What is your say in Canada Gun Control?

[Gordon]

Post your views and opinions!

To me I think it's pretty pethetic...

They are taking the guns away from responsible people and putting them in to the hands of the ones who are un-responsible.

The unresponsible ones screw up and then we take the blame for it! >:(

[Bullseye]

There's some good points on either side of the debate, but the fact that as long as the U.S. is our neighbour, and they allow guns, means that there is just no point in banning them here. They will always find their way across the border, regardless of what we do.

[UrbanPoet]

its more of a political thing none the less.
The gun control debate seems like a bloody dreaded end b/c of mindless ppl that think on emotion rather then rationality. ITs kinda like the liberal mentality...


Even if the anti-gun side wins they will just realize that many years after supposedly 'amazing gun bans' take place that ppl are still shooting each other as much as before and that there will be an increase in stabbing murders.

theres actually been years in toronto where homicides were MUCH higher then the supposedly all so dangerous "year of the gun" in 2005. And most of those homicides were done without a gun...

[UrbanPoet]

There's some good points on either side of the debate, but the fact that as long as the U.S. is our neighbour, and they allow guns, means that there is just no point in banning them here. They will always find their way across the border, regardless of what we do.

even if guns are banned... Guns can be EASILY made.
Anyone with knowledge of metal working can make a gun. Even the guy that fixes your exhaust pipes could easily apply his knowledge to make a deadly double barrel sawed off shot gun.

[Gordon]

even if guns are banned... Guns can be EASILY made.
Anyone with knowledge of metal working can make a gun. Even the guy that fixes your exhaust pipes could easily apply his knowledge to make a deadly double barrel sawed off shot gun.

Haha, It's true. I know people who can make coil guns, and all sorts of firearms.

Even if guns are banned, poeple are still going to find away to bring them in.

[mattpiloto]

I agree that there should be some controls on firearms, much like there are some controls on owning a motor vehicle. Traditionally, however, Canada has been going about it the wrong way. It sounds good to say "Let's ban handguns", "Let's register all of farmer Joe's shotguns and rifles", etc. But that's as far as it goes. If handguns are banned, ciminals will get them elsewhere. If they can't get them elsewhere, they will make their own (the Regina Police department used to have a nifty display of homemade firearms, not sure if they still do). It's not that hard. All you need is a tube and something to hit a primer (nail, screw, etc).

Proper training/background checks of individuals is quite sufficient IMO. A criminal, by definition, is one who does not obey the law. Why would they obey the law that says they can't own a gun? Without proper license/paperwork/etc, you cannot own a handgun (or any gun, for that matter). With a criminal record or violent history, it is nearly impossible to get the proper paperwork. So, all the gangbangers/etc who walk around with guns are already not supposed to have them.

Either way, murders with firearms have stayed at a fairly steady 30% or so for the last 20 years, despite "tougher" laws.

[UrbanPoet]

^

I agree.. I dont mind getting a lisence and registering my hand guns.
But as far as long gun registry? Common.... gang bangers dont come in the form of duck hunters, and farmers taht need a break action 2 shot shotgun to scare away wolves and rabbits eating their crops.... (which is a majority of where long guns come from)

[rfdrfd]

Agreed. Laws have to be tougher.

Also, i said it b4, but I'll say it again. We need security cameras. Just like England. They are everywhere and police can tie into all the shops' private cameras to follow anyone as they walk.

Yes, its no more privacy, but seriously, this world is turning into that anyways. We are all tracked one way or another. From the moment you turn on your TV in the morning, to work (card in), drive on the 407 maybe, or 401 compass cameras on ya, log on at home to use email, etc...till you go to bed.

The benefits of security cameras on streets are endless. ID'ing gun shooting criminals, not more of Police asking "Have you seen this person? ", you can catch someone raping someone, hit and run cases, red light runners that hit/kill people, etc.

And when crooks know there is a camera on this street, they are much less likely to commit a crime infront of a camera. I hope.

I've never heard anyone complain about Casino cameras watching their every move. They are all happily walking inside and having a great time.

[dark169]

I've never heard anyone complain about Casino cameras watching their every move. They are all happily walking inside and having a great time.

the differance is you walk in knowing your under suvaliance. I feel I should be able to walk down the street without the government knowing that. Its not that I'm doing anything wrong, the point is its none of their f'ing business if I go for a walk.

to paraphrase a much wiser man then I: Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Rather then making the responsible ownership of a gun a crime, why not make the criminals that would use a weapon face real jail time? Or chop off the trigger finger of first time gun offenders. :lol: (much like my chop off the right foot of repeat drunk dirvers policy)

[Bullseye]

I would never support widespread use of cameras, the cost to personal civil liberties is too high, and the risk of abuses of power far too great. That the trend is towards this type of thing only strengthens my resolve to fight against it even harder.

I also would never support barbaric tactics such as amputating criminals limbs, which in essence reduces civil society down to the same level as the criminals. Criminals may commit sub-human acts, but I won't do the same thing as some sort of bizarre revenge punishment, and I wouldn't allow it to be done in my name, either.

[rfdrfd]

I agree with ya. That's easily solved. Put a BIG sign at all border crossings of Ontario:

ONTARIO is constanly monitored by CC TV. Or make it CANADA is constantly monitored by CC TV.

Wait isn't there USA satelites that can zoom into anyone on the streets right now anyways ?


Just like all shopping malls, department stores, Walmart, etc. People are okay with it really. We just don't think about it. And stupid theives still shop lift at CCTV stores too, so its really normal to most people.

Hehe, yeah, if only we can chop off their fingers or something, that will deter them for sure.


the differance is you walk in knowing your under suvaliance. I feel I should be able to walk down the street without the government knowing that. Its not that I'm doing anything wrong, the point is its none of their f'ing business if I go for a walk.

to paraphrase a much wiser man then I: Those that give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Rather then making the responsible ownership of a gun a crime, why not make the criminals that would use a weapon face real jail time? Or chop off the trigger finger of first time gun offenders. :lol: (much like my chop off the right foot of repeat drunk dirvers policy)

[Shook1s]

It appears that people are generally on either side of this debate. I suppose the nature of the argument dictates that you are a hardliner on either side once you have formed an opinion.

