# Gun Control / Gun Registry



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

In response to a few posts pertaining to the VERY TRAGIC shootings in Vermont; i will retort. I feel the other post should be respected and be kept for the awareness of the event.

Someone mentioned "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". I know this is used by the NRA and has been used in comedic situations. Well, truth is, this is the truth. I have never heard of a gun sitting idle in a store going on a rampage and shooting someone or a group of people. I will also say that I do think the NRA is an extremest group but their core principals are accurate.

Having said that, I do agree with the fact that a license is required to purchase guns, etc. This filters out those who have proven that they should not have a gun in their hands.

Having said that, guns used in crime and on massacres are done by CRIMINALS! Criminals with stolen or illegal guns. Weapons found in the gun registry are not used in crime. The registry also provides an access for criminals to see who has what guns. This information has been stolen before and houses have been broken into. Criminals use guns they buy on the street or are smuggled and thus gun control and registries do not become an issue as these don't apply.

I AM a big supporter of huge fines for illegal guns, and crimes where guns are used.

I will assume a mad barrage of response will come of this, mostly attacking me. Feel free... I've heard it all before.

Before responding, ask yourself. How would having the gun used earlier today being registered or bought legally have stopped the tragedy of this morning?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't see the point in having this debate for a few reasons:

1. We don't know the facts (gun type, legal or not, etc..)
2. Canada isn't the US. Our gun laws are quite different and always have been.
3. This is a rare form of violence so we are in no ways in immediate danger.

Let's see what the facts are first and then we can debate how they may or may not apply to Canada.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

The ability to buy a handgun legally means there is a market for handguns, which means more handguns are produced than would be otherwise. Yes, you're right in saying that many handguns are bought illegally on the street. But where do you think those guns come from? Some are smuggled into the country. Some are purchased legally and then stolen.

If the guns had never been in people's homes to begin with, there would be less illegal guns on the street. Combine this risk of the gun being stolen with the proven statistics that show a gun owned for self defense is more likely to be used against a friend or family member, and one begins to wonder: why allow guns into homes at all?

You might be right that there would be guns on the street either way. But having guns in homes doesn't help the situation any. And, as we've seen time and time again, it often has tragic consequences.

How many children have to die playing with their father's gun before people learn? How many people have to be killed by stolen guns before people learn?

Another interesting thing to consider is that 57% of all suicides are by firearm. How many suicides have occurred because of easily accessible guns, that might have been prevented otherwise?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The facts?

When crackpots go on shooting rampages, a lot of people die. When you live in a society that makes it easy for your average joe to buy fiercly deadly weapon, you can expect situations like this.

A gun or rifle is a very unique weapon in that it can inflict a lot of damage with minimal effort from the attacker. Knives, bow & arrows, and sledgehammers all require a lot more effort to kill people with. Guns kill people.

But I could be wrong...let's hear what SINC has to say.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Let's see what the facts are first and then we can debate how they may or may not apply to Canada.


Excellent idea.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

A small correction. Virginia Tech University is in Blacksburg, Virginia.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Guns kill people.


It's just as easy to find illegal firearms in Toronto as it is in any US state. It takes a person to pull the trigger.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't see the point in having this debate for a few reasons:



Then don't contribute.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Somene who kills themselves with their fathers gun; a crime was committed. In all instances the guns are never stored properly; tragic yes and the father should be put in jail.

As for removing all guns; well murders will be done with something else. A bomb would take out more people quickly. Effort can be minimal with bombs as well. 

As for suicides, guns or no guns these will still be committed.

Handguns in Canada are MUCH harder to obtin legally. I hunt but have no use to ever buy, nor would I want a handgun. Since we can't use handguns to hunt I really don't care if they were able to stop sale of them; problem s it opens the door to a complete ban. Again, even if there were a gun ban, criminals aren't going to stop dealing stolen guns. That is a fact. They don't care about the law remember, they are criminals.

Knowing the facts could add more or less to the debate but some comments were made I felt I needed to respond too.

The ONLY way to prevent tragedy's like this are to get those who need help with their baggage help. And to come down HARD on illegal weapons.

And yes, there is a big difference between Canada and the US but the anti's always try to bridge the two when it comes to gun control. Our laws are also significantly stronger than in the US.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Somene who kills themselves with their fathers gun; a crime was committed. In all instances the guns are never stored properly; tragic yes and the father should be put in jail.
> 
> As for removing all guns; well murders will be done with something else. A bomb would take out more people quickly. Effort can be minimal with bombs as well.
> 
> As for suicides, guns or no guns these will still be committed.


I totally agree.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> proven statistics that show a gun owned for self defense is more likely to be used against a friend or family member, and one begins to wonder: why allow guns into homes at all?
> 
> You might be right that there would be guns on the street either way. But having guns in homes doesn't help the situation any. And, as we've seen time and time again, it often has tragic consequences.


I believe, in Freakonomics, the stats showed that pools are more dangerous than guns in the home. I can't speak to the accuracy, but the general idea is that "it doesn't help" is not a good test of banning stuff. Lots of stuff "doesn't help" but we work within a blend of regulations. Cars being an example. Handguns in Canada being another.

BTW RTWOM: Good idea trying to leave the other thread for respect of that event. :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Rampant AV said:


> It's just as easy to find illegal firearms in Toronto as it is in any US state.


Got any stats to back this up, or are you just making stuff up to support your arguments?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I believe, in Freakonomics, the stats showed that pools are more dangerous than guns in the home. I can't speak to the accuracy, but the general idea is that "it doesn't help" is not a good test of banning stuff. Lots of stuff "doesn't help" but we work within a blend of regulations. Cars being an example. Handguns in Canada being another.
> 
> BTW RTWOM: Good idea trying to leave the other thread for respect of that event. :clap:


That's a very strong point Beej that many anti-gun advocates just don't seem to understand. If the objective was to remove risk from our lives resulting from activities that have 'little benefit', then guns are nowhere near the top of the list.

I made this point the last time we had this debate and nobody had a reasonable response to it. 

Cars kill way more people than guns in Canada. A major percentage of vehicle trips are for pleasure purposes. Why not ban people from driving their cars for non-essential activities (e.g. work, food, etc..)? It would go way further than banning guns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> The facts?
> 
> When crackpots go on shooting rampages, a lot of people die. When you live in a society that makes it easy for your average joe to buy fiercly deadly weapon, you can expect situations like this.
> 
> ...


I think for the most part you are right with one exception:

You state, "Guns kill people" which is inaccurate. 

What should be said is, "Some people with guns kill people."

A gun of any kind, in and of itself is dormant, unless picked up, loaded, aimed, and the trigger pulled by a person intent on harming another person.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> A gun of any kind, in and of itself is dormant unless picked up, loaded, aimed, and the trigger pulled by a person intent on harming another person.


so i got the solution to this: don't sell guns to some people. now is that hard?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> If the objective was to remove risk from our lives resulting from activities that have 'little benefit', then guns are nowhere near the top of the list.


The next step is often a *most people* argument. That also fails reasonable tests of personal freedom. That's why strict (very strict) regulations make sense given the item, including banning certain specific products, but outright and broad-based banning is generally based on emotion. 

Prohibitionists generally use the same approach, although we all have a few things we'd like banned (little prohibitionists in all of us). A little more interest in accepting what others want, even if we see no value in it and see danger in it, would go far. Then you get into how to regulate/tax etc. Still, I have my bunch of "bannables", do you?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Gaston, yes it possible to not sell guns to some people; that's why we have licensing nd checks are done. What we can't easily stop is illegal guns. In theory we can, but this has to happen with the policing and laws that are in place. The real issue is gun crime sentencing. One strike, your out!

And yes, it is better to say some people kill with guns, and knives, and fists, cars, etc.

Thanks Beej!


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Got any stats to back this up, or are you just making stuff up to support your arguments?


Yeah, my own. In my capricious youth I purchased one. I also used to work as a bouncer at various Toronto clubs. No shortage of availablility there.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Gaston, yes it possible to not sell guns to some people; that's why we have licensing nd checks are done. What we can't easily stop is illegal guns. In theory we can, but this has to happen with the policing and laws that are in place. The real issue is gun crime sentencing. One strike, your out!
> 
> And yes, it is better to say some people kill with guns, and knives, and fists, cars, etc.
> 
> Thanks Beej!


everything you said i, imo, so unsound that it becomes almost funny. so this person that just killed 3 dozen people.......i know he is dead, but had he made it alive.....this is it right, the one strike, no more legal nor illegal guns for him, he would get some tough sentencing and the hundred of people affected will be happy they fry him?

one word: "prevent" this, don't react to this. Nobody gets to have a gun, nobody. so if you can't go bear/deer/quayle/cat hunting with your buddies, tough. Nobody gets a gun, specially not every other moron that can buy a gun like he was buying fried chicken. a society that reacts like you do to this type of events (ohhhh, so this is so sad, what a tragedy, bad "criminal", nasty "illegal" gun) in my point of view is getting what it deserves. And frankly, I'm surprised it doen't happen more often. 33 are dead, and there must be more than ten sickos out there with machine guns that would love to go out of this world breaking this record.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

I like how people say guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I wonder why these people don't realize that if the gun wasn't there to begin with, there's a good chance the person never would have lived.

Less guns in the country means less guns in the hands of criminals. Yes, people will still commit crimes. But getting a gun will be significantly harder than it is now. And that can only help things. Again, how many suicides, accidental shootings, and "act of love" shootings might be avoided if the gun was never there to begin with?

Saying that people kill people, not guns, is a weak defense. Guns are designed with the sole purpose of harming people. The long and short of it is this: guns do kill people. Saying anything otherwise is just a blind attempt to promote the sale of guns that we do not need.

Which brings me to the comment about swimming pools: WTF? Swimming pools are not designed with the sole intention of doing harm to a human being. Nor are cars. Handguns, on the other hand, are. This is a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

This is a ridiculous comparison.[/QUOTE said:


> I disagree. Anything can be used as a weapon. For example a car bomb. I suppose we should ban cars as well.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Well, I see that you have decided to take the childlike approach debating. While we are taking away guns, because they kill people we should also take away the following, rope, knives, bats, sticks, pipes, rocks, cars, motorcycles, milk, bleach (which can be used to make a bomb) water, electricity, plastic bags, did I forgt anything. 

This is basically what you have said. In your world everything would be made of nerf, even the shoes and gloves we are mandated to where by law because you can kill people with them.

When you go unrealistic, you lose the debate. I am being fecscicious (sp?) but you actually seem to believe what you are saying. You are basing your arguments on opinion and not on actual facts.

Secondly, in Canada not all morons can buy guns. Generally morons have criminal records (hopefully they all get caught doing what ever it is they do to become morons) and cannot buy guns. 

Laws in the US are quite differant.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Demos, you are playing into the typical anti rebut that makes no sense.

