# Scary - Concealed Gun Permit Campaign



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/12/18/gun-women.html


> Vancouver school trustee Sharon Gregson posed with her handgun on the cover of the latest issue of the Canadian Firearms Journal, as part of the campaign for concealed weapon permits.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Smart lady. One day in the not too distant future, one will have to be armed to protect themselves against the rising tide of teen and gang violence in this country. The justice system in its present form sure as hell can't stop the growth of this new drug fueled industry.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Oh SINC. You and your strong American values. Let's all carry guns and bash minorities.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Oh SINC. You and your strong American values. Let's all carry guns and bash minorities.


I didn't bash a minority. Many teens and gangs are not minorities, they've gone mainstream at murder and mayhem. You read it here earlier in another thread that shocked even you.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Jeez SINC, when are you going to learn? The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there is. Period. The fewer legal guns there are, the harder it will become to get illegal ones (quite a few illegal ones are legal ones that have been stolen).

And guytoronto - not all Americans want to carry guns, and certainly most don't want to bash minorities.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I know most American's don't want bash minorities. I just know SINC has major issues with those homosexual types. Good thing they don't carry guns.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> I know most American's don't want bash minorities. I just know SINC has major issues with those homosexual types. Good thing they don't carry guns.



Now that I'm sure we can ALL agree on . If them gays start carrying guns, this whole world has gone to hell...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

OH, FYI:

Sharon Gregson, a well-known child-care advocate, who wants women to carry concealed weapons for protection...her email address is [email protected]

Feel free to drop her a line.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Smart lady. One day in the not too distant future, one will have to be armed to protect themselves against the rising tide of teen and gang violence in this country. The justice system in its present form sure as hell can't stop the growth of this new drug fueled industry.


OMG... not again. Please provide us with any substantial research that shows that carrying a concealed weapon increases security and results in lower homicide rates. If you cannot than this argument is finished.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I've been a long-time supporter of concealed-weapon permits for years now. As true as the statement of, "Fewer guns means fewer crimes," is, those who want guns for the wrong reasons will always get said guns with or without enforced laws in place. To extend what that particular lady wants, I believe the right to carry weapons should be extended to any man or women, without a criminal record. In a society with rising crime where you can't even go for a walk by yourself in some larger cities and neighborhoods without facing the risk of attack, I'm in support of legalizing the right to carry a weapon. As the article stated, *""The problem with gun control is that it has no effect on violent criminals," he said."*


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dry up the gun supply, and the bad guys won't be able to get them.

And the imports will be so expensive (based on supply and demand), your average thug won't be able to afford them.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Dry up the gun supply, and the bad guys won't be able to get them.
> 
> And the imports will be so expensive (based on supply and demand), your average thug won't be able to afford them.



...and this is where the argument that Lars presented fails....

With fewer guns, supply an demand increases. With increased demand, prices increase. With increased prices, fewer thugs will get the guns. With few thugs comes fewer gun crimes. With fewer gun crimes comes.... I could go on.

*There will always be people who manage to get guns. This cannot be disputed. BUT, the fewer guns that are readily accessible legally, the fewer guns there are out there at all.*


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

John Clay said:


> ...and this is where the argument that Lars presented fails....
> 
> With fewer guns, supply an demand increases. With increased demand, prices increase. With increased prices, fewer thugs will get the guns. With few thugs comes fewer gun crimes. With fewer gun crimes comes.... I could go on.
> 
> *There will always be people who manage to get guns. This cannot be disputed. BUT, the fewer guns that are readily accessible legally, the fewer guns there are out there at all.*


Well said... 

I have yet to see a single statistic which shows that increased legal gun ownership leads to a safer society with less gun deaths.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I know most American's don't want bash minorities. I just know SINC has major issues with those homosexual types. Good thing they don't carry guns.


You don't know dick about my issues. I have only one issue with gays and that is the definition of the term marriage. Other than that, they don't bother me, nor I them. Never have, never will, so lay off with the unfounded accusations.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> You don't know dick about my issues. I have only one issue with gays and that is the definition of the term marriage. Other than that, they don't bother me, nor I them. Never have, never will, so lay off with the unfounded accusations.



And that issue is foolish at best, and semi-insane if you're actually serious about it. Marriage is the union between two people that love each other, and are prepared to commit to each other. Gender is irrelevant, the same way color is irrelevant. But I digress... this thread seems to be now about your feeble attempt at justifying concealed weapon permits...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> Jeez SINC, when are you going to learn? The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there is. Period. The fewer legal guns there are, the harder it will become to get illegal ones (quite a few illegal ones are legal ones that have been stolen).


Unlike you, I did learn long ago that society will never eliminate guns, legal or not. Once you can get your head around that simple fact, you can begin to understand that the bad guys will one day rule if society does not do one of two things. Either arm themselves, or allow the police and the courts to put the bad guys away, permanently if necessary. The pansy approach we now have with do-gooders ruling the day is not working and never will.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Smart lady. One day in the not too distant future, one will have to be armed to protect themselves against the rising tide of teen and gang violence in this country. The justice system in its present form sure as hell can't stop the growth of this new drug fueled industry.


What about the adults? There are many more adults committing crimes than there are children, yet you seem unfazed by it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> And that issue is foolish at best, and semi-insane if you're actually serious about it. Marriage is the union between two people that love each other, and are prepared to commit to each other. Gender is irrelevant, the same way color is irrelevant. But I digress... this thread seems to be now about your feeble attempt at justifying concealed weapon permits...


Calling me semi-insane would seem to go against the spirit of ehMac if not the direct TOS. But not to worry, I accept your apology.

My views on that definition will never change. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is a union, just like it is in Britain, where the definition remains intact and correct.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> You don't know dick about my issues.