I must disagree with the notion that the ban is usesless because people will still be killed by guns and you can still get guns. In my view the government is being proactive and taking measures to make guns LESS ACCESSABLE. Realistically I don't think a gun ban is the end of violence, but it helps to curb availablity of weapons.

Just my two.

[rfdrfd]

I would never support widespread use of cameras, the cost to personal civil liberties is too high, and the risk of abuses of power far too great. That the trend is towards this type of thing only strengthens my resolve to fight against it even harder.

I also would never support barbaric tactics such as amputating criminals limbs, which in essence reduces civil society down to the same level as the criminals. Criminals may commit sub-human acts, but I won't do the same thing as some sort of bizarre revenge punishment, and I wouldn't allow it to be done in my name, either.


I don't see the big difference between current states of surveillance vs. widespread use. Even as I type right now, my IT dept is logging me, govern. can check where I am right now. Same with your ISP as well.

To me, there is no trend, it is a progress of a complicated society. All you have to do, is look at cities around the world that is more populated than ours.

India, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. I hear Japan is starting their everyone has a number system. Hong Kong has their new ID cards with the Smart chip in it. HK subway system is one of the best and making tons of money. Look at our sad TTC ? In HK, eveyrone has to carry ID with them anywhere they go, Police can stop and check it, if you don't have it, go to Police station right away.

HK even has campaigns of crowd control, public announcements, etc.

It is the benefits of living in a populated city as ours, that we need these things, because there are "bad" people in it. If there were no more gun shootings, rapes, gangs, then ya, you don't need nothing.

Like Yellowknife or something. They don't need these, but they also don't have Star Bucks at every corner, not many Future Shops or Best Buys.

[w4rrior]

I hope to god that Canadas gun control laws never change. We don't want to end up like the States, which on average, has about 30,000 gun-related murders a year last time I checked.

[Bullseye]

I must disagree with the notion that the ban is usesless because people will still be killed by guns and you can still get guns. In my view the government is being proactive and taking measures to make guns LESS ACCESSABLE. Realistically I don't think a gun ban is the end of violence, but it helps to curb availablity of weapons.

Just my two.

I understand your point, but look at it this way...the vast majority of guns used in crimes here in Canada come from the U.S. Then there is a small percentage that are stolen from legal gun owners here in Canada. So banning them may prevent crimes originating from the second method of aquisition. There is an unintended side effect to this, however, and that is that if criminals know that homeowners are very unlikely to have a gun, this could lead to an increase in home invasions. From what I've read in past, there seems to a deterance factor in crime when criminals suspect homeowners may be armed. This could be lost if guns were banned outright, negating some or all of the benefits of the ban itself. Then there are all the other fairly decent reasons for citizens to own guns to consider.

I don't think of myself as entrenched on either side of the debate, I just try to apply logic to it.

[mattpiloto]

It appears that people are generally on either side of this debate. I suppose the nature of the argument dictates that you are a hardliner on either side once you have formed an opinion.

I must disagree with the notion that the ban is usesless because people will still be killed by guns and you can still get guns. In my view the government is being proactive and taking measures to make guns LESS ACCESSABLE. Realistically I don't think a gun ban is the end of violence, but it helps to curb availablity of weapons.

Just my two.

But it doesn't make them less accessible. Look at England and Australia. Both have banned handguns. Both continue to have crimes commited with handguns.

[UrbanPoet]

you know why farmers in really isolated areas that would take a cop 1 hr to get too dont get robbed?
b/c farmer joe has a shot gun in the closet for "scaring away" coons and rabbits from his "crops" :lol:

But it doesn't make them less accessible. Look at England and Australia. Both have banned handguns. Both continue to have crimes commited with handguns.

very true.
In Canada there are about 20million guns in civilian ownership.
in the UK & australia their guns are pretty much 99% banned. Yet strangely enough... their crime levels are on PAR with Canada despite us having so many guns.

[Bullseye]

I don't see the big difference between current states of surveillance vs. widespread use. Even as I type right now, my IT dept is logging me, govern. can check where I am right now. Same with your ISP as well.

To me, there is no trend, it is a progress of a complicated society. All you have to do, is look at cities around the world that is more populated than ours.

India, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. I hear Japan is starting their everyone has a number system. Hong Kong has their new ID cards with the Smart chip in it. HK subway system is one of the best and making tons of money. Look at our sad TTC ? In HK, eveyrone has to carry ID with them anywhere they go, Police can stop and check it, if you don't have it, go to Police station right away.

HK even has campaigns of crowd control, public announcements, etc.

It is the benefits of living in a populated city as ours, that we need these things, because there are "bad" people in it. If there were no more gun shootings, rapes, gangs, then ya, you don't need nothing.

Like Yellowknife or something. They don't need these, but they also don't have Star Bucks at every corner, not many Future Shops or Best Buys.

A widepsread system of civilian surveillance is not even remotely comparable to store security or workplace monitoring, sorry.

We don't need this type of system, violent crime is on a long downward trend, and has been for many years. Despite media chatter, we live in an increasingly safe society. There is always some risk to skin and bone as humans, it's prudent and logical to try to reduce this as much as possible, but there is a point where the costs outweigh the benefits, and this is a good example of that.

[rfdrfd]

A widepsread system of civilian surveillance is not even remotely comparable to store security or workplace monitoring, sorry.

Yes, I can agree with that. I guess my point is, if someone wanted to check on me, they could, right now, in 2006. So if its more, I wouldn't feel any different.


If that system helped us identify gun shooting criminals, rapists, and such, then I'd be happy to give up any privacy in public streets/stores that we have right now. Albeit these are already FALSE privacy, (in public places).

Its called PUBLIC places for a reason. Its already not private.


I haven't seen stats, but I think overall, trend of violence is going up. Guns are being used more and more now in Canada compared to 10 yrs ago. Meaning more violent crimes are committed now, compared to before.