It is safe to say that guns used in crimes are illegally obtained guns. Think about it. Re-read it 10 times if you need to and then stop and read what I am about to say again. Guns stored legally and owned by legal owners are not used in crime. If the registry was 100% accurate and you took away all their guns, you are not going to have solved much. Why? Because these guns are not used in crimes. Not too many guns are manufactured in Canada anymore, but let's say you stopped all guns being made and legally brought into Canada, what would you have solved? Not much, as most of these guns ARE NOT USED IN CRIME! Guns used in crime are brought here illegally, and this will never stop. A small percentage that gets stolen, yes get used but with proper storage do not.

Take a deep breath, and re-read this post with an open mind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Demosthenes X said:


> Saying that people kill people, not guns, is a weak defense. Guns are designed with the sole purpose of harming people. The long and short of it is this: guns do kill people.


Gimme a break. Anything that can be used as a weapon can kill a person if the person in control of the weapon has that intent. That's a fact. If you have a knife and you choose to stab someone, you can kill them. Same goes for a cross bow, a regular bow and arrow, a baseball bat, poison, a rope to strangle (or bare hands or a nylon stocking or whatever. A grocery bag would do.)

Spare me the guns kill people BS. Any weapon can kill including a well placed karate, judo, or whatever move. If a human chooses to kill another human, there are a hundred or more ways it can be accomplished. A gun is only one. Matter of fact, the guns being available argument is BS too. You have to have the motivation to buy or steal one, then obtain the ammunition, then load the darn thing, then point it at someone, then form the intent, then pull the trigger while aiming at a spot that will make the kill.

A quick flick of a knife can have it over in far less time.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything as to why the person had to go and kill so many people in the first place?

Was this person mentally sane before all the shooting happened? Were there signs of mental stress, depression etc... weeks or months ago leading up to the cause of all this? Or was it just a last minute thing they decided to do for fun today?

This incident could have happened with just about any weapon out there on the planet, he chose to use a gun instead of a bomb, or poisoning the students and staff etc.... the gun was his weapon of choice. Unless you ban all guns period, including the ones from the police forces and the military, we will always have guns around us period. What we need to be more concerned with are the people who go mental or have issues and nobody has the time to deal or help them. So, they react and in some cases we see things like shootings or suicides. This has been happening for hundreds of years, not just in our time. A beer bottle outside of a bar becomes a nice weapon of choice for some who think they need to fight and use a weapon, how different is that then by using a gun instead? 

As long as you can find and use "anything" as a weapon to kill with, we will always have these problems. In the end it comes down to why the person or persons decided to use such outrage against innocent victims?


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

SINC said:


> A quick flick of a knife can have it over in far less time.


Exactly!


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> As long as you can find and use "anything" as a weapon to kill with, we will always have these problems. In the end it comes down to why the person or persons decided to use such outrage against innocent victims?


Exactly again!


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Well, I see that you have decided to take the childlike approach debating. While we are taking away guns, because they kill people we should also take away the following, rope, knives, bats, sticks, pipes, rocks, cars, motorcycles, milk, bleach (which can be used to make a bomb) water, electricity, plastic bags, did I forgt anything.
> 
> This is basically what you have said. In your world everything would be made of nerf, even the shoes and gloves we are mandated to where by law because you can kill people with them.


Personal attacks and an obviously erroneous interpretation of my statement? This is why I don't understand gun advocates...

Handguns exist for the *sole purpose* of harming people. They serve *no* other purpose. I never said we should take away handguns because they kill people, I said we should take away handguns because *all they are good for* is killing people.

Every other item you mentioned has a primary purpose that is not to cause the death of others. This cannot be said of handguns.

Once again: handguns exist only to do harm to others.

So before you respond to my argument, please take the time to read it first. If all you're going to do is twist it to suit your needs, you need not bother.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Demosthenes X said:


> Handguns exist for the *sole purpose* of harming people. They serve *no* other purpose. I never said we should take away handguns because they kill people, I said we should take away handguns because *all they are good for* is killing people.
> 
> Every other item you mentioned has a primary purpose that is not to cause the death of others. This cannot be said of handguns.
> 
> ...


You should take your own advice.

Read other's positions again.

There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners who have never, ever pointed their weapon at another person. They do shoot skeets, some simply target shoot, some hunt waterfowl or big game, but the overwhelming majority of gun owners use them in a safe and responsible manner. To state anything different, is to lie to yourself.

My bet is you have zero experience with firearms, or an unusual fear of same caused by something you have read, or been told by someone equally ignorant of their proper use.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Demos, I will give you the benefit of the doubt but you never actually mentioned "handguns". You said guns.

I too, am not a fan of handguns. They cannot be used for hunting purposes and thus serve no pupose other than protection; which is essentially limited to police forces. Target practice is the only legal use for hand guns in Canada and perhaps by outfitters for protection but I am not 100% sure. I know at one time they either proposed or institued a rule where hand guns could only be purchased if you were sponsered by a gun club and the gun was to remain at the gun club. I don't think this made it to law but is a great idea.

Buying a hand gun in Canada is not that easy; I've never actually seen one for sale in any gun shops I have visitied. This is important to note.

Most guns on the street were never purchased legally in Canada so it is not as simple to say we ban all hand guns as they never originated here in Canada. To control legal handguns not falling into the wrong hands, they should be stored at a gun range; the only place they can be legally be used. You would need to ban them across the whole world; this will NEVER happen and in some places would violate various constitutions such as the US.

To be fair, hand guns aren't soley designed to harm; they can be used to hunt with in the US. In Canada, they can be used for protection and target shooting.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> Less guns in the country means less guns in the hands of criminals.


In the two years following the handgun ban in the U.K. the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% . The rise was largely due to the smuggling of illegal guns into the country. "Less guns in the country means less guns in the hands of criminals." will only work if you can totally isolate yourself from a world awash is guns.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> Handguns exist for the *sole purpose* of harming people. They serve *no* other purpose. I never said we should take away handguns because they kill people, I said we should take away handguns because *all they are good for* is killing people.


99.9% of handguns have never been used to harm people.

Clearly your hypothesis that they serve no other purpose is incorrect.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Voyager said:


> In the two years following the handgun ban in the U.K. the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% . The rise was largely due to the smuggling of illegal guns into the country. "Less guns in the country means less guns in the hands of criminals." will only work if you can totally isolate yourself from a world awash is guns.


If that happened in the UK, imagine how easy it is for it to happen here.

We have a massive border with the US and they have a huge number of handguns. Further handgun controls will achieve nothing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*
*
*
This is what I call Gun Control...
*
*
*


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Now that is gun control! I wish I could shoot that well....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Voyager said:


> In the two years following the handgun ban in the U.K. the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% .


BBC NEWS | Politics | Gun crime soars by 35%

Gasp! Gun crime is up! (actually only 35% according to the BBC article).

Firearm Homicides UK
2003/2004 - 68
2004/2005 - 73
2005/2006 - 50 (I think that's a decrease in gun homicides from the previous year)

Firearm Homicides US
2003 - 9,659
2004 - 9,385
2005 - 10,100

Yes, let's compare the statistics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> BBC NEWS | Politics | Gun crime soars by 35%
> 
> Gasp! Gun crime is up! (actually only 35% according to the BBC article).
> 
> ...


OK, let's.

One set of stats is an ocean away.

One is in Buffalo (or anywhere USA) where illegal guns are run into Canada daily.

Take your pick as to where you want to be.

Oh, you haven't moved to Great Britain yet? 

Why not?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Just so we are on the same page. Those stats show gun homicides, only a portion of gun crimes. Indeed by those stats murders were down but the usage of guns in crimes is up.

I cant tell what side you are debating. 80) You posted the document about gun crimes being up but made a sarcastic remark that murders with guns are down. It is late by my standards and the brain is slowing.

In truth, gun crime has risen, those re the facts. What did you want to compare? We would also need to compare based upon crimes or homicides by population. I don't remember the last gun homicide in Kanata; perhaps we should add that to the comparison. A comparison only works when we compare Apples to Apples...just as we would never compare OS X to Vista. (4 Pages and no microslop bashing...I had to.)


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I couldn't watch this whole video...made me sick...

YouTube - IPOD vs. GLOCK .40


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

firstly any sort of handgun is not needed by anyone except military and law enforcement

2nd, longuns should not have any part of "automatic" attached to them
to appease hunters only single shot rifles should be allowed to be sold
shotguns don't need to be made for personal use
i would think a hunter using a bow and arrow (the modern type) would be much more of a hunter

3rd, movies and tv show far too much gun violence allowing people to be sensitized and making them part of the culture

only devoted star trek fan know what a "batlith" is and i have yet to hear of someone going on a killing spree with a batlith

the big difference between guns as weapons and the other weapons mentioned is that guns can kill from a distance and are easily reloaded

knives, ropes, hammers, etc require the killer to be up close and personal to target and be engaged with only one target

i don't see a knife/hammer/rope wielding crazy person killing 33 people
even a car as a weapon requires someone to be up close

people get the idea of using guns for murder sprees from seeing the images of guns easily used a killing weapons on mass media

again, any kind of semi or fully automatic or even partially automatic weapon should not be allowed

that should allow target practice types and hunters a slow loading, one bullet at a time weapon

i still think the bow and arrow is much better weapon for a hunter and anyone stealing it would need lots of skill to kill with it

i realize this puts a real crimp into the goose and duck hunting industries, but a world with more ducks and geese can't be a worse place


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> only devoted star trek fan know what a "batlith" is and i have yet to hear of someone going on a killing spree with a batlith
> 
> the big difference between guns as weapons and the other weapons mentioned is that guns can kill from a distance and are easily reloaded
> 
> ...



Thank you Mr. LC.

That's "lower case" to you.

QUOTE: "i don't see a knife/hammer/rope wielding crazy person killing 33 people even a car as a weapon requires someone to be up close"

What about a cross bow? Or a bow and arrow? Or a bomb? Or a dart gun? Or a missle?

I could go on, but I would bore you.

And finally, a "batlith" is a figment of your imagination. Either that or you believe that sci-fi crap.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> What about a cross bow? Or a bow and arrow? Or a dart gun?


well, when was the last time we heard about killing sprees with those weapons?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> well, when was the last time we heard about killing sprees with those weapons?


All throughout history...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

A world with more geese would not be a bad place....go tell that to a golf course owner, soccer players, farmers ,etc.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> BBC NEWS | Politics | Gun crime soars by 35%
> 
> Gasp! Gun crime is up! (actually only 35% according to the BBC article).
> 
> ...


Obviously you didn't read my post closely. I said in the two years *following the ban*...

My BBC source:
BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Obviously you didn't read my post closely. I said in the two years *following the ban*...
> 
> My BBC source:
> BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban


Good job on using a 2001 article to support your argument. While we're at it, let's go back a to the 1300's. They had no laws outlawing guns, and there were no gun fatalities worldwide. It doesn't really matter that guns hadn't been invented then, but since we're using outdated statistics, it's okay.