Are you making a pass at me? :heybaby:


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> Unlike you, I did learn long ago that society will never eliminate guns, legal or not. Once you can get your head around that simple fact, you can begin to understand that the bad guys will one day rule if society does not do one of two things. Either arm themselves, or allow the police and the courts to put the bad guys away, permanently if necessary. The pansy approach we now have with do-gooders ruling the day is not working and never will.



Where are the stats to prove such allegations? Seems you're falling victim to your signature...



guytoronto said:


> Are you making a pass at me? :heybaby:


:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> What about the adults? There are many more adults committing crimes than there are children, yet you seem unfazed by it.


Not nearly so many filled with violence and the use of guns and other weapons like bats and machetes. It is part of youth culture now.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The pansy approach we now have with do-gooders ruling the day is not working and never will.


It works a damn site better than it does down south of us. Is it perfect? No of course not. Is it better than chaos and carnage we see in the US? Damn straight it is.

There is NO reason individuals should have access to handguns or automatic/assault weapons.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

John Clay said:


> Jeez SINC, when are you going to learn? The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there is. Period. The fewer legal guns there are, the harder it will become to get illegal ones (quite a few illegal ones are legal ones that have been stolen).


Garbage. Canada already has the strictest laws available when it comes to handguns. The majority of illegal handguns are coming over the border, not from legal owners. 

As for concealled weapons, I don''t know how smart a move like that is. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to live in one of Canada's larger cities either. Reading about those Edmonton teens was disturbing.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> Calling me semi-insane would seem to go against the spirit of ehMac if not the direct TOS. But not to worry, I accept your apology.
> 
> My views on that definition will never change. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is a union, just like it is in Britain, where the definition remains intact and correct.



Stop hiding behind the TOS when your arguments fall flat on their face.

As for your definitions of marriage... I suppose you can't teach an old dog new tricks after all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> Where are the stats to prove such allegations?


Anyone who knows anything about gun ownership in Canada has a very good idea of just how many hundreds of thousands of guns have been driven underground by the long gun registry. I personally know more than a dozen people who have hidden away hundreds of weapons, ready for use if the day ever comes.

Like it or not, that is reality and there are no links or stats to back it up. But it exists and always will.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Well said...
> 
> I have yet to see a single statistic which shows that increased legal gun ownership leads to a safer society with less gun deaths.


Show me the statistics to prove a significant decrease in gun crimes where guns have been banned outright.

Only a fool thinks we can stop the flow of guns into criminal hands. Has the fact that cocaine and heroin are illegal made them any more difficult to obtain? Give your heads a shake.

Our only recourse is to support MUCH tougher sentencing in regards to gun crime.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> Stop hiding behind the TOS when your arguments fall flat on their face.


I'm not hiding at all. Just pointing out that IMO you are in violation of the terms of service you agreed to when you became a member. Name calling always leads me to believe the caller is losing the argument and is using the tactic to divert attention from the subject at hand.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> The majority of illegal handguns are coming over the border, not from legal owners.


Really?



> There are 500,000 legally owned handguns in Canada.
> Every year, over 5,000 firearms are reported stolen in Canada.


http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/AllLegalGunsBegin.pdf


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> I personally know more than a dozen people who have hidden away hundreds of weapons, ready for use if the day ever comes.


Waiting for the rapture, are we?



SINC said:


> Like it or not, that is reality and there are no links or stats to back it up. But it exists and always will.


Ahhh...just like SINC. If you don't like the facts, make up your own. I'm sure there is something in the Bible about this all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There are any number of bars in Edmonton where if you leave the word with the right people, you can obtain a brand new, never fired handgun in the American manufacturer's original box for about $1,000 USD. Much quicker than stealing the 1% that go missing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Ahhh...just like SINC. If you don't like the facts, make up your own. I'm sure there is something in the Bible about this all.


Like I said I personally KNOW many people who have done this. No make up about it. As for the Bible comment, I haven't read it and wouldn't know.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Perhaps the solution would be to fence off Alberta then... Would solve more than one issue.

The only way to effectivly remove guns from society is a combination of things - mostly the removal of legal firearms, followed by harsh punishments for those that are caught with them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Not nearly so many filled with violence and the use of guns and other weapons like bats and machetes. It is part of youth culture now.


Please, if you honestly believe that is part of youth culture you are WAY out of touch. Adults commit hundreds of violent crimes every year (500-600 give or take), while youths barely reach 100.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I have to admit that I am quite surprised by some of the statements made in this thread, so I am posing a simple question:

Please be honest, gun-ownership-supporters, do you really, seriously, in all honesty believe that a society in which gun-ownership is easy and even glorified (okay, yes, the USA), one is safer and less likely to become a victim of gun violence?

I'm just asking for a simple, but _thoughtful_ "yes" or "no".


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Yes...I mean no. D'oh!

It's like this...really. The more guns in our society, the safer we are! It's true. If you take away all the guns, how safe are we really? People could, like, yell, and spit at us. If we had guns, we could simply shoot each other! Problem solved!

And those bad guys with guns? Ya, the best way to fight them is to have our own gun, and start this whole "cross fire" thing. Sure, a couple kids might get hit, but dammit, we'll be safer on the whole!


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

No, and the murder rate with guns from the USA shows it quite clearly.

Statistics show that if there is a handgun in the house for 'defense', you are more likely to shoot a family member or friend than an intruder.

Statistics show a disturbing number of incidents in which kids play with guns foolishly left unlocked and loaded by parents and kill themselves or friends.

Evidence also indicates that the more guns there are in a society/the easier they are to get, the more guns there are in the hands of criminals. This is a major problem in Canada with guns coming over the border from the USA.

Someone said that as long as someone does not have a criminal record, they should be allowed to own and carry a concealed weapon. To that: every criminal had a clean record before they committed their first crime. Quite simply, there is no way to tell what someone intends to do with a gun. And the general populace's right to life supersedes the right of the minority to own weapons.