Just wait till Canada gets a suicide bomber, or Al Quaeda attacks here. Then we'd wish we had a good surveillence system like in England how they could ID those bombers on the trains so quickly and capture future potential terrorists.

[Bullseye]

I haven't seen stats, but I think overall, trend of violence is going up. Guns are being used more and more now in Canada compared to 10 yrs ago. Meaning more violent crimes are committed now, compared to before.

A widespread, but incorrect, belief;

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

I still have to disagree with you about cameras as well...public space doesn't mean the government has the right to track civilians. Again, the chances of abusing such a system are too high to contemplate it.

[Shook1s]

ummmm ... how does a criminal know that Farmer Joe has a gun? Do we post signs saying "LEGAL GUN OWNER".

While I cannot say for certain that the "majority" of gun crimes are committed with guns from the States, that issue speaks to the state of our customs system and not our need for a gun ban.

Just my two.

[mattpiloto]

Yes, I can agree with that. I guess my point is, if someone wanted to check on me, they could, right now, in 2006. So if its more, I wouldn't feel any different.


If that system helped us identify gun shooting criminals, rapists, and such, then I'd be happy to give up any privacy in public streets/stores that we have right now. Albeit these are already FALSE privacy, (in public places).

Its called PUBLIC places for a reason. Its already not private.


I haven't seen stats, but I think overall, trend of violence is going up. Guns are being used more and more now in Canada compared to 10 yrs ago. Meaning more violent crimes are committed now, compared to before.

Just wait till Canada gets a suicide bomber, or Al Quaeda attacks here. Then we'd wish we had a good surveillence system like in England how they could ID those bombers on the trains so quickly and capture future potential terrorists.

But where does it end? Shall we all install remote cameras in every room in our house a la 1984? Or maybe have RFID tags installed so we can be tracked at all times? There is already WAY too much surveillance, and way too many ways to track people. Wanna know everything someone's bought in the last 6 months? Check out their credit card records. Wanna know where they've been on the interweb? Check with their ISP. We need less, not more.

[mattpiloto]

ummmm ... how does a criminal know that Farmer Joe has a gun? Do we post signs saying "LEGAL GUN OWNER".

While I cannot say for certain that the "majority" of gun crimes are committed with guns from the States, that issue speaks to the state of our customs system and not our need for a gun ban.

Just my two.

They don't, and that's why it works. If, say, 10% of people on the street are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and say, 20% of people have a firearm in their house, then everytime a criminal goes to mug someone or break into a house, they are taking a chance that this is one of those 1 in 10 people or 1 in 5 households. It works, believe it or not.

[asim99]

no one should have guns...there are better ways to compensate for one's smaller penis than owning a big gun

[rfdrfd]

But where does it end? Shall we all install remote cameras in every room in our house a la 1984? Or maybe have RFID tags installed so we can be tracked at all times? There is already WAY too much surveillance, and way too many ways to track people. Wanna know everything someone's bought in the last 6 months? Check out their credit card records. Wanna know where they've been on the interweb? Check with their ISP. We need less, not more.


I hear ya. True, there is too much. Its kinda like how medicine field came up, then everyone is on pills. So, what happens is? Naturalpaths emerge, accupunture emerge, etc. So there is always a balance in life.


End? There is no end. Thats the same question as, when are terrorists going to stop killing people? Never is the real answer. Someone's grandson will always wanna revenge on someone's death.

[Bullseye]

ummmm ... how does a criminal know that Farmer Joe has a gun? Do we post signs saying "LEGAL GUN OWNER".

While I cannot say for certain that the "majority" of gun crimes are committed with guns from the States, that issue speaks to the state of our customs system and not our need for a gun ban.

Just my two.

The point is that as long as guns can be owned legally, criminals will never know for sure who has a gun and who doesn't. They know that when they break into someone's home, or attempt to carjack them, that the person may be armed. If law abiding citizens were banned from gun ownership, criminals with illegal guns would not have to worry about this risk, and that could lead to more brazen and frequent criminal acts.

As for our leaky border situation...it has more to do with practicalities than a customs problem. It would be impossible to have business between the two nations if they had to search every vehicle top to bottom, it would take hours per vehicle to effectively stop guns from entering 100%. The other alternative would be a tall wall between the countries, also quite impractical considering the length of the border.

[Bullseye]

no one should have guns...there are better ways to compensate for one's smaller penis than owning a big gun

Thank you for that thoughtful and insightful treatise on the gun debate. I think you've really nailed the essence of it there.

[fakishan]

They don't, and that's why it works. If, say, 10% of people on the street are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and say, 20% of people have a firearm in their house, then everytime a criminal goes to mug someone or break into a house, they are taking a chance that this is one of those 1 in 10 people or 1 in 5 households. It works, believe it or not.

Maybe, so how do you explain a state like Texas?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

[Bullseye]

Maybe, so how do you explain a state like Texas?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Texas allowed gun ownership in 1960, so the point your trying to make is irrelevant to the point you were addressing.

[dark169]

no one should have guns...there are better ways to compensate for one's smaller penis than owning a big gun

yeah like coming to the interweb and pretending to know what your talking about :lol:

[fakishan]

Texas allowed gun ownership in 1960, so the point your trying to make is irrelevant to the point you were addressing.

The main argument is that allowing guns will lower crime. In a state that allows guns to be purchased easilly, where there are A LOT of "farmers", why is there more crime than all of Canada?

[Bullseye]

The main argument is that allowing guns will lower crime. In a state that allows guns to be purchased easilly, where there are A LOT of "farmers", why is there more crime than all of Canada?

But guns were allowed in 1960, nothing has changed since then in that regard. That means that increased levels of violent crime must have another cause besides loose gun laws, otherwise crime would have been high in 1960 as well.

[asim99]

yeah like coming to the interweb and pretending to know what your talking about :lol:
sorry, the small comment wasn't intended for ya...not that there is anything wrong with it :lol:

[fakishan]

But guns were allowed in 1960, nothing has changed since then in that regard. That means that increased levels of violent crime must have another cause besides loose gun laws, otherwise crime would have been high in 1960 as well.

That's not the correlation I'm trying to make at all.