And the issue isn't gun crime. The issue is gun homicides. Using a pellet gun that looks like the real thing in a robbery is considered a gun crime. The real impact on our society is how many people die each year from this tool of death.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Good job on using a 2001 article to support your argument. While we're at it, let's go back a to the 1300's. They had no laws outlawing guns, and there were no gun fatalities worldwide. It doesn't really matter that guns hadn't been invented then, but since we're using outdated statistics, it's okay.
> 
> And the issue isn't gun crime. The issue is gun homicides. Using a pellet gun that looks like the real thing in a robbery is considered a gun crime. The real impact on our society is how many people die each year from this tool of death.


One should not be so quick to criticize a source followed by a false statement. Tends to lesson one's credibility. 

Guns _were_ around in the 1300s:

Important Dates in Gun History


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> One should not be so quick to criticize a source followed by a false statement. Tends to lesson one's credibility.
> 
> Guns _were_ around in the 1300s:
> 
> Important Dates in Gun History


Sinc, you are choosing to ignore the point. There very well may have been guns back in the 1300's the point is that they weren't able to shoot 9mm rounds in a semi automatic fashion from a 15 round clip.

MacSpectrum got it right... In this day and age there is NO reason anyone outside of the military or law enforcement need a handgun.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> In this day and age there is NO reason anyone outside of the military or law enforcement need a handgun.


That is of course, your opinion only. There are in fact millions of responsible handgun owners world wide. They should be penalized for the actions of a handful of people who don't use their weapons responsibly? I don't think so.

You might as well get used to the fact they exist, because they will be around forever and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> One should not be so quick to criticize a source followed by a false statement. Tends to lesson one's credibility.
> 
> Guns _were_ around in the 1300s:
> 
> Important Dates in Gun History


I was going based on the Wikipedia artcle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_warfare


> The arquebus, from 1410, was one of the first firearms that were relatively light (they still required a stand to balance them) and could be operated by one person.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You might as well get used to the fact they exist, because they will be around forever and there is nothing you can do about it.


Actually there is quite a bit I can do about it. I can continue to support public policy which severely curtails the ownership of these weapons. I can support politicians who share my views and will continually endeavor to make sure that the availability of these is severely curtailed.

I can continue to educate younger participants in online communities like ehmac that handguns have NO place in our society outside of law enforcement.

More importantly I can teach my kids that handguns have NO place in our society and that they should teach their kids the same thing.

Eventually we will prevail, handguns have NO place in modern society...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> 99.9% of handguns have never been used to harm people.
> 
> Clearly your hypothesis that they serve no other purpose is incorrect.


I don't believe you. Not for a second. I can make up stats too.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Actually there is quite a bit I can do about it. I can continue to support public policy which severely curtails the ownership of these weapons. I can support politicians who share my views and will continually endeavor to make sure that the availability of these is severely curtailed.
> 
> I can continue to educate younger participants in online communities like ehmac that handguns have NO place in our society outside of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Actually there is quite a bit I can do about it. I can continue to support public policy which severely curtails the ownership of these weapons. I can support politicians who share my views and will continually endeavor to make sure that the availability of these is severely curtailed.
> 
> I can continue to educate younger participants in online communities like ehmac that handguns have NO place in our society outside of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


Well, you go right ahead. I'll be watching your futile efforts from the sidelines. 

As long as mankind inhabits this planet, there will be guns and NO amount of squawking by those who object will ever change the fact that guns are here to stay.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> There are in fact millions of responsible handgun owners world wide. They should be penalized for the actions of a handful of people who don't use their weapons responsibly? I don't think so.


I have a very deep seated need to own a collection of rocket launchers and small thermonuclear warheads. I'm very responsible and have no criminal record. Why should the irresponsible actions of a few individuals be used to justify the limitations of my rights as a law-abiding citizen? 99% of tactical nuclear weapons are never used to hurt anybody!

</sarcasm>

Obviously society limits individual freedoms where we as a collective decide that the benefit to the community outweighs the cost to the individual. The existing laws limiting the ownership and use of firearms are an obvious example of this. Clearly, many, if not most, Canadians, think these laws are inadequate, and need to be strengthened. I agree. 

I also recognize that my position is more extreme than that of most Canadians, as is your's, SINC. So we engage in civil debate, and the zeitgeist evolves. It certainly appears to me that it's evolving in the direction of increased gun regulation, and I believe that is fueled by the monotonous regularity with which our unfortunate neighbors to the south demonstrate the tragic social consequences of ubiquitous firearms.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I also recognize that my position is more extreme than that of most Canadians, as is your's, SINC. So we engage in civil debate, and the zeitgeist evolves. It certainly appears to me that it's evolving in the direction of increased gun regulation, and I believe that is fueled by the monotonous regularity with which our unfortunate neighbors to the south demonstrate the tragic social consequences of ubiquitous firearms.
> 
> Cheers


Debate is good for both sides of the issue. My observation is that I think personally that the total banning of guns is impossible to achieve. Not being a gun owner, it matters not to me. I am just trying to be honest enough to admit it won't happen. Not now, or ever.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

99.9% eh - 

26,000 handgun deaths in the US in 1993 - care to do the math.

N C H S - N V S S - Circumstances of Injuries

This is kids only in 2003



> A recent Children’s Defense Fund report found 2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 — more than the number of American men and women killed in hostile action in Iraq from 2003 to April 2006.
> 
> The report on gun violence against children, "Protect Children, Not Guns," is based on the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
> 
> ...


Online only: Child, teen deaths by firearms in one year exceed total U.S. combat fatalities during three years in Iraq

Easy access to firearms magnifies the deadly results of violence immensely.

Handguns have NO PLACE.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I don't believe you. Not for a second. I can make up stats too.


Obviously the stat was made up but it is common sense.

There are over 200 million guns in the US. Take suicides out of the mix and you have roughly 30,000 deaths per year. That would be around 99.985% of guns are not used to kill people in any given year.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well, you go right ahead. I'll be watching your futile efforts from the sidelines.
> 
> As long as mankind inhabits this planet, there will be guns and NO amount of squawking by those who object will ever change the fact that guns are here to stay.


I never said we will get rid of guns. I said they had no place in modern society outside of law enforcement.

30 years ago I'm sure the smoking industry had the same attitude towards cigarettes that you have towards guns. It might take some time, and Canada is much further along than some other countries so I am pretty confident.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Obviously the stat was made up but it is common sense.
> 
> Take suicides out of the mix .....


Any why should we take suicides out of the mix? Are suicides any less dead?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Any why should we take suicides out of the mix? Are suicides any less dead?


Firstly, committing suicide does not involve killing another person. Secondly, there are a thousand ways to do it that don't involve guns. If the person doesn't have a gun they will find another way to do it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Secondly, there are a thousand ways to do it that don't involve guns. If the person doesn't have a gun they will find another way to do it.



Simply not true...

Guns in homes strongly associated with higher rates of suicide

_"We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at HSPH and lead author of the study._


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Firstly, committing suicide does not involve killing another person. Secondly, there are a thousand ways to do it that don't involve guns. If the person doesn't have a gun they will find another way to do it.


I think if you add in suicides and adjust for gun-years as well as factoring in guns being taken out the system and new ones being put in, then maybe you'll be at 99.4% to 99.7%. You'd also need to adjust for injuries and the same gun being involved in multiple incidents. Maybe you'd be at 99.3% to 99.6%, then. Long-story short: 99.9% was way out of line.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I think if you add in suicides and adjust for gun-years as well as factoring in guns being taken out the system and new ones being put in, then maybe you'll be at 99.4% to 99.7%. You'd also need to adjust for injuries and the same gun being involved in multiple incidents. Maybe you'd be at 99.3% to 99.6%, then. Long-story short: 99.9% was way out of line.


Yes, I was way out of line to suggest that the vast majority of guns do not cause harm to people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Simply not true...


You're blowing smoke. That is a solid fact-based true statement.

If a person is intent on committing suicide and no gun is available, they most certainly will find another way.

Don't tell me you've never heard of jumping off a building? Or a bridge? Or slashing their wrists? Or stabbing themselves? Or hanging? Or running in front of a vehicle? Or taking poison? Or driving their vehicle into oncoming traffic? Or grabbing a live electrical line? Or drowning themselves?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> If a person is intent on committing suicide and no gun is available, they most certainly will find another way.


Guns facilitate violent destructive impulses. Suicidal impulses are actually quite common among even relatively well-adjusted people. Having a gun handy makes it easy to act on such an impulse. Having to drive to a bridge, and face the people who will gather to watch you in your torment is enough to make many potential suicides reconsider their alternatives.

Similarly, the passionate violence of a heated argument is often enough to trigger someone grabbing their gun and shooting their antagonist. Afterwards, they regret their action, and wish it could be undone, but the facility with which even a child can kill with a gun can never be undone.

In a world where guns were hard to find, and absent from law-abiding households, there would still be violence, suicides, and other tragedies. But it would be greatly diminished, and that is the point.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My point is simply that not having a gun available in no way diminishes suicide if a person is intent on taking his or her own life.

I agree that people will take the easy way out if you'll pardon the pun, and use a gun. But the lack of one will change nothing and the outcome will be the same. Death.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> In a world where guns were hard to find, and absent from law-abiding households, there would still be violence, suicides, and other tragedies. But it would be greatly diminished, and that is the point.


So, in this world and country, you could also create a black market by banning them (see: drugs and alcohol) and all sorts of related problems. Well financed crime is a very different beast than "standard" crime. Another all too real hypothetical to consider.

Instead, sensible regulations combined with punishments could be used to acknowledge the danger and the fact that most are not used to harm people (maybe not 99.9%, but...) and that other people do want them, even if most don't. Living in a province that banned pit bulls and a city that talked about fragrance by-laws, I'm not so optimistic about sensible.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Actually there is quite a bit I can do about it. I can continue to support public policy which severely curtails the ownership of these weapons. I can support politicians who share my views and will continually endeavor to make sure that the availability of these is severely curtailed.
> 
> I can continue to educate younger participants in online communities like ehmac that handguns have NO place in our society outside of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


And how you plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? They are called criminals for a reason. They have a tendency to ignore the law. Oh, and of the over 640 million firearms, including handguns, in the world, at least 200 million of them are in private hands in the U.S. And we do have a porous border for such things.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

right now, someone with a gun is just a citizen, and until they use it to commit a crime, the police can't do anything about them.

If guns themselves were criminalized, someone carrying a gun (or keeping one in their house) could be arrested *before* they shot someone.

This situation would make it much more risky and expensive for criminals to obtain and keep firearms. I'm sure some would still do it, but high school kids wouldn't be able to walk into schools with daddy's rifle and shoot dozens of their classmates so easily.

Furthermore, such a situation would also put major constraints on the manufacturers of these weapons (hopefully driving most of them out of business, and, at the very least dramatically reducing their profitability and production). They would have to document who they were selling to, and provide records to law enforcement agencies. This would allow law enforcement to pursue anyone selling or shipping firearms. And it would make it much more rare that police would find themselves overmatched by heavily armed criminals.