I think any logical person will agree that the fewer guns there are in a society the better. The only outcome of passing this kind of legislation will be to increase the number of guns in this country.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

adagio said:


> Show me the statistics to prove a significant decrease in gun crimes where guns have been banned outright.
> 
> Only a fool thinks we can stop the flow of guns into criminal hands. Has the fact that cocaine and heroin are illegal made them any more difficult to obtain? Give your heads a shake.
> 
> Our only recourse is to support MUCH tougher sentencing in regards to gun crime.


Certainly....

According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html in terms of firearm death per 100 000...

US 3.72
Canada .76
UK .11
Japan .02
Germany .22
France .44

There is a clear corelation that increased gun control laws lead to fewer gun related deaths.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

concealed weapons to protect onself from the murderous mobs.

Yes this has proven to work very well in the US.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Didn't we go through a bunch of these stats somewhere?

Odd exceptions I remember are the UK (recent surge after tougher gun laws), which could have been read to favour either the "anamoly due to other circumstances" argument or the "borders matter a lot more" argument. This is based on the claim that the surge had to do with Eastern Europe changes, I think.

Then there's Switzerland. Very different. The case for gun education, training and chocolate clocks.

Then there's long-guns versus handguns, which is particularly important in Canada-U.S. comparisons, as well as stolen versus legal.

Then there's the "I see no reason" to own one argument, which is not a relevant test of restrictions, nor is the "justified by preventing any amount of harm" test. The relevant test is the true public safety case justifying a restriction in others' freedom. 

This leads, in my opinion, to a strong case for our current very strict handgun laws, a good case for banning a number of rapid-fire guns, and weaker (but not baseless) cases beyond that.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Yes, we go through this issue every few months. Some people want a safer society. Others feel it's their god-given right to blow away any punk who looks at them weird.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Yes, we go through this issue every few months. Some people want a safer society. Others feel it's their god-given right to blow away any punk who looks at them weird.


:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> This leads, in my opinion, to a strong case for our current very strict handgun laws, a good case for banning a number of rapid-fire guns, and weaker (but not baseless) cases beyond that.


Agreed and in place in Canada since the 1930s, thus the safer society stats quoted here in terms of deaths per population.

What gun opponents fail to recognize is, like Adagio points out, you can't ban all guns. It is impossible with the number of illegal guns flowing into Canada from the US. Anyone who believes differently or that it will magically stop is misguided. And as for criminals and gangs and drug dealers in particular, they will continue to simply buy a new, in the box, US made gun. It is far less risky than breaking into a home or business where guns are properly stored. The grand they pay for that handgun is made on the street selling drugs in about two minutes and holds far less risk.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Right, so we need to chip away at the problem, not throw up our arms in despair and give up.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The grand they pay for that handgun is made on the street selling drugs in about two minutes and holds far less risk.


I'm in the wrong business.... 

But like most of SINC's arguments, they are based on fiction and fantasy and a far cry from reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In the U.S. many more violent acts and murders are stopped by armed citizenry than initiated by them. A 1995 study, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz was perhaps the most exhaustive study of this phenomenon. In fact a peer review by gun control advocate Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote:

*"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz....The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. ..I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well." *

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In the U.S. many more violent acts and murders are stopped by armed citizenry than initiated by them. A 1995 study, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz was perhaps the most exhaustive study of this phenomenon. In fact a peer review by gun control advocate Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote:
> 
> *"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz....The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. ..I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well." *
> 
> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html


Regardless of this particular study you cannot make the assumption that in a Canadian context increased increased gun ownership will reduce crime. The crime rates explored in this study are for the US which has a much higher incidence in the first place.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If it's so effective a deterrent why is the US death by firearm rate 5-8x the rest of the first worlds?...and why are there 7 million in the US in the hands of the justice system? - that's also number one with a bullet...pardon the pun.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Very nice article Macfury.

Can you please find an article that talks about why the US murder rate is 5.5/100,000 and Canada's is 1.95/100,000?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_Rate

Could you also investigate why the US gun homicide rate is 3.72/100,000 and Canada's is 0.76/100,00?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I just ask, because I'm wondering why anybody would want the type of gun culture the American's enjoy so much.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GuyToronto thanks for your thoughfull arguments on this subject.

As for MF, well I guess he can't stop being MF, no real arguments except in the weakest of meanings - yes - no....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In the U.S. many more violent acts and murders are stopped by armed citizenry than initiated by them. A 1995 study, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz was perhaps the most exhaustive study of this phenomenon. In fact a peer review by gun control advocate Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote:
> 
> *"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz....The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. ..I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
> *
> http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html


Wait a second... look at the other material from this "credible" source.

http://www.pulpless.com/

I Met God 
Escape from Heaven
The Rainbow Cadenza 
Alongside Night 
Nasty, Brutish, and Short Stories
Profile in Silver and Other Screenwritings
Book Publishing in the 21st Century
The Frame of the Century? 
The Robert Heinlein Interview and Other Heinleiniana 
Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns 
Self Control Not Gun Control
Yes, Thank you Macfury for that credible source.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm a licensed firearms owner and the last thing I want to see is a bunch of paranoid citizenry carrying concealed weapons. Talk about a new and easy way for criminals to obtain guns. I've met these types (the ones that feel they should 'carry') and I wouldn't have them pack a water pistol let alone a .45...

SINC my friend, you're wrong on this one. Those same gangs you would want the citizens to protect themselves from would have a smorgasbord of choices by simply swarming an armed citizen or worse blowing them away first...just to get their gun. 

Total foolishness.

I live in Toronto and I never felt I needed to be armed. I've been to downtown LA, Brooklyn, the Bronx, south side Phily, Laredo, etc. and never felt the need to be armed. I slept openly in my truck in all those places and not felt the need to clutch a weapon. 