Texas has a population of over 22 million. Canada has of over 32 million.

If in Texas, everyone can and owns guns, and they have a higher crime rate than Canada. Why are the guns not reducing crime rate? Can you provide a state that allows easy access to guns and has a lower crime rate than us? Are you not simply trying to evade the question by blaming their high rate of murder and robbery on "other causes"?

[DCat]

What is your say in Canada Gun Control?

The government should stay out of it. Plain and simple.

[Bullseye]

That's not the correlation I'm trying to make at all.

Texas has a population of over 22 million. Canada has of over 32 million.

If in Texas, everyone can and owns guns, and they have a higher crime rate than Canada. Why are the guns not reducing crime rate? Can you provide a state that allows easy access to guns and has a lower crime rate than us? Are you not simply trying to evade the question by blaming their high rate of murder and robbery on "other causes"?

You are still missing the point. For your argument to be valid, you would have to have a start point where guns were not allowed, then were subsequently made legal. Without that, your stats are useless for the sake of this argument. How can we know that Texas problems with violence are because of guns?

If your point is that guns are the root cause of their problems, then why were violent crime rates not as high back in 1960, when gun ownership was also legal and widespread? Using common sense, there must be other factors at play that are increasing violent crime.

[fakishan]

You are still missing the point.

So, can you find me a pro-gun state with a lower crime rate compare to us?

[Bullseye]

I'll go one better...let's compare per capita violent crime rates in New York City to that of the entire province of Ontario. This is an unfair comparison, as we know urban areas have higher crime rates, but guess what? New York City still has a lower rate!

New York;

687 incidents per 100K people

Link (http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm)

Ontario;

755 incidents per 100k people

Link (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002387.html)

[fakishan]

I'll go one better...let's compare per capita violent crime rates in New York City to that of the entire province of Ontario. This is an unfair comparison, as we know urban areas have higher crime rates, but guess what? New York City still has a lower rate!

New York;

687 incidents per 100K people

Link (http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm)

Ontario;

755 incidents per 100k people

Link (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002387.html)

that's not a valid comparison at all. NYC population is 8 million. so let's do the math.

32/8=4
4x687=2278 for NYC > 755 Canada

thanks for proving my point, again.

even the links you provided are sayiong that crime is lowering. :lol:

[Shook1s]

The point is that as long as guns can be owned legally, criminals will never know for sure who has a gun and who doesn't. They know that when they break into someone's home, or attempt to carjack them, that the person may be armed. If law abiding citizens were banned from gun ownership, criminals with illegal guns would not have to worry about this risk, and that could lead to more brazen and frequent criminal acts.

As for our leaky border situation...it has more to do with practicalities than a customs problem. It would be impossible to have business between the two nations if they had to search every vehicle top to bottom, it would take hours per vehicle to effectively stop guns from entering 100%. The other alternative would be a tall wall between the countries, also quite impractical considering the length of the border.


WOW! How can anyone agree with this. "lets not ban guns because it will deter crimes as criminals will have no clue who to f*ck with".

That is INSANITY!!! That rational is flawed in every way.

Bottom line, a gun DOES NOT guarantee safety. What positive outcomes can come from gun ownership?

As for the customs problem. ... I am simply stating that this whole "dirty guns" talk is a BORDER issue (organized/unorganized crime, blackmarket ... blah blah etc...). Dirty guns in Canada have nothing to do with Banning Guns ... they are not supposed to be here in the first place.

Just two more.

[Bullseye]

that's not a valid comparison at all. NYC population is 8 million. so let's do the math.

32/8=4
4x687=2278 for NYC > 755 Canada

thanks for proving my point, again.

even the links you provided are sayiong that crime is lowering. :lol:

Do you understand what 'per capita rate' means? Obviously not. That means per person, so population is already factored in. Those figures are based on incidents per 100,000 people within the state/province.

So yes, New York cities violent crime RATE is lower than the entire province of Ontario's.

I've been saying all along here that crime rates have been lowering, have you even read this thread at all?

[Bullseye]

WOW! How can anyone agree with this. "lets not ban guns because it will deter crimes as criminals will have no clue who to f*ck with".

That is INSANITY!!! That rational is flawed in every way.

Bottom line, a gun DOES NOT guarantee safety. What positive outcomes can come from gun ownership?

As for the customs problem. ... I am simply stating that this whole "dirty guns" talk is a BORDER issue (organized/unorganized crime, blackmarket ... blah blah etc...). Dirty guns in Canada have nothing to do with Banning Guns ... they are not supposed to be here in the first place.

Just two more.

How about you try living in the real world, not fantasty theoretical land? Borders are porous, guns will get in from neighbouring countries, unless you barricade yourself and shut the country off to the world.

And I stand by my point about guns in law abiding hands being a deterrant to criminals. It's just common sense, really.

[CodecX81]

i say we abolish the traditional border system and let everyone blow up whatever they want, whenever they want to. Civilization will catch up.

[UrbanPoet]

no one should have guns...there are better ways to compensate for one's smaller penis than owning a big gun

http://usera.imagecave.com/peckerwood/emotionalmaturity.jpg

[fakishan]

I've been saying all along here that crime rates have been lowering, have you even read this thread at all?
I'v reread the thread to make sure, show me where you have said that crimes rates have been lowering on this thread?
Do you understand what 'per capita rate' means? Obviously not. That means per person, so population is already factored in. Those figures are based on incidents per 100,000 people within the state/province.
Opps, I missed that. Anyways, allow me to correct the situation, and provide you with the numbers once again, as you have clearly manipulated them. I will still use your own sources to contest your conclusion.

Gun-friendly Regina is Canada's murder capital, according to your own source, which referenced macleans.ca article on new stats from StatCan.