This is such an obviously good idea that the fact there is disagreement frankly amazes me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> And how you plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? They are called criminals for a reason. They have a tendency to ignore the law. \


What do you call it when partisan politics and some in power are telling you to ignore the law?


> The Conservatives are giving hundreds of thousands of long gun owners in Canada a reprieve -- exempting them from having to register their firearms for another year, CTV News has learned.
> 
> The Harper government, which has long been trying to abolish the federal gun registry, says long gun owners now have until May 2008 to register their weapons.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...nggun_registry_070410/20070410?hub=TopStories


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I couldn't watch this whole video...made me sick...
> 
> YouTube - IPOD vs. GLOCK .40



I can't believe how well theiPod held up. It could save you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> This is such an obviously good idea that the fact there is disagreement frankly amazes me.


It's because you seem to be misinterpreting a variety of things. Police are going to randomly check people and homes for guns? It is now legal to walk around with a handgun, waving it about (as long you don't shoot someone)? You seem to be arguing against a U.S. approach, but extending that to a complete ban instead of, say, the U.S. using Canada's approach.

We can not now require much stricter tracking of sales and puruse anyone breaking the rules? Your argument is missing all sorts of pieces...thus the amazement.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Voyager said:


> And how you plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? They are called criminals for a reason. They have a tendency to ignore the law. Oh, and of the over 640 million firearms, including handguns, in the world, at least 200 million of them are in private hands in the U.S. And we do have a porous border for such things.


Do you honestly think that arming the citizenry with handguns will make a safer society? Look, the test results from down south are in... and having more handguns in the society does not make citizens safer.

The solution is NOT in providing easier access to handguns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Look, the test results from down south are in... and having more handguns in the society does not make citizens safer.
> 
> The solution is NOT in providing easier access to handguns.


But as long as our country is located next to their country, your goal is not achievable. No way, no how, ever. So continue with your campaign. It may even amuse our neighbours.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> But as long as our country is located next to their country, your goal is not achievable. No way, no how, ever. So continue with your campaign. It may even amuse our neighbours.


Hey Sinc... you see that? That me flipping the bird to our neighbours if they think it is amusing that we should put even stricter controls on firearms in our country.

In comparison to our neighbours my goal is half way there. It is very difficult to buy a handgun in Canada. What we need to do is crack down on loopholes which allow handguns to be classified and sold as carbines. I think that cracking down on those loopholes is achievable.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> What we need to do is crack down on loopholes which allow handguns to be classified and sold as carbines. I think that cracking down on those loopholes is achievable.


This sounds sensible. For us non-gun experts (me, at least) what are some loopholes and their implications. Let's start with this "carbines" thing: does that mean they get put under the looser long-gun rules?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Police are going to randomly check people and homes for guns?


No. But if police had a warrant to search a private property, or were searching a car at a check-stop, and they found a gun, they could confiscate it and arrest the suspect. If neighbors reported seeing guns, police could investigate. As of now, as long as you have a permit (or something that looks sufficiently like a permit) the police can't stop you from driving around with a gun in your car or keeping one in your house.



> It is now legal to walk around with a handgun, waving it about (as long you don't shoot someone)?


I don't think so. But possession of a gun does not currently make you a criminal. I think it should (with exceptions for police and military personnel).



> You seem to be arguing against a U.S. approach, but extending that to a complete ban instead of, say, the U.S. using Canada's approach.


Canada is in now where near as bad a situation as the US, and that is evidence for my argument. But there's lots of room for improvement. It doesn't necessarily follow that further increasing the stringency of our gun control would further improve the safety of our society, but I'm game to find out. If it turns out that, against all logic, removing guns from the hands of the public somehow increased the number of shootings, I'd be willing to admit that this effort was a failure and agree that the legislation should be rescinded. If, on the other hand, the consequence that common-sence predicts was observed, an obvious and easy benefit to society would have been gained.



> We can not now require much stricter tracking of sales and puruse anyone breaking the rules?


Why don't we?

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> This sounds sensible. For us non-gun experts (me, at least) what are some loopholes and their implications. Let's start with this "carbines" thing: does that mean they get put under the looser long-gun rules?


Exactly right... Often handgun manufacturers will add longer barrels or detachable stocks to what is essentially a handgun so that it fits in the "carbine" category meaning that the less strict long gun rules apply.

The guy that shot up the college in montreal last year had one of these.

The issue with these things is that they are semi automatic often with 15 round clips (or greater) which means someone using it can very quickly reload, thus increasing the overall lethality of the weapon. 

Long guns have a magazine capacity limit of 5 rounds, so you can buy a larger clip legally in Canada, however these carbines will often accept standard pistol magazine (up to 15 rounds) which are legal in Canada, even though handguns are under stricter control.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If it turns out that, against all logic, removing guns from the hands of the public somehow increased the number of shootings, I'd be willing to admit that this effort was a failure and agree that the legislation should be rescinded.


That's your standard? Taking away something that millions of people want (the majority of which items are doing no harm) as long as there are not more shootings. Let's make a nice long list of things to take away by those standards (because who cares what they want?)...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are also numerous ways to build in tracking capability.

RFDs can be incorporated into guns and ammo.
Sure - if can all be defeated but the very first step is to get the over the counter gun trade done with.

People said smallpox was with us forever and it took a world wide effort to eliminate that scourge.

Work to make handguns and semi-automatic weapons of any kind as socially distasteful as cigarette smoking and some government with the guts to force the arms manufacturers to build in the safety features like smart triggers etc., traceable ammo..

Handguns are weapons with no other purpose that to kill quickly and repeatedly.
They have NO place in society beyond police use.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

People said smallpox was with us forever and it took a world wide effort to eliminate that scourge.

Yes, but small pox was never put into the US constitution...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

How many people wanted smallpox?

The abacus has NO place in society beyond museums. There, now it's a fact.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Yes, but small pox was never put into the US constitution...


That was probably one of the few really serious errors made in the crafting of that constitution. In hindsight it seems obvious, but you have to give the guys who framed that document some slack... they couldn't have foreseen the technological or social developments that would make firearms so utterly useless in terms of protecting citizens from their government (or other governments), and so tragically effective as tools for violent crime.

Fortunately, Canada and most other countries don't have that particular legal problem to overcome. My hope is that the increasing obviousness of the benefit of strict gun control will further erode support for this particular anachronism in the US, and eventually it will be interpreted to mean that every citizen has the right to own antique muskets.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> How many people wanted smallpox?


Smallpox-infested blankets, the weapon of choice of many governments...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> They have NO place in society beyond police use.


Yes they do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Point is - it CAN be done if the political will is there ....it's not. 

Real point of origin is at the arms manufacturing end and too many vested interests are making too much money for that to change anytime soon.
see Big Tobacco.

The govs are even protecting the handgun manufacturers from lawsuits. 

Something simple - get caught with a handgun - lose driving privileges for life.
Sometimes a different sort of penalty, one that carries a social stigma carries more weight as a preventative measure.

Besides....it's good for the environment ...one more transit user. 

•••••



> Yes they do


on what basis?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> That was probably one of the few really serious errors made in the crafting of that constitution. In hindsight it seems obvious, but you have to give the guys who framed that document some slack... they couldn't have foreseen the technological or social developments that would make firearms so utterly useless in terms of protecting citizens from their government (or other governments), and so tragically effective as tools for violent crime.


The firearms were intended to be owned for citizens to both protect themselves AND to overthrow the government, should it resort to tyranny. Your analysis of the Constitution and its framers intentions is both simplistic and wrong-headed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Handguns are weapons with no other purpose that to kill quickly and repeatedly.
> They have NO place in society beyond police use.


Handguns have and always will have a place in society, well beyond police. The military is one. But they also have a place in the hands of people like wildlife wardens who carry then to protect themselves, as do some prison guards, border patrols and armoured truck drivers to name but a few valid uses of handguns.

Members of gun clubs who target shoot are valid users as well, albeit under very strict conditions that prevent them from using them to harm others. The bottom line is that people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Slavery is outdated too. The Constitution dealt with that social aspect of the time as well.
It required the 13th Amendment.
Time for another "abolition" movement......worldwide.

Japan gets along.



> *Japanese Firearms Laws*
> 
> Besides the police and the military, the only group that is allowed to posses guns is hunters, and that possession is strictly circumscribed. The police even check hunters' ammunition inventory, to make sure that there are no unaccounted shells or bullets. Hunting licenses themselves are not particularly difficult to obtain. A prospective hunter must take an official safety course; and then pass a test which covers maintenance and inspection of the hunting gun, methods of loading and unloading cartridges, shooting from various positions, and target practice for stationary and moving objects. The hunting license is valid for three years. Total permit fees for hunting rifles and licenses are 15000 (about 125 American dollars). When not hunting, gun owners must store their weapons in a locker.
> 
> ...


Children killed by firearms - accidental or otherwise...zero.

Military, wardens etc are all agents of the state authorized for deadly armament and even there new technologies have limited the need for handguns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I worry about a world in which only the authorities can carry guns. Don't trust it for a second.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I worry about a world in which only the authorities can carry guns. Don't trust it for a second.


Why?



Macfury said:


> The firearms were intended to be owned for citizens to both protect themselves AND to overthrow the government, should it resort to tyranny. Your analysis of the Constitution and its framers intentions is both simplistic and wrong-headed.


Firearms were invented to wage war. Let's be honest. If everybody had guns, do you honestly think they would have a chance of overthrowing the government? I think not. Democracies don't fall into tyranny. Even if you take the Bush years, he's gone soon. The people will elect the next government, no gun required.

Your arguments for guns are fear mongering and ignorant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Firearms were invented to wage war. Let's be honest. If everybody had guns, do you honestly think they would have a chance of overthrowing the government? I think not. Democracies don't fall into tyranny.


Germany fell into tyranny prior to WWII. As did Italy. There are others. Yes, I do believe they would have a chance to overthrow the government--or at least make the government think twice.

I suspect you might be inclined to sit peaceably on the sidelines--perhaps wave a little placard--while men overthrew the government, and that's your right.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I worry about a world in which only the authorities can carry guns. Don't trust it for a second.


Are you ever going to disclose the location of your bunker?


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Your arguments for guns are fear mongering and ignorant.


Fear mongering and ignorance are the reason we live in a society that has such things as shootings and car bombings.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> on what basis?


On the basis that lots of people want them (i.e. there is significant utility) and that the vast majority of them do not harm other people.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Japan gets along.


They keep guns out of the hands of everybody except the Yakuza.

Report: Japanese mayor killed by mobster - Yahoo! News

TOKYO - The mayor of the Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot to death in a brazen attack Tuesday by an organized crime chief apparently enraged that the city refused to compensate him after his car was damaged at a public works construction site, news agencies reported.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> The bottom line is that people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.