If you look like a victim...you'll become a victim. A gun isn't going to help you if you don't know how to use it and the attacker takes it away from you. 

And this is for *Guytoronto:
*
Your link to the gun control group's website is fine, but their numbers are a bit off.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/media/program_statistics/default_e.asp


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: good post.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> SINC my friend, you're wrong on this one. Those same gangs you would want the citizens to protect themselves from would have a smorgasbord of choices by simply swarming an armed citizen or worse blowing them away first...just to get their gun.


Hey kps, somebody has to take the opposing side.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

John Clay said:


> Marriage is the union between two people that love each other, and are prepared to commit to each other. Gender is irrelevant, the same way color is irrelevant.


Actually marriage is just a deal between 2 persons and the government for breaks on taxes, benefits and succession. So yes you are correct - colour, gender have no meaning.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: That's merely the handiest place to find the original study. Would it be surprising to find other pro firearm articles there? I know that many of your arguments centre around slagging the authors of a study, but please let's stop with the web host.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, how about finding neutral information?
Too hard for you?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jonesy: That's merely the handiest place to find the original study. Would it be surprising to find other pro firearm articles there? I know that many of your arguments centre around slagging the authors of a study, but please let's stop with the web host.


Talk about a one sided view. I think this is a more even handed view on the subject...


_Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[56] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.[56] For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self defense.[56] Of the times that guns were used in self defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim.[56] Of all incidents where a gun was used for self defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.[56] In 20% of the self defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[56] During the same time period, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[57] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[56]
The findings of the McDowall study contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self protection. [58] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[59]
McDowell cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, which used a very small sample size and did not confine self defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[56] A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self defense use of guns.[60] By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowell studies.[61][56][60]
_

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

If you are going to throw out single sided material I think we need to look at where that material is coming from. In this case some crackpot. There is plenty of research both for and against. I think the gun violence numbers speak for themselves when one looks at the death rate / 100 000. You can't argue against those numbers.

Concealed weapons in Canada is a BAD thing as KPS has very clearly pointed out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Neutral information? By what definition? Information is either correct or not. 

DJ: Were the authors of the study crackpots? Where would that be suggested?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am finding it hard to understand where this "concealed" weapons came from.

I simply advocated Canadians being armed for self protection. Never mentioned "concealed" weapons, nor "carrying" weapons. I advocate having them, just in case. And for the record kps, I was talking about gun owners who have secreted away their weapons due to the long gun registry and they number in the hundreds of thousands, not new owners running out and buying a gun.

The "stashed" them for exactly the reasons I outlined.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wonderful society you want to live in SINC.

Be wonderful to take my kids to the park, and have every mom and dad "packing heat" just in case.

Nothing makes me feel safer than having average Joes with the power to blow your brains out strapped to their hip.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Lars said:


> In a society with rising crime where you can't even go for a walk by yourself in some larger cities and neighborhoods without facing the risk of attack, I'm in support of legalizing the right to carry a weapon.


This is simply false. You have no evidence to back this position but I have evidence to show that all you have is unjustified paranoia.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm


> 2004
> 
> Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell a marginal 1% last year. While the total violent crime rate declined, the national homicide rate increased 12%.
> 
> ...


I'm sick of this lie being presented as an undisputed truth. Only the perception of violent crime has increased as a result of media manipulation of the issue. 

Let's stop with the misinformation now please.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

So let's clarify:

Crime rates are dropping.

Media blows everything out of proportion.

General public falls victim to media propaganda.

Yup! We need more guns on our streets!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> So let's clarify:
> 
> Crime rates are dropping.
> 
> ...


{sarcasm}EXACTLY!{/sarcasm}
:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Wonderful society you want to live in SINC.
> 
> Be wonderful to take my kids to the park, and have every mom and dad "packing heat" just in case.
> .


Guess you can't read, so I will try again. I specifically said NOTHING ABOUT CONCEALED OR EVEN CARRYING guns. Got it?

I advocate possession, no more. That means safely stored at home according to law in a proper manner. And of course then there are all those thousands of "secreted away" long guns, "just in case".


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Well, now you're just confusing me:



SINC said:


> I advocate possession, no more. That means safely stored at home according to law in a proper manner.


vs:



SINC said:


> I simply advocated Canadians being armed for self protection.


So, how many home invasions are there a year? By your statements, the weapons could only be used for home invasions, since you don't advocate carrying weapons.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Well, now you're just confusing me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See? Wasn't that easy. Now you got it. Possess them safely stored.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Guess you can't read, so I will try again. I specifically said NOTHING ABOUT CONCEALED OR EVEN CARRYING guns. Got it?


Wait a sec... that's not exactly how you started things.

This thread is about "Scary-Concealed Gun Permit Campaign" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/12/18/gun-women.html) to which you replied



SINC said:


> Smart lady. One day in the not too distant future, one will have to be armed to protect themselves against the rising tide of teen and gang violence in this country. The justice system in its present form sure as hell can't stop the growth of this new drug fueled industry.


How are we not to take that as anything but an edorsement of support for concealed firearms?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah the moving target.

start with something controversial, appear to support it, then after a nice merry-go-round, suddenly, the tables turn.

Classic.

Funnier to watch than participate sometimes.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ah the moving target.


Pun intended? LOL

Canada has very strict and IMHO fair firearms regulations. There is only a handful of concealed carry licenses in the whole country issued to civilians, and that is a matter of record. We discussed this in several past threads.

Issuing concealed carry licenses to the average citizen would be a complete disaster. 

I can just see it:

Drivers on the 401 brandishing handguns during road rage incidents....as in "who's got the biggest". LOL

Two average Joes meeting each other in an alley, each thinking the other is about to rob him, then going for the quick draw and blowing each other away...

Two middle class housewives having a dispute over a parking spot at the mall and one reaches into her purse and blows the other away...