Regina's per capita murder rate is 5.
Toronto's pe capita murder rate is 1.8
NYC's per capita murder rate is 7

How in the world did you figure that NYC had a lower crime rate than Canada? Oh yeah, by manipualting the numbers :|

Look at the weekly NYPD reports, within ONE WEEK, there have been;
3 rapes
37 murders
423 robberies
306 felony assaults
.....list goes on to a total of 2294 criminal reports.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

[hagbard]

Opposed. How are you going to shot the politicans if you don't have guns?
:lol:

Or read this:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

***

[UrbanPoet]

So, can you find me a pro-gun state with a lower crime rate compare to us?

yep... Vermont.
The only restriction on gun ownership is that you must a squeeky clean record.
You could carry a hand gun for self defence if u wanted too without a permit.

http://www.central-vt.com/region/demodata/Crime.htm

Florida actually saw a DECREASE in crime when they passed the infamous "CCW" legistlation that allowed civilians to carry hand guns AS LONG AS THEY pass strict testing that rivals that of police use of force.

In general... ppl are good. Why doesnt anyone trust MAN KIND?

[fakishan]

yep... Vermont.
The only restriction on gun ownership is that you must a squeeky clean record.
You could carry a hand gun for self defence if u wanted too without a permit.

http://www.central-vt.com/region/demodata/Crime.htm

1- your source is laughable; for many reasons, but the most important is it's data. No source, and it's only for upto 1992.

2-Look at the following stat.
http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Montpelier&s1=VT&c2=New+York&s2=NY

Apparently all those armed women in Vermont can't protect themselves from rape, which is over 5 X more frequent than in New York City. Burglary is also slightly higher than in NYC, and theft is 2 X higher.

So basically, even the SAFEST american state's gun friendly laws don't protect against what YOU and your pro-gun friends are promising. Theft, burglary and rapes are higher in Vermont than in dreaded NYC.

I laugh.

[UrbanPoet]

the main point is that gun control does nothing.
we could argue these lil statistics forever... but thats the truth, gun control does nothing :|
you know that hand guns are pretty much "banned" in detroit right?

This is just like back in the 90s with the "long gun registery" that was suppose to get rid of all gun crime forever...
2 billion dollars later and 100million dollars a year in administration cost... what happened? nothing :D

so what now?a nother registery? Maybe... spend anther few billion dollars to confiscate all legal guns, and realize it didnt do anything?

Never before in teh history of man kind has a gun bann/control done anything to curb crime in the western world.

[Bullseye]

I'v reread the thread to make sure, show me where you have said that crimes rates have been lowering on this thread?


You obviously didn't re-read very closely.

Post #19, I wrote - 'We don't need this type of system, violent crime is on a long downward trend, and has been for many years. Despite media chatter, we live in an increasingly safe society.'

I'll address your second point later, my son needs me right now...

[mattpiloto]

I'v reread the thread to make sure, show me where you have said that crimes rates have been lowering on this thread?

Opps, I missed that. Anyways, allow me to correct the situation, and provide you with the numbers once again, as you have clearly manipulated them. I will still use your own sources to contest your conclusion.

Gun-friendly Regina is Canada's murder capital, according to your own source, which referenced macleans.ca article on new stats from StatCan.

Regina's per capita murder rate is 5.
Toronto's pe capita murder rate is 1.8
NYC's per capita murder rate is 7

How in the world did you figure that NYC had a lower crime rate than Canada? Oh yeah, by manipualting the numbers :|

Look at the weekly NYPD reports, within ONE WEEK, there have been;
3 rapes
37 murders
423 robberies
306 felony assaults
.....list goes on to a total of 2294 criminal reports.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf


The funny thing about New York is it is a very gun unfriendly city. As are Chicago, the entire state of California, and many others, yet they have some of the highest crime rates in the United States. Take Chicago, for example, a city of comparable size to Toronto. In Chicago, you cannot legally own a handgun, yet last year there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 firearms murders, compared to Toronto's 80 or 90 some (whatever it was), where you can legally own a handgun. How would one explain that?

[fakishan]

The funny thing about New York is it is a very gun unfriendly city. As are Chicago, the entire state of California, and many others, yet they have some of the highest crime rates in the United States. Take Chicago, for example, a city of comparable size to Toronto. In Chicago, you cannot legally own a handgun, yet last year there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 firearms murders, compared to Toronto's 80 or 90 some (whatever it was), where you can legally own a handgun. How would one explain that?

I don't have to. One of "you" people refered to NYC as a gun friendly state, I didn't.

[fakishan]

Never before in teh history of man kind has a gun bann/control done anything to curb crime in the western world.

Never in the history of man has civilized means of curbing crime worked in effective way, do you want to start chopping of limps and heads now too?

the main point is that gun control does nothing.
Now, I know that this is the type of answer to expect from biased people, but I'll reply anyways, because, well, it's amusing.

The main argument is that gun control does nothing, but you haven't proved that argument, and that is why statistics are used. You bring them up as soon as you "think" they serve you and when they don't, you ignore them?

Stop letting "emotions" control your arguments UP.

[fakishan]

A little about me. I had been blindly anti-gun, but lately, no thanks to people like UP, I am leaning towards a fantasy system of where every adult except convicted felons carry goverment-issued handguns. I'm still looking for arguments to support my own case, but I haven't searched very hard, and people like UP make it very difficult to look on the other side for valid reasons.

[UrbanPoet]

Never in the history of man has civilized means of curbing crime worked in effective way, do you want to start chopping of limps and heads now too?


Now, I know that this is the type of answer to expect from biased people, but I'll reply anyways, because, well, it's amusing.

The main argument is that gun control does nothing, but you haven't proved that argument, and that is why statistics are used. You bring them up as soon as you "think" they serve you and when they don't, you ignore them?

Stop letting "emotions" control your arguments UP.

I dont. Theres just wayyy too many factors. One stat can support one side of an arguement and another to can support another.

the whole gun control debate is... more politics then concern for public safety.

[fakishan]

the whole gun control debate is... more politics then concern for public safety.
what conspiracy theories do you have for politicians wanting gun control?

[UrbanPoet]

what conspiracy theories do you have for politicians wanting gun control?

RWAHAHAH!
Did you notice how the liberals proposed a handgun bann during the elections rather then 2 summers ago when gang bangers were shooting each other up?

do you really think that big multi billion dollar call centre that records ownership of all the shotguns/rifles in canada was done so gang bangers would stop killing each other?