I can't believe anyone could write that with a straight face. Seriously.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I worry about a world in which only the authorities can carry guns. Don't trust it for a second.


That's a pretty funny statement given your stance on the less than lethal crowd control beam weapon we were discussing months ago.

So where do you draw the line then? What happens when we have another Waco? What happens when here in Canada we have a Native uprising because they think they are being oppressed.

Who gets to decide what is and what is not tyranny? You've got a pretty gray set of rules there buddy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I can't believe anyone could write that with a straight face. Seriously.


I was dead serious. My father was a police officer and I grew up with guns of all types, including handguns. He taught me how to use them and how not to abuse them. I took every gun safety course available long before he ever let me own one. I understand guns and I know that the vast majority of them never harm anyone. I also have a great deal of respect for law abiding, fully trained gun owners.

I have zero respect for people who have never touched a gun running around saying the sky is falling. Like I said, people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I have zero respect for people who have never touched a gun running around saying the sky is falling.


Gee Sinc, do you think I fall in that category?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Gee Sinc, do you think I fall in that category?


I dunno. You ever owned or fired a weapon? Or taken a gun safety course? If your answer is no, then my answer to your question is yes.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Like I said, people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.


And like I said, I can't believe anyone can say that with a straight face.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I dunno. You ever owned or fired a weapon? Or taken a gun safety course? If your answer is no, then my answer to your question is yes.


Hmmmm lets see. Let me think of the guns I've had the opportunity to fire.

Ruger 9mm
.357 Single Action Revolver
.45 Black Powder Revolver
SPAZ 12 gauge Shotgun
7.62mm SKS (Chinese AK47 knockoff)
.22 Rimfire Target Rifles (since I was 12)

When my father passed away I gave the family .308 and 20 gauge to my brother in law because I didn't want them in my house.

Don't kid yourself or think that people in favour of gun control don't know what they are talking about or haven't ever fired a gun. I know exactly what guns are all about. I've read the stats and thought hard about the issue and there is no sensible reason for people to own handguns unless they are in law enforcement (or some of the other occupation you mentioned i.e. guards, military, etc...).

Collecting just isn't a good enough reason for someone to own a firearm and keep it in the household. Self defense is a completely stupid and irrational argument as any responsible gun owner would store their firearm in such a way as to make it impractical to use for home defense.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What possible indicator of anything is a criminal act by the Yakuza. 
That's laughable.
Japan as a society has determined they have no use for handguns as legitimate ANYTHING beyond state sanctioned use.
They have as a result a society that does not suffer accidental shootings and "ready availability" acts of violence due to guns in homes.

That alone- no other reason needed....is sufficient.

••

*On the basis that lots of people want them (i.e. there is significant utility)*

WHAT significant utility? ..that people WANT them........horsepucky.

People WANT 3 wheeled trikes - they are banned, People WANT to drive motorcycles without helmets - it's against the law. People WANT to drink and drive...it is also banned and has severe penalties attached.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Hmmmm lets see. Let me think of the guns I've had the opportunity to fire.
> 
> Ruger 9mm
> .357 Single Action Revolver
> ...


Well that's a refreshing change from most anti-gun zealots.

If you know so much about guns, then you have to know that most people handle them responsibly.

I mean you and I both did, so why condemn all the rest?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well that's a refreshing change from most anti-gun zealots.
> 
> If you know so much about guns, then you have to know that most people handle them responsibly.
> 
> I mean you and I both did, so why condemn all the rest?


It isn't about condemning, it's about the costs outweighing the benefits. The reason I've had exposure to those guns was that I knew a collector and I knew someone else who was a former Olympic shooter. 

I love the idea of sitting down with a nice cuban cigar and a crown and ginger, however I know that the costs of smoking (both for myself and those around me) outweigh the benefits I get from it.

Are there other issues we can focus in on from a public safety point of view... sure, however this is really low hanging fruit and easy to fix.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> That's a pretty funny statement given your stance on the less than lethal crowd control beam weapon we were discussing months ago.


I didn't take a stance. I just asked you to clarify your feelings about it and suggested what you might be feeling. 

The American Revolution was also an ugly illegal action, but one that I think worked out pretty well. I don't draw lines in these matters. At a certain point the government may be overthrown by the people. If the people still approve of the government they have, they will fight on its behalf and support it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I also have owned a .22 and shotgun and fired both and taken a safety course not that it makes any difference at all. ( it's just a dodge - knowing about motorcycles makes you MORE likely to approve restrictions and knowing about guns should also lead to a greater push for restrictions). 'Course there is always the 1%ers.

There is no use for handguns in modern society - Japan's approach and stats are very clear..... we are not talking about long guns.

Even when it comes to policing I'd prefer non-lethal for the average officer with a specialist team for deadly force.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Well that's a refreshing change from most anti-gun zealots.


I've also fired several different rifles, and I'm a pretty good shot. I'll even agree that target shooting is fun, challenging, and can be done safely.

But I'd happily give up the right to fire guns on a range (the only reasonable use the general population can claim for firearms) for the increased security society will gain from having guns removed from general circulation.

There will always be legitimate uses for guns (wildlife control, police and other security personel, etc.) but the general populace has no need for these instruments of destruction, and removing them from general availability will have no detremental effects on society. In contrast, it can very reasonably be expected to have significant positive effects, so why shouldn't we at least try it?

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I didn't take a stance. I just asked you to clarify your feelings about it and suggested what you might be feeling.
> 
> The American Revolution was also an ugly illegal action, but one that I think worked out pretty well. I don't draw lines in these matters. At a certain point the government may be overthrown by the people. If the people still approve of the government they have, they will fight on its behalf and support it.


I think that sort of thinking leads us to what we see in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Isn't that exactly what is happening in Palestine? Isn't that what is happening in Afghanistan? Isn't that what is happening in Iraq?

That attitude legitimizes the easy road to political change... at the barrel of a gun.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

80% of Canada is urban and that is growing.
Handguns have no place and even for police is questionable as to risk/reward.

Police chases have similar risk/reward issues attached and we've seen a big drop in those.

••

an AK 47 is cheaper than a live chicken in some areas


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All of everyone's objections to handguns are reasonable for the most part, recognizing that they do have their place in controlled instances.

But a complete abolition, including long guns is beyond my understanding. Most people who own them are responsible and in western Canada, and it's northern areas as well, they are still useful tools and pose no risk to urbanites.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Although my ideal would be a complete ban (for civilians) on all firearms, I'll support any move in that direction.

Let's start with a ban on handguns. Then we can work on restricting long-gun ownership in urban areas, etc.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Although my ideal would be a complete ban (for civilians) on all firearms, I'll support any move in that direction.
> 
> Let's start with a ban on handguns. Then we can work on restricting long-gun ownership in urban areas, etc.
> 
> Cheers


That is a reasonable place to begin. Except for one thing. It cannot be a "complete" ban on handguns. Police, military and others noted in this thread must be armed with handguns. Banning them from target shooters will be difficult, but perhaps over a few decades, doable.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Once more we are not talking long guns and even with long guns Japan is a good model for control - especially of ammunition.



> Police, military and others noted in this thread must be armed with handguns.


Police ???? that's not a must be situation

Britain has had a long debate even for police



> Being a serving Officer I can say that I would not want to carry a handgun, rifle, semi-automatic or other weapons that fire a projectile. BUT I already carry a small canister of CS, which is classified as a firearm, and a baton. If a prisoner is non-compliant and is actively aggressive towards me, my primary tool is CS. Unfortunatley CS does not work on everyone, predominantly those persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it can also include those person with a positive 'mind-set'. My only other option is to step forward and use 'strikes', either with my baton or 'open handed' techniques. Very often it reverts to a grapple in which I try to achieve control. Both my CS and Baton are in very close proximity to the person and on one occasion part of my 'grapple' involved trying to retain control of my Baton which the other person seemed to want!
> Why should I have to put myself in such a situation where not only is injury likely to myself but also highly likely to my prisoner. TASER is already routinely carried by my Force's armed reponse units (ARVs) and is offered as a 'less lethal option.' This is fantastic if an ARV is just around the corner, unfortunately this is far too often NOT the case.
> The Response Unit, Bobby on the Beat, Panda Driver, etc, call them what you will. They WILL be the first Officer at the scene of ALL spontaneous incidents. By introducing TASER to all front line Officers will enable them to preform their duties more effectively.
> I have been a serving Officer for 15 years. When I first joined I was issued a truncheon, a pair of handcuffs and even a cape. If you transported my current equipment to me back then I would think I was joining the SAS and not the police (CS, quickcuffs, ASP Batons, Tactical Vest, Gore-tex jackets, etc).
> ...





> Posted by Amy on May 28, 2006 5:18 AM
> Report this comment
> 
> *I find it instructive that of the two serving policemen and four retired policemen that have replied to this column, all have spoken out against an armed police force. *That speaks volumes. Essentially the final answer to this question is simple. If the police say they need to routinely carry firearms, let them have them. If they say they don't need firearms, then let them remain unarmed. They are the ones at the "workface" - we are not. They know what the score is -we do not. End of story.


Should all police officers carry guns? | News | Telegraph

No handguns except in very restricted circumstances for highly trained officers.

Restriction on long guns nature and registration and in particular of ammo availability and tracking.

Even Switzerland with almost universal training has a domestic violence issue with guns in homes and gun availability.

swissinfo - Spotlight falls on family killings after murder of Swiss skier Corinne Rey-Bellet



> The Swiss National Science Foundation study of murders in four cantons found that:
> 58% of homicides were family killings.
> In 84% of cases men were responsible.
> A firearm was used in 39% of family killings.
> ...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

"let's start with a ban on handguns. Then we can work on restricting long-gun ownership in urban areas, etc."

Apparently you joined late.... banning handguns does not take guns out of criminal hands. THEY ARE CRIMINALS! A criminal is osmeone who DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! A ban will do nothing; read the earlier post regarding the INCREASE in gun crimes in the UK.

MrJimmy...you compley proved Sincs point....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since handguns will continue to be the weapon of choice of criminals and gang members in North America, to not arm police is insanity. Any reasonable thinking person should be able to see that. Switzerland, Great Britain and Japan be damned.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Criminals with guns are a different issue entirely and you'll find a the number of accidental deaths and family violence and impulse murders are reduced.

That let's the police concentrate on criminal 1%ers.
Did you READ the police officer comment on the Telegraph post.?



> find it instructive that of the two serving policemen and four retired policemen that have replied to this column, all have spoken out against an armed police force. That speaks volumes. Essentially the final answer to this question is simple. If the police say they need to routinely carry firearms, let them have them. If they say they don't need firearms, then let them remain unarmed. They are the ones at the "workface" - we are not. They know what the score is -we do not. End of story.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Did you READ the police officer comment on the Telegraph post.?