On a more serious note, how many of you could actually draw a weapon, aim, pull the trigger and snuff out someone's life?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Wait a sec... that's not exactly how you started things.
> 
> This thread is about "Scary-Concealed Gun Permit Campaign" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/12/18/gun-women.html) to which you replied
> 
> ...





SINC said:


> Smart lady. One day in the not too distant future, one will have to be armed to protect themselves against the rising tide of teen and gang violence in this country. The justice system in its present form sure as hell can't stop the growth of this new drug fueled industry.


Boy, you are just as reading handicapped as guytoronto. Find me the word "concealed" or "carry" anywhere in that sentence or any other I posted.

Get real. You read things into my posts that simply do not exist.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lady: I want to be able to carry a concealed weapon in Canada.
SINC: Smart lady.
Us: Great idea SINC. Way to support concealed weapons.
SINC: I don't support concealed weapons. I never said that! I just said I like guns, and that woman is smart for wanting to carry a concealed weapons. That doesn't mean I like concealed weapons!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

kps said:


> I can just see it:
> 
> Drivers on the 401 brandishing handguns during road rage incidents....as in "who's got the biggest". LOL
> 
> ...


The herd culls itself.....


> On a more serious note, how many of you could actually draw a weapon, aim, pull the trigger and snuff out someone's life?


Speaking for myself, in a heartbeat.... 


SINC said:


> I advocate possession, no more. That means safely stored at home according to law in a proper manner. And of course then there are all those thousands of "secreted away" long guns, "just in case".


The flaw in SINC's logic (with which I largely agree _on this topic_) here is that a "safely stored" firearm is useless for protection - you'd have to ask the home invader, or whoever, to wait for you to get your gun...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> The flaw in SINC's logic (with which I largely agree _on this topic_) here is that a "safely stored" firearm is useless for protection - you'd have to ask the home invader, or whoever, to wait for you to get your gun...


Depends on just what the threat is, doesn't it? Assuming the only threat being a home invasion is not correct. Others can surface. Then there are those with "secreted away" guns, ready to resurface from the most ingenious places, or so people who have guns tell me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Depends on just what the threat is, doesn't it? Assuming the only threat being a home invasion is not correct. Others can surface. Then there are those with "secreted away" guns, ready to resurface from the most ingenious places, or so people who have guns tell me.


Have you been watching a lot of Apocalyptic movies lately, SINC?

About the only legitimate use a private citizen can claim is for protection from dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.), or protection of livestock from predators in rural/wilderness areas. The statistics on use of handguns in urban areas are absolutely unequivocal. 

I'd start with a ban on possession of all firearms within city limits, and a global ban on handguns and automatic weapons, and see how that works. I'm sure it wouldn't stop all violent crime, and it probably wouldn't even stop gun-crime, but I have no doubt that it would reduce it considerably.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Have you been watching a lot of Apocalyptic movies lately, SINC?
> 
> About the only legitimate use a private citizen can claim is for protection from dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.), or protection of livestock from predators in rural/wilderness areas. The statistics on use of handguns in urban areas are absolutely unequivocal.
> 
> ...


You seem to have overlooked recreational use such as hunting and target shooting as well as protection.

As for your suggestions on firearms, what is with the focus on handguns? I don't advocate handgun ownership at all for other than police and the military, just long guns. The regulations on handgun ownership in this country have been rock solid since the 1930s, but they are completely ineffective in respect to illegal guns, mostly imported from the US.

As for your suggestion of a global ban on handguns and automatic weapons, dream on. I must say I am surprised you have not yet figured out that is impossible. I mean who has the authority to enact such a measure?

Also to be considered is that ban or no bans, guns will always be with mankind and the bad guys will always find a way to obtain them. That is reality.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> You seem to have overlooked recreational use such as hunting and target shooting as well as protection.


Not at all. I find it quite disturbing that people kill things for fun, and would suggest that anyone who considers doing so 'recreational' seek professional psychiatric help. As for target shooting, non-lethal projectiles are more than adequate... get a paint-ball gun.



> As for your suggestions on firearms, what is with the focus on handguns?


Handguns are much more easily transported, and concealed than long-guns, and have essentially no utility outside their anti-personel role. Since they're explicitly designed for killing people, I see no legitimate excuse for private citizens to possess them. I think a case could be made that the civil police shouldn't need them either, but that's a different argument. The military, which exists explicitly to kill people, has a legitimate case for having these weapons.



> I don't advocate handgun ownership at all for other than police and the military,


We agree on this, although probably for different reasons.



> As for your suggestion of a global ban on handguns and automatic weapons, dream on. I must say I am surprised you have not yet figured out that is impossible. I mean who has the authority to enact such a measure?


Sorry, poor wording on my part. By 'global' I meant all-encompasing, i.e. no-exceptions, not that we could enforce such legislation outside of Canada.



> Also to be considered is that ban or no bans, guns will always be with mankind and the bad guys will always find a way to obtain them. That is reality.


Sadly, this is probably true, however, if possession of such weaponry is illegal, you can arrest the bad guys for _having_ the guns, rather than having to wait for them to _use_ them.

cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Not at all. I find it quite disturbing that people kill things for fun, and would suggest that anyone who considers doing so 'recreational' seek professional psychiatric help.


So aboriginal peoples who have hunted for eons to put food on the table and still do so today are mentally ill then? Hardly. That is just plain silly. The recreational aspect to hunting is the physical effort put into the hunt, not the kill. The hunters I know process, store and consume their meat much like non hunters do with beef and pork and chicken.



bryanc said:


> Sadly, this is probably true, however, if possession of such weaponry is illegal, you can arrest the bad guys for _having_ the guns, rather than having to wait for them to _use_ them.


That is exactly the case in this country now. We can arrest the bad guys for even _having_ a handgun. Trouble is they use them long before we know they have them. And we don't know they have them because they are smuggled into the country from the US.