[fakishan]

RWAHAHAH!
Did you notice how the liberals proposed a handgun bann during the elections rather then 2 summers ago when gang bangers were shooting each other up?

do you really think that big multi billion dollar call centre that records ownership of all the shotguns/rifles in canada was done so gang bangers would stop killing each other?

you really shouldn't of said "RWAHAHAH!".
Now every time you post something, I'm going to picture a guy who kisses his guns goodnight in his illegaly built addition to his family home, all the while saying "RWAHAHAH!" "RWAHAHAH!" "RWAHAHAH!"

[mattpiloto]

what conspiracy theories do you have for politicians wanting gun control?

I dunno, a few big fans of gun control that I can think of include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Musolini, to name a few.

As for emotional arguments...let's see...People are scared of communists in the 30s...the hand gun registry is born...Marc Lepine kills a bunch of people (yes, people, not just women) at a university, the long gun registry is born...shall I go on? Do you realize that in the late 19th century, unless you had a good reason for carrying a handgun, you were fined a hefty sum (I believe in the neighborhood of $500). In the 1930s, all handguns had to be registered. Since the 1970s, anyone owning a gun has needed to be licensed. Since the 1990s, all firearms of any kind (except for "antiques") must now be registered. It is a criminal offense not to do so (that's right - Uncle Henry can go to jail if they find his old Cooey stuffed in the attic). What has been accomplished? Not really anything. Firearms related homicides have stayed at about 30% for many, many years. 60 years ago, your average person had way more access to firearms than they would today. They didn't go on crazy rampages. So I ask you, what has changed?

[Bullseye]

I'v reread the thread to make sure, show me where you have said that crimes rates have been lowering on this thread?

Opps, I missed that. Anyways, allow me to correct the situation, and provide you with the numbers once again, as you have clearly manipulated them. I will still use your own sources to contest your conclusion.

Gun-friendly Regina is Canada's murder capital, according to your own source, which referenced macleans.ca article on new stats from StatCan.

Regina's per capita murder rate is 5.
Toronto's pe capita murder rate is 1.8
NYC's per capita murder rate is 7

How in the world did you figure that NYC had a lower crime rate than Canada? Oh yeah, by manipualting the numbers :|

Look at the weekly NYPD reports, within ONE WEEK, there have been;
3 rapes
37 murders
423 robberies
306 felony assaults
.....list goes on to a total of 2294 criminal reports.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

You sure like to twist things and backpedal, don't you? You said 'So, can you find me a pro-gun state with a lower crime rate compare to us?'. You said crime rate, not murder rate, note that. Crime rate to most people is violent crime, so I pulled the stats that showed a state with a lower violent crime rate than Ontario. First you botch what per capita means, then you back pedal and pull one type of violent crime out of the stats to hold up as support for your point...then you have the nerve to say it is ME that is manipulating stats! Hilarious.

Finally, to prove your total lack of good faith in this debate once and for all, you take a small time period of NYC and hold that up as proof of your point. You have no understanding of how statistics work, you've shown earlier, and you do that here again. It's like looking at a bad weekend in Toronto where 5 people are killed, then extrapolating from that to conclude that Toronto must be like that ALL the time, ignoring annual and long term trends.

You intentionally obfuscate the debate whenever you are shown to be wrong, until finally we're left at a point now where we're not even close to what your original point was.

[UrbanPoet]

you really shouldn't of said "RWAHAHAH!".
Now every time you post something, I'm going to picture a guy who kisses his guns goodnight in his illegaly built addition to his family home, all the while saying "RWAHAHAH!" "RWAHAHAH!" "RWAHAHAH!"

So you had to bring up things that my FAMILY did (not me... the addition was built when i was 6 years old... hardly old enough to help out with home construction) to prove your arguement? Sad...

Again you choose to make up facts to make me look bad.
1. I do not kiss my guns gnite. In fact i havent touched them in 2 weeks...
2. Ive actually sold all my guns except for a utility shot gun i keep for food retrieval (duck is a very taste meat =) and of course my antique 120 year old BRitish Webley MK1 REvolver

[fakishan]

So you had to bring up things that my FAMILY did (not me... the addition was built when i was 6 years old... hardly old enough to help out with home construction) to prove your arguement? Sad...

Again you choose to make up facts to make me look bad.
1. I do not kiss my guns gnite. In fact i havent touched them in 2 weeks...
2. Ive actually sold all my guns except for a utility shot gun i keep for food retrieval (duck is a very taste meat =) and of course my antique 120 year old BRitish Webley MK1 REvolver

Learn to take a joke, no argument was made. :|

[UrbanPoet]

Learn to take a joke, no argument was made. :|

i can take a joke even if its aimed at me. :lol:
its just we're having a debate here on gun control, stats are being thrown around, ppl jumping in and out...... and then this joke comes outta no where trying to attack my personality. Especially considerign the joke was aimed at trying to point out illegal things my FAMILY has done (not me) to make me look bad.

I think theres a time and a place for jokes...

[fakishan]

I think theres a time and a place for jokes...
Sure, and I thought it was right about a few posts ago. :) Guess we don't have the same sense of humour, who knew?

[fakishan]

You sure like to twist things and backpedal, don't you? You said 'So, can you find me a pro-gun state with a lower crime rate compare to us?'. You said crime rate, not murder rate, note that. Crime rate to most people is violent crime, so I pulled the stats that showed a state with a lower violent crime rate than Ontario. First you botch what per capita means, then you back pedal and pull one type of violent crime out of the stats to hold up as support for your point...then you have the nerve to say it is ME that is manipulating stats! Hilarious.
I still stand by my post. I'm not being dishonest. I can't believe you are trying to convice people here that NEW YORK CITY is safer than Toronto. Enough said.

Finally, to prove your total lack of good faith in this debate once and for all, you take a small time period of NYC and hold that up as proof of your point. That small time period wasn't cherry-picked. It was the latest availabe! FEBRUARY 20-26 2006. That same link provides hisorical stats, and if you bothered to look at them, they indicate the same thing.

btw, i'm turning in, g'night.