Yeah, I did. And he's dead wrong. One copper's opinion is just that. One. Stick that Bobby in the downtown core of a major US city and he'll be begging for a handgun. My bet is there are 10 others with the opposite opinion for every one of those you can dig up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Since handguns will continue to be the weapon of choice of criminals and gang members in North America, to not arm police is insanity. Any reasonable thinking person should be able to see that. Switzerland, Great Britain and Japan be damned.


What has the fact that handguns are the weapon of choice by 1%ers have to do with society's response to them or to public availability???.....nothing.

Just type in "officer killed with own gun" for some info on that.

Gangs need to be dealt with by specialized police/paramilitary squads - not the average beat cop and CERTAINLY not customs officers and such.

Guns are stolen all the time from police officers and others.

Yakuza use guns, Japan sees fit to heavily restrict all guns and basically not allow handguns at all. They are on the right track and where we should be going.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Utopia you imagine is nice. Impractical as hell, but nice. Reality sets in and police need handguns.

Or do we hire a bunch of John Howard types to reform the gangs and criminals? Yeah, right, that'll work.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> "let's start with a ban on handguns. Then we can work on restricting long-gun ownership in urban areas, etc."
> 
> Apparently you joined late.... banning handguns does not take guns out of criminal hands. THEY ARE CRIMINALS! A criminal is osmeone who DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! A ban will do nothing; read the earlier post regarding the INCREASE in gun crimes in the UK.
> 
> MrJimmy...you compley proved Sincs point....


Hmm, this seems a bit scattered. Are you responding to two people here or just one? 

Now if they are two separate responses, I don't believe I have proven anyone's point. I have not fully stated any opinion at all. 

Please take a deep breath...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I think some people are taking the "violence never solved anything, don't fight talk thing to seriously".

Cops without guns, good idea braniacs. I am sure the robber with a handgun will be stopped dead in his tracks and give up when a flash light is pointed at him. Maybe the cops will just start singing "Give peace a chance" and they will drop their gun and give up.

People need to think before they type.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

MrJimmy, they were 2 responses. One was to your comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SINC
Like I said, people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.	

And like I said, I can't believe anyone can say that with a straight face.

-----

The first was in response to someone saying let's start by banning hand guns.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

In my opinion, the outright banning of handguns with the exception of professions that require these types of weapons should have happened years ago. I don't believe that this ban should include long guns as they have a use in rural communities. Although, I do believe in VERY STRICT regulations for these weapons. 

• Long guns still exist if needed to overthrow a corrupt Government.
• Cops etc. can have guns for enforcement purposes.
• You can still go to a shooting range with your long gun.

• Hopefully less handguns in general population (at least we are trying).
• Recognition that handguns are dangerous weapons.
• A compromise that hopefully brings the divisive together.

Don't we have enough to friggen (sorry SINC) argue about?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

this post is gettin' big. I am on the same page with you MrJimmy on some items, or partially anyways. What I think is key is tougher sentences for gun crimes. PERIOD. I would also agree to a proposal from years a where handguns could be purchased if you were sponsored by a gun club and the gun was to remain there.

In Canada, hand guns are more or less banned in that you can't use them, save for target shooting. Tougher sentences, including jail time is a good way to make criminals think twice. Or I would at least hope; if they're in jail, they can't commit gun crimes.

Long guns should not be touched IMO; things are fine as they are. Kill the registry though...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> In my opinion, the outright banning of handguns with the exception of professions that require these types of weapons should have happened years ago. I don't believe that this ban should include long guns as they have a use in rural communities. Although, I do believe in VERY STRICT regulations for these weapons.
> 
> • Long guns still exist if needed to overthrow a corrupt Government.
> • Cops etc. can have guns for enforcement purposes.
> ...


Good post. I can agree with it entirely. It is reasonable and not the emotional ramblings of the Utopians like da_jonesy and MacDoc.

Well done sir! :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure Sinc better than mindless dinosaur farts from you. 

This graph alone is enough to ban handguns entirely outside very exceptional circumstances and did you actually READ what the UK cops had to say???
Nah just the ol right wing gut feeling....tradition...and no thought given.










Japan is no utopia - but is HAS dealt with gun control and deaths in a way we can as well. Reality Sinc...so is the mess to the south of us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> But I'd happily give up the right to fire guns on a range (the only reasonable use the general population can claim for firearms) for the increased security society will gain from having guns removed from general circulation.


Perfect! I had always wanted to use Benjamin Franklin's quote as it was intended--to deal with the types of trade-offs favoured by the likes of bryanc!



> "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sure Sinc better than mindless dinosaur farts from you.
> 
> This graph alone is enough to ban handguns entirely outside very exceptional circumstances and did you actually READ what the UK cops had to say???
> Nah just the ol right wing gut feeling....tradition...and no thought given.
> ...


Yes oh learned one, I did read the UK cop's thoughts. Coming from a country that has allowed very few cops to be armed, I'm supposed to believe his opinion is objective or even remotely real as it applies to North America?

Sorry, you get real.

Graphs are just that, made to convey whatever the author of same intended. Bias takes many forms you know.

I would call your opinions something degrading like dinosaur farts, but I won't lower myself to the thinking of such a perfect mind as yours.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

From: Scott's Web Profile



> Let us look at England then. Since the British government banned virtually all private gun ownership in 1997, crime has skyrocketed. Violent crime has more than doubled in the last five years. England's overall crime rate actually leads Western nations -- including the United States.
> 
> Even the UK's historically low homicide rate is under fire. While violent crime has been falling for the past 10 years in America, murders in England are increasing. Twenty years ago there were 8.7 homicides in the United States for every homicide in England, a startling disparity that gun-control supporters never failed to celebrate as proof of their cause. Today, that ratio has dropped to as low as 3.5 to 1, but the gun-control movement is strangely silent about that.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes MF! :clap:

The zealots won't like that post.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Standard stuff. 

MD, the denier about the risks of using cell phones while driving, wants something else banned, not just use-limited. Give your head a shake, MD, so we can hear it.

Vague statements of no "cost" but much "benefit" are made, thereby dismissing people that do value guns but cause no harm (majority of owners). After all, if I don't value guns (I don't) then there must be no cost to banning them...sloppy logic as usual.

Then we've got country comparisons. Let's even use Switzerland and we can make up the story we want, strongly asserting that a given bar chart is proof. 

So we have no case being made for banning guns, but a case being made for treating guns as more dangerous than cheetos. Welcome to where we are and the complexity (despite trying to assume it away) of policy and "dangerous" stuff that enough virtucrats think are costless to ban.

With lines like this:
"This graph alone is enough to ban handguns"

Thought is playing a minor role.

[Edit: Just saw Switzerland mentioned; I am late.]


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

This chart really doens't prove anything... Does this graph only contain fire-arms that were legal? Doubt it. What it does prove is that people are not properly storing their guns. Someting that can be rectified by tougher laws; except for illegal guns.

The problem that some of you are making is that you like to use statitics that are narrow minded, and one-sided. You are falling into the trap that Al Gore has fallen into.

MacFury... I LIKE IT!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> From: Scott's Web Profile


Try sourcing material that isn't blatantly biased.



SINC said:


> I have zero respect for people who have never touched a gun running around saying the sky is falling. Like I said, people who oppose guns, do not understand them in any way other than guns are capable of killing. Their fear is caused by ignorance and is not rational.


What an ignorant statement. I oppose guns, yet I understand them completely. I've been trained and used many weapons in my time with the military. I've fired the C7 (Canadian equivalent of the M16), the C9 (a belt fed C7), a C6 (large calibre belt-fed rifle), 81MM morters, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and more. It is all fun as heck. The military is where guns and rifles belong. Not in the hands of citizens with the mentality of "we need these in case we ever need to overthrow the government".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> What an ignorant statement.





guytoronto said:


> I oppose guns, yet I understand them completely. I've been trained and used many weapons in my time with the military. I've fired the C7 (Canadian equivalent of the M16), the C9 (a belt fed C7), a C6 (large calibre belt-fed rifle), 81MM morters, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and more. It is all fun as heck.


What an ignorant statement.

The weapons you describe are far and away removed from the average gun owned by law abiding Canadians. Certainly not a .22 caliber for controlling varmints.

Your logic is astounding. Stupid too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: While the web site author may favour gun ownership his statistics are merely statistics.

Beej: Watch these folk yowl and creech when they think the government is listening in on one of their phone calls--then watch them demand that these same untrustworthy government folk be given a monopoly on guns.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: Watch these folk yowl and creech when they think the government is listening in on one of their phone calls--then watch them demand that these same untrustworthy government folk be given a monopoly on guns.


I think a pretty bar chart and a blanket statement about there being no detrimental effects should cover any action just fine, just like they did here. Just picture it: Excel and one sentence cover all bases. Well, to be fair, you can also make bar charts in Word, PowerPoint, Keynote and other software packages.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Watch these folk yowl and creech when they think the government is listening in on one of their phone calls--then watch them demand that these same untrustworthy government folk be given a monopoly on guns.


Oh yeah, that makes nothing but sense.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I hate it when people yowl and creech. It makes me want to omit and ant.

Otherwise, not a bad point... nay, a very good one.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> What an ignorant statement.
> 
> The weapons you describe are far and away removed from the average gun owned by law abiding Canadians. Certainly not a .22 caliber for controlling varmints.
> 
> Your logic is astounding. Stupid too.


I've also gone on hunting trips with friends, so I know all about your standard "hunting" rifles.

And the M16/C7 is not far and away removed from a standard 22. It is a 22.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

My Bar Chart


0---------------------------------- 30 People who have made 
strong arguments that
banning guns will not 
solve anything

-6 ---0 Number of anti's who've made erroneous, PETA like arguments that 
make them look silly

0----------------------------------- 25 Minutes I bike today
0 Stanley Cups won by Ottawa


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

u sure you shot an M16? An M16 is not a .22. It is a .223. There is a HUGE difference. One I could stop with my catchers mitt, the other would go right through my hand at 200-300 yards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it has been a while or you forgot the "3".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm convinced RTWOM. Ban PETA in Ottawa. There are no costs and all benefits to this. The bar chart and ill-logic have spoken.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I hate it when people yowl and creech


Max: Anthony Burgess--it's NADSAT!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I've also gone on hunting trips with friends, so I know all about your standard "hunting" rifles.
> 
> And the M16/C7 is not far and away removed from a standard 22. It is a 22.





guytoronto said:


> I oppose guns, yet I understand them completely. I've been trained and used many weapons in my time with the military. I've fired the C7 (Canadian equivalent of the M16), the C9 (a belt fed C7), a C6 (large calibre belt-fed rifle), 81MM morters, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and more. It is all fun as heck. The military is where guns and rifles belong. Not in the hands of citizens with the mentality of "we need these in case we ever need to overthrow the government".


So, how about your "fun" stuff:

"C9 (a belt fed C7), a C6 (large calibre belt-fed rifle), 81MM morters, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and more. It is all fun as heck."