We _do_ know however, who owns legal handguns and have since the 1930s so they are not at issue.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That is exactly the case in this country now. We can arrest the bad guys for even _having_ a handgun. Trouble is they use them long before we know they have them. And we don't know they have them because they are smuggled into the country from the US.


FYI... just now CBC News is interviewing the Toronto Police Chief and Gun deaths are down 40% this year and shootings are down 20%.

Looks like things are paying off... things like the Gun Registry (financially flawed as it is) and increased neighbourhood policing and better rapid response.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> So aboriginal peoples who have hunted for eons to put food on the table and still do so today are mentally ill then?


I said 'recreational' not subsistence. 



> The recreational aspect to hunting is the physical effort put into the hunt, not the kill.


Then why not get a camera and allow the animal to live?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hold on, if this concealed gun permit thing will allow CRIMINALS to conceal their guns, that's scary!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Then why not get a camera and allow the animal to live?


Heck, that would be like putting a picture of a steer on your BBQ. Is your point it isn't the same if the meat were domestic? Makes no difference to me if I eat beef, pork, elk or moose. It's all protein to me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Heck, that would be like putting a picture of a steer on your BBQ. Is your point it isn't the same if the meat were domestic? Makes no difference to me if I eat beef, pork, elk or moose. It's all protein to me.


The difference is that you local wolves can't pop down to the IGA for a steak, so shooting a deer deprives them of their only means of survival, whereas you have options. Even more significant is the fact that you not only don't need to eat meat, it's almost certainly bad for you, so your consumption is purely a luxury and an environmentally expensive one at that.

The world would clearly be a lot better off if everyone stopped eating meat completely, but if you do choose to eat meat, try to limit the damage you do by consuming animals raised in a sustainable (and humane) way.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> The world would clearly be a lot better off if everyone stopped eating meat completely, but if you do choose to eat meat, try to limit the damage you do by consuming animals raised in a sustainable (and humane) way.


An interesting opinion on meat indeed.

And for the record, the last moose I ate was certainly raised in a sustainable and humane way. After all he was raised by his Mom in the wild, and she has likely borne five or six more since we ate him. What could be more humane than that? 

Licensing laws are such that wildlife populations are carefully monitored to sustain each species and prevent either over population or a demise in same. Too bad we can't do that to our own kind.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Too bad we can't do that to our own kind.


You can always volunteer to be soylent green...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> An interesting opinion on meat indeed.


Would you like links to the peer-reviewed scientific research supporting this 'opinion' or are you willing to accept it as a rational position, if not one you agree with?



> Licensing laws are such that wildlife populations are carefully monitored to sustain each species and prevent either over population or a demise in same.


Quite right... before hunters came along with their rifles, natural ecosystems were completely out of balance.

But seriously, I don't completely disagree with you here. We've screwed up many ecosystems so badly that apex predator populations are way below what is necessary to balance prey populations, so some population control is necessary. However the licensing of which you speak is currently managed to _maximize_ hunting by keeping predator populations down, rather than to restore natural balance to the ecosystem.



> Too bad we can't do that to our own kind.


Now here's a point I can agree with completely. 

Happy solstice everyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Would you like links to the peer-reviewed scientific research supporting this 'opinion' or are you willing to accept it as a rational position, if not one you agree with?


No links necessary. I can readily accept being vegan or vegetarian as a rational practice. After all, it is a lifestyle choice just like my diet which includes meat and fish of all kinds is as well.

Merry Christmas all.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Quite right... before hunters came along with their rifles, natural ecosystems were completely out of balance.
> 
> But seriously, I don't completely disagree with you here. We've screwed up many ecosystems so badly that apex predator populations are way below what is necessary to balance prey populations, so some population control is necessary. However the licensing of which you speak is currently managed to _maximize_ hunting by keeping predator populations down, rather than to restore natural balance to the ecosystem.


If we take the deer population as an example, we have altered the ecosystem in ways other than hunting. The deer population is out of control because we are creating secondary growth situations all over - we are in fact "improving" the ecosystem for deer. At the same time urban sprawl has reduced the prevalence of natural predators. So the deer population has exploded. There are record numbers of car/deer contacts. In some suburban and rural areas having a garden is a constant fight against deer predation. Farmers around here are loosing vast amounts of crops to deer. If your car hits a deer, you have a right to ask just how well the current licensing system for hunters is controlling the deer population. By all accounts a major harvest is necessary.



> Happy solstice everyone.


OK, 'solstice' is probably alright to say out loud but what about 'happy'? There are some who will take that as a veiled, politically incorrect, somehow-negative allusion to a certain sexual orientation.....  

But not me.... HAPPY SOLSTICE yerself (after all pagan solstice celebrations are what was ripped off to make xmas)....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Happy's for wimps.......have a wicked, rowdy Saturnalia let the wine and bawdy song flow freely.

Slaves rule masers this night.









Who shall we declare as Saturnalicius Princeps for ehMac? Will hiz honur dance with the pagans


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As the resident hedonist, I'm going to enjoy not remembering the day after.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Slashed prices over at MacDoc's place!! 10 cents on the dollar for MacBook Pro!! Yeeeee-Hawwww!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina | Grandmother in Sam's Club shooting a magistrate judge

Yes, concealed handguns are a good idea...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Guns don't kill people. People do.

For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an 'Australian treasure!'

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: 
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

The only danger a gun poses is with the person holding it.

.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina | Grandmother in Sam's Club shooting a magistrate judge
> 
> Yes, concealed handguns are a good idea...


I blame the grandmother for grossly failing to secure her concealed firearm, and, knowing there was a loaded weapon in her purse, failing to prevent the 4-year old from rummaging through her purse. Was the weapon even on safe-mode, or did the 4-year old manage to disable the lock?


