also a tool. These people are not held to the same level of rules and scrutiny as a police officer, however, these people tend to be dang near as responcible about the use of their weapons. These people are also volunteer firemen, search and rescue, foresters and the list goes on. They as a people take a far greater burden of responcibility than many city dwellers. But they have to, because unlike in cities, there is no one there that will do it if they don't.

So, it comes to what it is we are talking about. Weapons or tools? If we are talking about arming civilians with tools, are we not infact talking about taking the legal contoles out of the hands of the people charged by our elected government to perform the task? Does that not turn us, the common person, into a member of the crowd that swarm up the road to burn down Frankeinstiens castle and kill his monster?

I am not sure I want the ordinary person with a gun to have the same kind of lack of controle that an ordinary cop has with taser. I do not have issue with people that have and use tools, I feel they are two different things entirely.

Hey, by the way, some 20 years ago, was there not a mandatory 10 year scentence imposed on all gun related crime in Canada? Whatever became of that?


**EDIT** just a quickie, I am also not including collectors. Many of these people collect the art of the gun not working tools and their devices have been made permanently non-functional. But like cars, boats, and carnival glass, guns are a collectable work of art too. I think the collector is again in another category.


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

Someone should call Henman and invite him back to the forum. He'd get a real kick out of our civilized discussion here. kkjuw


----------