Incredible you like that kind of armament. Any other "fun" secrets to share?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, will get back to you... gotta hit a milkbar and hang with me droogies.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Beej...we would incur a few costs, where would we put all the meat, animal tested shampoo and birkenstocks!

I-OOOOOOO!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> u sure you shot an M16? An M16 is not a .22. It is a .223. There is a HUGE difference. One I could stop with my catchers mitt, the other would go right through my hand at 200-300 yards.
> 
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it has been a while or you forgot the "3".


A standard .22 long rifle has a bullet diameter of 5.68 mm (0.224 in)

An M16 round has a bullet diameter of 5.56 (.223 in).

But I guess that .001 inch is a HUGE difference to some people. 

An M16 is a really high-powered .22 rifle, with a range of 550m, vs 150m of a standard .22.

Either way, they are both deadly.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

GT, the bullet as you mentioned yes is very similar to that of a .22 long. As I am more than sure you know, it's the power in the case that is a huge difference. And in this case, it's a significant difference.

Your statement that an "M16 is a really high-powered .22", is more an accurate depiction.  A VERY high-powered .22.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Or....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Your statement that an "M16 is a really high-powered .22", is more an accurate depiction.  A VERY high-powered .22.


Indeed it is. It gives it the range, which is necessary in combat. A standard .22 has an effective range of 150m. A slower bullet would do more harm in that range. A faster bullet is more likely to pass cleanly through your torso (nice image).

What it comes down to, is that they are both deadly weapons. I understand what these weapons can do. I know how intoxicating the power is (and it really is about power).

As a society I think we really need to admit that enough is enough. People don't need guns. Yes, there are a few exceptions (native hunters, farmers protecting their herds, military, police).

People talk about how super-thin models and the constant "sex sells" marketing in magazines and TV has a dramatic effect on our kids. Now apply that same logic to hunting shows, Guns & Ammo magazine, skeet shooting and the biathlon at the Olympics, and more. That power looks very appealing to kids who have very little.

It used to be ok to have a slave. It used to be okay to consider women as second class citizens. Times change. Guns need to go.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think we are witnessing the start of the 'Great ehMac Cartoon-Off'. Fun!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Or....


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

But you also get one:  

Gambling has no part in modern society.  

Violent video games have no part in modern society.  

Driving faster than 40 km/h has no part in modern society.  

People want these things? Horsepucky to them.  

Getting rid of these things is just plain beneficial.

It used to be ok to have a slave. It used to be okay to consider women as second class citizens. Times change. 

The ill-logical circle of pronouncements continues. 

Now go eat some fast food so we can all feel better about ourselves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> It used to be ok to have a slave. It used to be okay to consider women as second class citizens. Times change. Guns need to go.


Let's just change one or two words in your poorly thought-out argument, Guy. 



> As a society I think we really need to admit that enough is enough. People don't need government subsidized daycare. Yes, there are a few exceptions (the poor, the ill, the unfortunate).
> 
> People talk about how relying on others for what we can provide ourselves has a dramatic effect on our kids. Now apply that same logic to subsidized daycare.
> 
> It used to be ok to have a slave. It used to be okay to consider women as second class citizens. Times change. Subsidized daycare needs to go.


I realize it's early in the morning, but you can do better.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> As a society I think we really need to admit that enough is enough. People don't need government subsidized daycare. Yes, there are a few exceptions (the poor, the ill, the unfortunate).
> 
> People talk about how relying on others for what we can provide ourselves has a dramatic effect on our kids. Now apply that same logic to subsidized daycare.
> 
> It used to be ok to have a slave. It used to be okay to consider women as second class citizens. Times change. Subsidized daycare needs to go.


The next time a daycare is used to mass slaughter 32 people, let me know.

ehMac community standards state that I am not allowed to call people idiots. So let me be clear. I am not calling you an idiot. I would like to for comparing guns, slavery, and and women's suffrage to subsidized daycare, but I'm not allowed to. I tend to think that only an idiot would think like this, using subsidized daycare as an argument to keep deadly weapons in the hands of average joe citizen. However, I have to keep these feelings and thoughts bottled up inside me of how idiotic that statement is, because I try to be a responsible ehMac citizen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Come on Guy, let it all out will ya--but try to maintain a little dignity while you do it.

I often find your posts interesting and well-reasoned. The one I singled out was a clunker.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

What's the difference between this and this?

:lmao:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Perfect! I had always wanted to use Benjamin Franklin's quote as it was intended--to deal with the types of trade-offs favoured by the likes of bryanc!


Yep, that's exactly what Franklin meant with that quote, and if you think Franklin's 18th century perspective on this issue is correct, you're welcome to his company and quotes (having read his biography, and some of his philosophical writings, I think he was a pompous jerk, an opinion apparently shared by his son). I think our world is rather different than the one Franklin lived in and suggest we adapt our thinking.

However,


> In that peaceful little mountain country the average household contains three guns, comparable to the situation in Texas. From the age of 20, Swiss males are required to keep an assault rifle for purposes of national defense. The Swiss government actually sells surplus military rifles to the citizenry, and a permit to carry a concealed handgun is easily obtained. Despite that nation's "love affair" with firearms, Switzerland enjoys the lowest crime rate in Europe.


I didn't know this. Quite interesting, and certainly good evidence that guns are not the sole cause of the problem in the US. That being said, Switzerland, and Europe in general, are culturally quite different from North America. I would predict that the removal of firearms from Switzerland would have no appreciable effect on crime rates there. However, I make no claims of absolute knowledge, I simply favor the emperical test: let's get rid of as many guns as we can, and see what effect it has. My hypothesis is that reducing the availability of guns will reduce the frequency of violent crimes. This hypothesis is supported by lots of statistical correlations, but there are exceptions (like Switzerland), and there are confounding factors (like cultural differences and co-incident social upheavals in the UK) that make any correlation difficult to interpret.

How about a 10-year ban on private hand-gun ownership, and strict enforcement of all gun laws? That'd be a good test case.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How about _increasing _the number of guns and seeing what effect that has on crime statistics? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this will have no appreciable effect on violent crimes. What the heck...give it a try eh? Nothing like real data.

I honsetly don't think that your fear should be the litmus test for this issue. Should I trust someone with such a vindictive and unnatural fixation on Benjamin Franklin?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> How about _increasing _the number of guns and seeing what effect that has on crime statistics? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this will have no appreciable effect on violent crimes. What the heck...give it a try eh? Nothing like real data.


That would be another way to test the theory. However, the majority of the statistical data (with exceptions of outliers like Switzerland) suggest that reducing the availability of guns reduces violent crime. So while your experiment is perfectly valid scientifically, from a humanitarian POV it's a bad idea.



> I honsetly don't think that your fear should be the litmus test for this issue. Should I trust someone with such a vindictive and unnatural fixation on Benjamin Franklin?


How'd you get 'vindictive and unnatural fixation' out of 'I read his biography and some philosophical essays, and he strikes me as a pompous jerk'? (BTW, did anyone else see the episode of Mythbusters where they replicated the Franklin key-on-a-kite-string experiment and showed that it was bunk?).

Anyway, I agree that my fear should not be a litmus test for anything. I'm afraid of heights and I certainly wouldn't want that to stop anyone from enjoying mountain climbing, hang-gliding, or any other high-altitude recreation. On the other hand, people running around shooting things in the woods negatively impacts me and my enjoyment of the wilderness, and causes me (and other members of Canadian society) reasonable concern for their personal safety. And we certainly do regulate firearms out of consideration for the fears of other citizens. I guess there are differences between rational fears and irrational fears, eh?

My argument is that the value of gun-ownership to some Canadians does not outweigh the value of personal security to all Canadians, and that guns are therefore a net cost for society. Obviously, this is a matter for debate, and where we as a society choose to balance these opposing interests is plastic. It just strikes me as pathetic that we need to wait for tragedies to adjust this balance in what seems to me to be obvious ways.

Cheers


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

To those of you who say "legal" guns are not used this way:


todays Toronto star said:


> Police recovered two handguns in a classroom, a 9 mm Glock semi-automatic and a .22 calibre handgun, both of which *Cho purchased legally in Virginia, police said. John Markell, owner of the Roanoke Firearms shop in Roanoke, Va., said his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March.*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> To those of you who say "legal" guns are not used this way:


Since every gun manufactured begins life as a "legal" gun, that's not much of a surprise, is it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Since every gun manufactured begins life as a "legal" gun, that's not much of a surprise, is it?


No, but the argument is often made that restricting handgun ownership won't have any effect because criminals will get them anyway. I think that's a specious argument on the face of it simply because by reducing the number of guns available, you increase the difficulty/cost of obtaining them illegally or legally. However, in the case of the Virginia shootings, the weapons used in the crime were clearly purchased legally, so it is demonstrably true that stricter control could have made a difference in this case.

Cheers


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Martman...those of use who are saying that are those who live in Canada and were debating from a Canadian perspective, where yes most legal guns are not used to harm people, and in retrospect, the same would go in the US as well. 

The US gun laws are rediculous and need to be changed. My dad told me in Virginia, gun control means you can only by one a week. Not sure of his source, but I believe it.

And this is also one instance where a legal gun was used, compare that to ALL the crimes used with illegal guns and your argument falls apart.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> So while your experiment is perfectly valid scientifically, from a humanitarian POV it's a bad idea.
> ...


Then do it on libertarian grounds. See if society chooses more freedom. If not, then try the other experiement to see if it chooses less. 
...
"the value of gun-ownership to some Canadians does not outweigh the value of personal security to all Canadians"

I'm more insecure about being hit by a car (by some tool who's on a cellphone) than being shot. Either one could happen. Some people think gambling is worth banning using the good ol' net good argument. Same with lots of stuff, including things that have higher "safe" use-"unsafe" use ratios (e.g. problem gamblers).

All you're really saying is that it is a matter of public policy and up for debate, so I'm not sure why you were ever amazed by disagreement or that things strike you as pathetic. 

On the one hand you seem to get it, then you devolve into a standard "  " look at things. Self-satisfied pronouncements, so to speak. Maybe the missing piece is thinking about the number of grey public policy areas (almost all of them). 

With finite time and voter attention, how shocking is it that some want to focus on tougher sentences for criminals than, say, taking away something from millions of non-criminals to (likely) reduce certain crimes by some amount, while others want to focus on extensive anti-poverty pursuits and others have a different balance on the value of personal freedom versus subjective measurement of collective "good". 

More than one thing can be done at a time, but there are 1000s of grey things to decide on.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Then do it on libertarian grounds. See if society chooses more freedom. If not, then try the other experiement to see if it chooses less.


I think that's exactly the experiment that the framers of the US constitution tried. It worked really well in many ways (indeed, despite it's warts, I'd choose to live in the US over most countries in the world), but WRT the gun thing, I think the evidence is pretty clear that giving everyone the freedom to own firearms was a bad idea.



> I'm more insecure about being hit by a car (by some tool who's on a cellphone) than being shot.