----------



## JSvo (Nov 12, 2007)

Wow, holy thread resurrection! I really did enjoy the General Cosgrove interview, even if I don't support his views. He should also be teaching Boy Scouts how to think quick on their feet!

The only thing I'll add to this thread is just a couple tidbits from the three years I lived in the States some years ago.

I'd only been there a few weeks and was riding around as a passenger in my friend's car. We were joking and laughing, cruising around town in her classic car, having a blast. At one point, some meathead cut us off at an intersection, and I playfully reached over and blasted her classic car horn a few times, mocking the other driver with a laugh. My friend immediately pulled over, lost her temper and angrily admonished me to never ever ever do that ever again. Ever!

Shocked, I slumped back into my seat and sheepishly asked what had I done wrong; I was just having fun and wanted to hear the sound of her grand car horn.

She replied: you never know who is carrying a gun with them, on the street or in the car, and who may pull one out and shoot you for some reason, or no reason at all. She said almost nobody uses their car horns, in case it sets off some nut job with a gun ready under their seat. I got the message, and in my years down there, I found it was quite true; nearly the only car horns you ever heard were from vehicle alarm systems. Crappy drivers on the other hand.....


The other tidbit is that one summer, some nutcase had an argument with his wife, and he jumped into his car and sped away from the house in a blind rage. After speeding down local roads and glancing off a few cars en route, he made it onto the highway and whipped down the road at very high speeds. Cars that were in his way and didn't move over fast enough got a shower of bullets from the gun he carried in his car. Somehow, he managed to reload while driving, and ended up killing three people on the highway while injuring many more. When the police finally got near him, he ditched the car on the side of the highway and ran into the adjacent neighborhood. He busted into a nearby house and took the residents hostage, eventually killing all four of them before police moved in and killed him. When police traced his identity back to his home, they found his wife and two children dead as well, as he had killed them all before his highway killing spree began.


Just two tales from my time in the States.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

JSvo said:


> Just two tales from my time in the States.


There's a shooting every week here in Vancouver, and a stabbing every other day it seems. It makes no difference which country it is, there are crazy people around intent on doing harm. If things get bad enough (_it's bad now but could get even more out of control at some point_) you and I may have a passing thought where we wish we could legally own a handgun. But I realize it's likely that we wouldn't openly admit those thoughts. There's something unCanadian about it.
Unless, of course, a close friend or family member were to become a victim. Not to mention personally becoming a victim and surviving.
It's a whole new ball game after *that* experience.

Oh, and da_jonesy, nice thread revival!


----------



## JSvo (Nov 12, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> *you* and I may have a passing thought where we wish we could legally own a handgun.


Don't conjecture about what I may or may not think. I also live in Vancouver, and I must say, throughout my travels and time living elsewhere, this is *easily* one of the safest cities I've ever been in, no contest.

When I lived in the States, there were times when I felt the palpable potential for harm in a few very uncomfortable situations. Friends there had personal bad experiences, including having guns pulled on them.

Vancouver doesn't even come close as a comparison.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

JSvo said:


> Vancouver doesn't even come close as a comparison.


Ya RIGHT, I'm an evening transit operator, and you don't even want to know about the stuff I've witnessed in 19 years of service. Yes, Vancouver does come close, you just aren't being told about it... it isn't reported.

In all due respect sir, you're kidding yourself. We have huge problems in nearly every major Canadian city, and Vancouver is near the top of the list.

But whatever, you know best. Why do I even bother?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gwillikers said:


> But whatever, you know best. Why do I even bother?


That's the trouble Howie. A majority of Canadians are in denial about just how bad guns and stabbings have become. They are now the rule rather than the exception, and it is guys on the front lines like you who know that best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When I was in high school in rural Ontario some punk-ass drove up in a van, pointed a revolver at me and asked me if I wanted to die. Living in Toronto I saw a kid shaken down in front of a grocery store--he had stolen $10 worth of hair care products and kept asking if he could just please open his backpack. Turns out he had a gun in there.

Our culture as a whole worships violence--both Canada and the U.S. I don't begin to suggest that some sort of censorship is in order, only pointing out that any gun problem is a result of that cultural deification of weaponry and violence. Add to that the elevation of gangsters, drug dealers and pimps to cultural icons and you have an even bigger problem as the violent fringe goes mainstream. 

You'll have as much luck controlling guns as the police do curbing the use of illegal drugs.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I say we follow Chris Rock's Gun Control Plan. All guns should be legal. All bullets should cost $10,000 each. Then, if someone gets shot, you _know_ they had it coming.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> There's a shooting every week here in Vancouver, and a stabbing every other day it seems.


We have shooting every day in The Hammer, so many that they rarely ever report them. There was a big gun fight between some gangsters and the police yesterday in my own neighbourhood (and perhaps six blocks away from the TV station) but it was never reported. They still have the street closed, and have special investigation tents set up. Stabbings, that 's pretty much all the time. Police even found a hand that was not connected to a human, and only later did they find the dude in the emergency ward. Lucky it wasn't in Burlington, they would have smeared feces over the wounds at that filthy death hospital.

Crime is out of control, and really, the politicians do not care. Sure, they try to "get tough", but it would be better if citizens were allowed to lynch the criminal scum. A good tar and feathering would do a world of good.



> It makes no difference which country it is, there are crazy people around intent on doing harm.


Of course, the biggest criminals get elected to Parliament.

I guess the weapons / permits deal never went anywhere. Anyone catch the thing on that crazy MS13 gang? They love nothing more than to chop pregnant mothers up into bits, and anyone that can endure the thirteen seconds of stomping can join.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Stop calling me a gun nut or I'll shoot you!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JSvo said:


> ...throughout my travels and time living elsewhere, this is *easily* one of the safest cities I've ever been in, no contest.