[Bullseye]

I still stand by my post. I'm not being dishonest. I can't believe you are trying to convice people here that NEW YORK CITY is safer than Toronto. Enough said.

It IS safer, the stats show this to be true. How can you say it isn't when the violent crime stats are right there in front of you?

[quote=fakishan]That small time period wasn't cherry-picked. It was the latest availabe! FEBRUARY 20-26 2006. That same link provides hisorical stats, and if you bothered to look at them, they indicate the same thing.QUOTE]

Recent, but too small of a time period (statistical sample) to be proof of anything at all.

I think you just really hate admitting it when you're wrong, so you're doing whatever you can to prevent yourself from looking foolish.

[FastFokker]

I didn't read this thread.. I just wanted to say I think I'm going to hurry up and get my licenses and stock up on guns before they are completely banned.

In my opinion Canada doesn't have a gun problem.. well except for illegal guns coming across the border, but that's a border problem IMO.

This world is going nuts, and when it finally snaps and breaks, I want to have something to defend my canned spam with. :lol:

[Shook1s]

How about you try living in the real world, not fantasty theoretical land? Borders are porous, guns will get in from neighbouring countries, unless you barricade yourself and shut the country off to the world.

And I stand by my point about guns in law abiding hands being a deterrant to criminals. It's just common sense, really.

I am the one who at least addesses the core issue and doesn't rationalize the possession of weapons simply because he/she cannot come up with a better solution.

GUN DOES NOT = SAFETY ... Don't you get that.

Prove to me (apparently I don't have common sense :confused: ) that possession of a gun is a crime deterrant.

What happends if I try to jook you ... you pull a gun ... I take it and shoot you. Are you an accessory to your own murder?????

[bionicbadger]

In my opinion Canada doesn't have a gun problem.. well except for illegal guns coming across the border, but that's a border problem IMO.


I agree with this. Criminals will always be able to get guns if they want them, putting more restrictions on wont change anything. Wasting $2 billion on a gun registry that doesn't work and is unable to even process the claims of people that actually send in their registrations is a far bigger crime.

[Shook1s]

More vigilante justice is required.

[Bullseye]

I am the one who at least addesses the core issue and doesn't rationalize the possession of weapons simply because he/she cannot come up with a better solution.

GUN DOES NOT = SAFETY ... Don't you get that.

Prove to me (apparently I don't have common sense :confused: ) that possession of a gun is a crime deterrant.

What happends if I try to jook you ... you pull a gun ... I take it and shoot you. Are you an accessory to your own murder?????

I've already stated why it is a deterrant at least twice in this thread, I'm not going to repeat it yet again for the knuckle-draggers with comprehension issues.

[mattpiloto]

I am the one who at least addesses the core issue and doesn't rationalize the possession of weapons simply because he/she cannot come up with a better solution.

GUN DOES NOT = SAFETY ... Don't you get that.

Prove to me (apparently I don't have common sense :confused: ) that possession of a gun is a crime deterrant.

What happends if I try to jook you ... you pull a gun ... I take it and shoot you. Are you an accessory to your own murder?????

I will agree in part with what you say. In the US, there are somewhere around 35 states with some type of carry law (IE, citizens may obtain a permit to carry a firearm either open, concealed or both). Several states have also passed laws that allow people to defend themselves without legal repurcution (ie dude tries to rape woman, woman shoots and kills dude, woman is not charged).

Many of these states have begun to report decreases in violent crime rates. Many have shown no improvement, but also are not any worse off. There have also not been any old west style shoot outs, and almost no incidents with people that have been issued permits being arrested for any type of criminal activity.

However, by the same token GUN DOES NOT = VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR. If a normal person acquires a firearm, he/she does not become a homicidal maniac. If a homicidal maniac acquires a firearm, he/she will shoot people. If there are no firearms available, a knife will be used, or a bat, or a table leg...

No, a gun does not necessarily equal safety, but if that were always the case, why do police officers carry them? Why does some schmoe who drives a truck full of money carry one, when joe citizen is left to call 911. Heaven forbid they should actually defend themself. Best call 911 and let the police try and figure out who killed me after the fact.

[Shook1s]

I've already stated why it is a deterrant at least twice in this thread, I'm not going to repeat it yet again for the knuckle-draggers with comprehension issues.

You statement about guns being a deterrant is flawed and without merit.

If you read the post by Matt, he at least attempt to make sense of the matter. His post is clearly thought out and consice.

Matt - While I agree that Guns do not equal violent behaviour. A govenrment knowningly making weapons more accessable is neglecting its duty to protect its citizens.

Believe me if some dude broke into my house and I got my hands on him, he would pray I had a gun and just smoked him.

I cannot see any benefit from having guns available and accessable. Like I said it becomes very hard to stay in the middle of this topic.


We are aware that there are violent people with behavioral problems amongst us, why would we increase the number of weapons on the street?


Like everyone has said ... dirty guns are the REAL problem, and I don't see that going away, but why not limit access to guns to try and prevent further loss.

[FastFokker]

Believe me if some dude broke into my house and I got my hands on him, he would pray I had a gun and just smoked him. So you can use harsh violence against someone and that's fine, but it's not okay for grannie to defend herself with a gun?

So confusing.

Even if we got rid of all guns and locked the border.. criminals who are out of their right mind and wish to do things including violence, will just use the next best tool after a gun.

Removing guns doesn't exactly equate to a crime free society.. crime is derived from social issues and needs to be worked on from THAT aspect, not an after the fact issue like gun control. It's just ridiculous.

People don't stumble onto weapons and then decide to become criminals.. criminals are created and then they find weapons to accomplish their motives. Removing weapons will still leave criminals with motives.

So let's stop being stupid as a society and if we want to solve crime, let's DO IT. We're wasting time, money and lives arguing about guns.

[Shook1s]

So you can use harsh violence against someone and that's fine, but it's not okay for grannie to defend herself with a gun?

So confusing.

Even if we got rid of all guns and locked the border.. criminals who are out of their right mind and wish to do things including violence, will just use the next best tool after a gun.