Me too. But the beneficial utility of cars and cellphones are far greater than the beneficial utility of guns. So the balance point between personal freedom and security is different for these tools.



> All you're really saying is that it is a matter of public policy and up for debate, so I'm not sure why you were ever amazed by disagreement or that things strike you as pathetic.


Yes, it's obviously a matter of public policy. What's amazing about this is that guns have so little (if any) social value, and represent such an egregious hazard to everyone around them, that the rational balance point is obviously to have as few guns around as possible, yet we continue to treat these weapons as if they were shovels or tape dispensers that everyone should have the right to own.

I'm all for personal freedom and I don't particularly trust the government. But letting the average citizen own firearms is about as smart as letting 10-year-olds decide if they want to use cocaine.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A number of friends who used to be all for gun control seem to have reversed their viewpoints. Reason? The Shrub has proved beyond all doubt that we need to be able to protect ourselves from our own government! Sad but true.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A wothwhile experiment that shows gun ownership decreases crime.



> Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia
> Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?
> 
> The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996. In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Yet, after the law went into effect in 1982, there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low.
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Yes, it's obviously a matter of public policy. What's amazing about this is that guns have so little (if any) social value, and represent such an egregious hazard to everyone around them, that the rational balance point is obviously to have as few guns around as possible, yet we continue to treat these weapons as if they were shovels or tape dispensers that everyone should have the right to own.


Nope, that's where your personal values are mimicking objective rationality only in your head. You've judged social value for millions (proposing the ludicrous "if any" possibility like a good social conservative...the "if any" social value to personal choice) and labelled as an egregious hazard to everyone around them despite a tiny fraction of total guns being involved in harm (and a portion of those being illegal; and a portion of those being involved in "crimes of passion" where some harm was likely, etc.) and then you grossly overstate how free we are with their treatment.

The problem appears to be that while you understand the concept, you have great difficulty separting your values from a "rational balance" that you ascribe to discussion outside of your head.

And...
"But the beneficial utility of cars and cellphones are far greater than the beneficial utility of guns."

But what about 80 km/h versus 75, or 40? Having a cellphone versus using it while driving? Only allowing professional drivers (instead of everybody being able to for personal use)? Not so simple to dismiss when you're focussing on solving a problem (gun violence) by taking them away from everyone (majority not causing violence). Same for gambling. Why not ban that by your "social" metrics and rational balance? 

This reminds me of the public-media fixation with crime and (moreso in the U.S.) terrorism. Very overblown relative (note: relative) to actual outcomes other problems. Guns, like crime and terrorism (organised crime?), seem like an emotional flashpoint almost requiring overreaction by many. Pit bulls were too.

Speed reductions for drivers are practically freedom-inspiring relative to banning all guns based on the numbers of actual problems. Again, sensible policy would look to improve controls while valuing what millions have chosen, in my opinion.

"But letting the average citizen own firearms is about as smart as letting 10-year-olds decide if they want to use cocaine."

Nice pronouncement. Meaningless, too. Letting the average citizen drive a ton of steel around at 100 km/h is like letting them run over a 10 year old kid. Also a meaningless pronouncement.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A wothwhile experiment that shows gun ownership decreases crime.


Interesting. This data was sufficiently surprising to me that I did a bit of googling, and found, sadly, that it is not a credible example (it turns out that, firstly, gun ownership in the town was nearly 100% before the law was passed, and that crime rates were not affected as claimed (there was a short term drop, but they did not change over the long term, suggesting that the effect was either a statistical anomaly or due to the publicity)). Given that this law didn't appreciably change the proportion of armed citizens, one would not expect it to appreciably alter the crime rate, and it didn't. However, I wasn't aware of this particular experiment in anti-gun-control, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. It would be interesting to see the data if some community in Canada did something like this (my prediction is that the number of people shot (accidentally or otherwise) would increase).

It is also worth noting that the claims that there has been a significant rise in violent crime in the UK coincident with their handgun ban is due to changes in the way these crimes are counted (harassment is now counted as a violent crime, for example).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: the number of guns in the town wasn't believed to be the key factor as much as the knowledge that the ciizens were armed. The worst case analysis of the crime stats I've seen for the town suggest that there was a statistically anomalous increase in burglaries at some point during the years.

However, if your own googling shows that the town had near 100% gun ownership prior to the law being enacted we have a situation where widespread gun ownership results in no unusual crimes involving guns. Statistics for the latest available year (2004) show that the citizens of Kennesaw are more likely to bop each other, but less likely to use guns or murder each other with guns than either Georgia or the United States as a whole.

Regarding England's gun control efforts, one need only look at statistics involving crimes commited with handguns, rather than broader "violent crimes." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

One might also note that the ban defies their 1869 Bill of Rights, guaranteeing citizens the right to own "arms for their defence,"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> A gun buyer's paradise.


Exactly--one would have to pay more to purchase such weapons illegally in other jurisdictions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It was reported on CBC radio news this evening that some ranking members of the Virginia legislature felt it was "inappropriate at this time" to bring up the issue of stricter gun controls in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The phrase "If not now, when?" came to mind when I heard this statement.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Gun registry is just as costly under Tories as Liberals

Uh-huh.


M


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Don't seem to recall ever hearing a criminal registering a gun before shooting someone...funny, you'd think they would want to follow the laws....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think what CubaMark is trying to say is:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A wothwhile experiment that shows gun ownership decreases crime.


Complete and total bulls**t. I worked for 5 Years in Northern Atlanta and many of the people I worked with commuted in from that area. The area they are talking about is VERY affluent and the majority of the growth was in the development of gated communities.

The fact the crime rate is so low is because many of the subdivisions are gated communities and that there is NO public transportation to speak of.

Another example of how the Pro-Gun Lobby are using half truths to promote their cause.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Don't seem to recall ever hearing a criminal registering a gun before shooting someone...funny, you'd think they would want to follow the laws....


I wonder if the same criminal shot someone with a gun they had stolen from someone who had registered it. I wonder if that led to their arrest or at least gave the police some useful information.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


This comment, in all it's large red glory, is very telling of your position in this discussion. 

First, I think a visit to the principal's office is in order. Then, your desk beside the teacher for at least a week.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


How's that spoon working out for you there Sinc?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Regarding England's gun control efforts, one need only look at statistics involving crimes committed with handguns, rather than broader "violent crimes." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.


Lets put stupid numbers like this in perspective. If there were 4 armed robberies in April and 6 in November then yeah gun robberies rose 53%. 

What were the real numbers?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Lets put stupid numbers like this in perspective. If there were 4 armed robberies in April and 6 in November then yeah gun robberies rose 53%.
> 
> What were the real numbers?


A quick google gives this. More stats can be found if you take the time to look.


> Great Britain.The first country to consider is Britain, where they have endured a serious crime wave. In contrast to North America, where the homicide rate has been falling for over twenty years, the homicide rate in England and Wales has doubled over the past thirty years. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000 (British Home Office 2001).
> In response to rising crime, British politicians, both Conservative and Labour, have brought in laws that increasingly restricted firearms ownership by the general public. Important changes to the firearm laws were made in 1988, and then again in 1992, before banning all handguns in 1997 (Greenwood 2001; Munday and Stevenson 1996). The Home Office has also tightened up on enforcement of regulations to such an extent that the firearm community has been virtually destroyed. Shotgun permits have fallen almost 30% since 1988 (Greenwood 2001). And the result of this Draconian gun control law in Great Britain? It’s not pretty. No end appears in sight for the continuing crime wave.
> ---------------
> Figures 7 and 8 – increase in crime rates vs decline in registered guns
> ...


Gun Control Around the World: Lessons to Learn Adapted from my presentation at the 6 Annual Civitas Conference Vancouver, BC


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The problem with these numbers is that the UK changed its criterion for these stats during this period. However even with the change in the definition of what constitutes gun crime in the UK we see a overall STEADY DECREASE in violent crime overall in the UK.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

Gun advocates will use any statistic to back up their views no matter how bad the deception.




> Police recorded crime is also subject to changes in police recording practices. Changes
> to the Counting Rules in 1998 had a significant impact on violent crime, which increased
> by 83 per cent in the first year of the new rules (Povey et al., 1999). The introduction of
> the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002 again resulted in increased
> ...


Lord knows we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of an argument...



edit: added last sentence


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Gun advocates will use any statistic to back up their views no matter how bad the deception.


And some advocates will overstate their counter evidence. When I looked into the measurement ( a real issue ), the analysis I read did not imply that gun problem increases were just due to measurement. A lot of the measurement changes were for minor infractions, such as assault without injury (often previously unreported), while other gun crimes were reported quite well to begin with. For example, fatal and serious injuries are up.

Focussing on the individual categories of reporting (e.g. type of crime), and where the changes were, still suggested a strong increase in firearms problems. It's worth looking into not to simply grab a quickie google-counter for the game, but to understand what's going on in the data. I'd like to read more on it but, from the reports I read, the problem looks to have increased significantly even after considering measurement issues.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Care to share some links? 
What I've read (admittedly not so in depth) claims that increases where they were present were mostly minor and have since decreased to almost previous levels even with the newer reporting rules (except youth violence).
I'm interested in more in depth reading on this issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've read largely the same area of sources that you linked to (government) but probably in more detail and breadth simply due to personal interest. As a compliment, I got interested because of some earlier ehmac posts that may have included you. I like to do my own research but ehmac discussions sometimes open some interesting avenues. The discussions themselves...well, all politics aside, it's just politics most of the time. 

Look at non-air firearms homicide and serious injury. Up quite a bit. Analysis, including your quote, refers to, "resulted in increased recording of violent crimes, particularly less serious violence". There was also a study from the same area trying to estimate the measurement effect (more than one instance, there were measurement changes in the late 1990s and later, and it was regional), but I don't recall the specific link, although it was in the same area as your links. 

In short, don't fall into the trap of using a piece of uncertainty to completely dismiss something because the uncertainty favours your argument. It can feel good but, perhaps, there's more to public debate than that. I'm not certain that you are playing that typical game (I will not hide that I think you most likely are), but I got the impression that you are dismissive of the UK data due to such reasoning. The data is uncomfortable for gun control advocates and, although this may seem very strange, I am a gun control advocate.

To be clear, simply dismissing the UK experience due to questions of measurements would make, "Lord knows we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of an argument" a particularly odd comment. Similarly for, "advocates will use any statistic to back up their views no matter how bad the deception".

I have not seen evidence to suggest that the increases should be ignored but the data itself, given a careful look at measurement weaknesses, shows an increase in firearms problems. 

For example, on page 76 of http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf you'll see a dramatic increase serious offences. Skip "slight injury" for now because that is where the largest problems are (note: largest problems does not in any way mean no significant increase).


----------



## MixedDrink (May 13, 2007)

These are the things I hate, take columbine for an example, the main weapon used by Dylan Klebold was purchased illegally on the street. And it is as easy to get a gun in Toronto as it is in colorado


----------