You must have lived in some pretty dangerous cities! I have heard so many bad things about Vancouver that I gave up on travel plans to go there. When I travel, I try not to go to places that are as burned out / skid row as The Hammer is these days.



> When I lived in the States, there were times when I felt the palpable potential for harm in a few very uncomfortable situations.


I have never felt comfortable in the US, and Detroit is downright scary. Every time I am in Detroit I think I am going to die because of all of the things that go on right on the streets. It's bad enough here, where I pretty much avoid downtown as much as I can; though it is getting pretty violent in many of the neighbourhoods on the mountain, with all of the grow-ops and organized crime out of control.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

Im most cases guns are a lazy form of self defence for lazy, simple minded people (along the same lines of _bringing back the death penalty to lower crime_).

Besides how many people would take the time to properly learn how to use their firearm? I've shot handguns before after being invited to the range by a friend - accuracy isn't a given.

And how many people have the mental capacity to remain calm enough to use a gun in a safe, controlled manner? 

Maybe before a person buys a gun they should be required to train in a martial art for at least 5-6 years. Then maybe they'll develop some basic skills so that they'll be in better control of themselves and avoid freaking out with their gun at an inappropriate time. Chances are, most people wouldn't last long enough to earn that permit which means one less idiot with a gun.

Sidenote: After training in the martial arts for over 16 years I've only been in one street fight. Damn, it's a good thing I trained for reasons other than self defense otherwise it would seem a waste


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

skinnyboy said:


> Im most cases guns are a lazy form of self defence for lazy, simple minded people (along the same lines of _bringing back the death penalty to lower crime_).


Guns are also handy when the attacker has a gun. No matter how many martial arts someone knows, outside of the movies, the gun will win every time.

I don't think the death penalty has anything to do with lowering crime rates - it just gets rid of the scum rather than stockpiling them at the taxpayers expense. It is like "oh, you raped and killed a girl - now you get cash for life in a comfy federal prison Mr. Bernardo". 



> Maybe before a person buys a gun they should be required to train in a martial art for at least 5-6 years.


It's a good idea, considering physical fitness and such, but since kids these days can't even get a half hour of gym class, it is a lofty dream. The government doesn't want a lot of guns around because that would empower people, and thus would end the dictatorship that we have long suffered under.

Most crime in this country is caused by the lack of cracking down on dangerous street gangs, as well as stupid policies of emptying out the half way houses during the day without anything for the cons to do, not to mention the fact that the government based their policy on mental disabilities based on Jack Nicholson in The Cookoo's Nest. Nasty nurse - must close all hospitals because of the nasty nurse. Of course, they could have just punished the bad nurses by firing them, but... must... close... hospital... money... pork barrel... votes... re-election...

Martial arts would be something worthy to teach in schools, rather than dumb games of dodgeball, or skins vs. shirts basketball...


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Guns are also handy when the attacker has a gun. No matter how many martial arts someone knows, outside of the movies, the gun will win every time.


Yes, that is true. But much like my mention of one fight in 16 years of training you have to wonder how often will you be faced with an armed attacker? Unless you're working at the 7-11 in Compton, for example, chances are you're carrying that piece for nothing. Maybe there are more sensible actions than preparing for a shoot-out.

And as far martial arts training goes it's more about the mental training than the physical that would benefit a person considering needing a gun for self defence.


----------



## JSvo (Nov 12, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> Ya RIGHT, I'm an evening transit operator, and you don't even want to know about the stuff I've witnessed in 19 years of service. Yes, Vancouver does come close, you just aren't being told about it... it isn't reported.


I don't deny your experience - I'm often on late night buses as a passenger myself. Perhaps I've even been on one of yours after a late night out. I often travel through the dregs of town on #20, #7, #16, #135, #4, #9, skytrain, you name it, until the wee hours. I'm sure I haven't seen everything you have, but I've seen plenty and there's no question there are some crazy drunk louts out there (not to mention the a-holes that harass bus drivers).

However, I've also lived in and/or been to Memphis, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, and other US cities, and I've been out late at night. In my experience, any of those cities, including Seattle, is far more dangerous than anything in Vancouver, period.

Imagine driving a late-night bus in any of those places --- I wouldn't wish it on you.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

skinnyboy said:


> Yes, that is true. But much like my mention of one fight in 16 years of training you have to wonder how often will you be faced with an armed attacker?


It is much more common these days, and it is not just some mobster knocking off some other mobster. And really, it isn't about the guns or the use of them; but of the drugs that people are on going all whacky and killing innocent people out on the streets. Martial arts skills will certainly help in close up assaults, but will not do to much when some gang violence breaks out on Young Street.

I am also careful when I go to the bank, because it is ripped off every week. I used to go there in the mornings, but I got tired of having to step over the winos to get the the ATM that they barfed on. We also stopped putting our recycling out because of the fist fights that have erupted between the winos and the wierdos that collect cans for some unknown purpose. Not to mention the race riot we had last year at the top if the street that never got any news coverage. Violence is not that far away, considering that we have an ex-con drug dealer living across the street, and a mafioso up the street at the corner that surrounded his property with a tank proof fence and other law enforcement prevention schemes.



> Maybe there are more sensible actions than preparing for a shoot-out.


This place is so bad, most of the 7-11 stores closed because of the robberies and gun crimes. The local variety store is run by Egyptians, and they have a pretty hard core staff. The police never did find the remains of the last dude that tried to rip them off.



> And as far martial arts training goes it's more about the mental training than the physical that would benefit a person considering needing a gun for self defence.


That is entirely true. I think it would be a good idea if such skills were made available to the public at large, starting with school aged children, rather than wasting time on crummy games of dodge ball that do not build any skills at all. I wanted to take martial arts when I was a kid, but it was just too expensive when we really did not have much money.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## JSvo (Nov 12, 2007)

MB, go live in a major American city for a year, and then tell us what _you_ think.


----------