Removing guns doesn't exactly equate to a crime free society.. crime is derived from social issues and needs to be worked on from THAT aspect, not an after the fact issue like gun control. It's just ridiculous.

People don't stumble onto weapons and then decide to become criminals.. criminals are created and then they find weapons to accomplish their motives. Removing weapons will still leave criminals with motives.

So let's stop being stupid as a society and if we want to solve crime, let's DO IT. We're wasting time, money and lives arguing about guns.

Mr. Fokker (tee hee hee)

You got my point. The criminals are there no matter what we do.

That is a fact.

So the question becomes .. should we make tools for their descruction be easily accessable????

Its that simple.


P.S. Do you honestly think granny is gonna scare someone with a gun??? or is she going to hurt herself.

Take a second ... let that marinate kiddies.

[FastFokker]

So the question becomes .. should we make tools for their descruction be easily accessable????If we start trying to simply limit their "tools", the list will just get longer and longer.. it's a worthless avenue in my opinion.

Either we want to solve crime or we don't.. if we don't, that's fine, let's just admit it then. If we do, let's take a look at the social issues which create rise to criminal acts.

If we don't want to solve crime and just want to prevent people from owning guns, fine.. we just need to admit that's the agenda and the goal and let Canadians decide how they want their Canada. If Canadians feel I shouldn't own a gun legally, then fine.
P.S. Do you honestly think granny is gonna scare someone with a gun??? or is she going to hurt herself.Well that would be entirely hypothetical and in this case, apparently based on an inept granny.

If owning a gun makes granny feel safer at night, I think it's a fine thing. If she hurts herself with it, that's her own doing.. if she defends herself in a sticky situation, that's also her own doing.

We can really debate hypothetical situations of crippled grannies.. but if granny wants a gun and she's legally allowed to have one, more power to her.

[mattpiloto]

Like everyone has said ... dirty guns are the REAL problem, and I don't see that going away, but why not limit access to guns to try and prevent further loss.

I believe you will find that they are not easily accessible. I'm not sure where you live so I can't recommend a gun shop, but why don't you go down there next time you have a chance and try buying a gun. Or, to make it even easier, go to www.marstar.ca. It is a website where you can buy guns online. Try buying one from there.

Of course, there's always that shady guy in the alley or the guy in the bar. Why don't you try him and see how far you get.

If all else fails, why not try stealing one from a legal owner.

[Shook1s]

If we start trying to simply limit their "tools", the list will just get longer and longer.. it's a worthless avenue in my opinion.

Either we want to solve crime or we don't.. if we don't, that's fine, let's just admit it then. If we do, let's take a look at the social issues which create rise to criminal acts.

If we don't want to solve crime and just want to prevent people from owning guns, fine.. we just need to admit that's the agenda and the goal and let Canadians decide how they want their Canada. If Canadians feel I shouldn't own a gun legally, then fine.
Well that would be entirely hypothetical and in this case, apparently based on an inept granny.

If owning a gun makes granny feel safer at night, I think it's a fine thing. If she hurts herself with it, that's her own doing.. if she defends herself in a sticky situation, that's also her own doing.

We can really debate hypothetical situations of crippled grannies.. but if granny wants a gun and she's legally allowed to have one, more power to her.

I agree that it will not solve crime. I admit that Canadians should decide ... but you cannot decide you want to stop crime and then not take actions to prevent it.

As far as granny is conserned ... I never said she was inept or anything like that but it raises a good issue. So we let granny have her pistol. ... she nails herself in the shoulder (not life threatening), now she needs medical attention. I guess we can fall back on good old Canadian health care for her stupidity.

Tisk Tisk.

[Gordon]

I believe you will find that they are not easily accessible. I'm not sure where you live so I can't recommend a gun shop, but why don't you go down there next time you have a chance and try buying a gun. Or, to make it even easier, go to www.marstar.ca. It is a website where you can buy guns online. Try buying one from there.

Of course, there's always that shady guy in the alley or the guy in the bar. Why don't you try him and see how far you get.

If all else fails, why not try stealing one from a legal owner.

You can acutally buy a gun from marstar.ca?

What do you need in order to purhcase one?

[mattpiloto]

You can acutally buy a gun from marstar.ca?

What do you need in order to purhcase one?

Either a PAL, POL or FAC

http://www.marstar.ca/rules-C-NR.htm
http://www.marstar.ca/rules-C-R&P.htm

[FastFokker]

So we let granny have her pistol. ... she nails herself in the shoulder (not life threatening), now she needs medical attention. I guess we can fall back on good old Canadian health care for her stupidity.

Tisk Tisk.Yes under a hypothetical situation based with variables explicitly to highlight your agenda. :lol:

If we started making up hypothetical problems for all dangerous activities or devices, we'd live in a padded room.. then again, we could accidentally suffocate on the padding..

Granny lived a long time and paid her dues to society, it's time we took care of her and curbed crime so she didn't NEED to get a gun to feel secure. But instead, we bicker with each other about the need or danger of hypothetical granny having a gun... :rolleyes:

If you want to make hypothetical grannies life safer, ban stairs! Too many grannies falling down stairs and requiring hospitalization and hip replacement on your tax dollar. ;)

[Gordon]

Either a PAL, POL or FAC

http://www.marstar.ca/rules-C-NR.htm
http://www.marstar.ca/rules-C-R&P.htm

Where can I get one of these permits or PAL, POL, FAC?

I might get one of those AK47's I see.

[UrbanPoet]

Where can I get one of these permits or PAL, POL, FAC?

I might get one of those AK47's I see.

see my thread.

[Peckerwood]

You must be referring to the CZ-858...it is non-restricted

The AK47 is classed as a prohibited firearm by OIC

[webdoctors]

i think we should take guns away from the criminals, :)
how to do that I just dont know...

[Peckerwood]

i think we should take guns away from the criminals, :)
how to do that I just dont know...
The only way to really confiscate a illicitly owned firearm is to catch them with it.

Other than that, it is more efficient to simply arm their law-abiding victims. This in itself is already working in several states in the US at lowering incidents of violent crime.