Gun Control

[myata]

Of course you ridiculously don't understand the contradictions in your own position. If everybody can legally own any number of guns, with no possibility of even knowing where, or how many, there will be little need to go after "restricted guns" as everybody and everywhere will be full up to the neck with the "unrestricted" ones. Like in the US, with 5.6 guns per household. Is it any surprise that their murder rate is 5 times higher than anybody else's in the developed world? Any trivial crime, road rage, neighbourhood or pub argument, can be escalated to a lethal one, with guns in their hands. Takes really hard core rock solid (frozen) conservative thinking to not see it.

And no, my position is not that people with guns are bad. Rather that guns aren't your regular everyday commodity. They need to be strictly controlled, as all dangerous items, and only those who need them for legitimate purpose should have them (or be able to get them). Now, it should be clear enough? So next time when you want to cite me, please spare us your creative interpretations, and simply refer to this post, thank you.

[Wilber]

Of course you ridiculously don't understand the contradictions in your own position. If everybody can legally own any number of guns, with no possibility of even knowing where, or how many, there will be little need to go after "restricted guns" as everybody and everywhere will be full up to the neck with the "unrestricted" ones. Like in the US, with 5.6 guns per household. Is it any surprise that their murder rate is 5 times higher than anybody else's in the developed world? Any trivial crime, road rage, neighbourhood or pub argument, can be escalated to a lethal one, with guns in their hands. Takes really hard core rock solid (frozen) conservative thinking to not see it.

Of course, you can't comprehend that no one here is proposing that we be like the US but you keep bringing them up anyway. Everybody and everywhere is not "full up to the neck with unrestricted ones" now or before registration came into effect. You don't seem to comprehend that Canada has certain categories of guns which are restricted or banned and that they are the ones responsible for the great majority of killings in this country.

[guyser]

Like in the US, with 5.6 guns per household. Is it any surprise that their murder rate is 5 times higher than anybody else's in the developed world?

Sine it isnt, I am not sure what your point is.

Any trivial crime, road rage, neighbourhood or pub argument, can be escalated to a lethal one, with guns in their hands. Takes really hard core rock solid (frozen) conservative thinking to not see it.

And the fact that it doesnt is lost on you. Insulting Cons is not the right idea, especially when your own position has been quashed.

American gun owners are for the most part, quite conscious of having one on them, and they do not pull the gun out unless they mean to shoot someone. And that is fairly rare occurence. And even more rare is they dont shoot the bad guy.

And no, my position is not that people with guns are bad. Rather that guns aren't your regular everyday commodity. They need to be strictly controlled, as all dangerous items, and only those who need them for legitimate purpose should have them (or be able to get them). Now, it should be clear enough? So next time when you want to cite me, please spare us your creative interpretations, and simply refer to this post, thank you.

Hmm....willing to give up your extra car? How about your extra TV. Nope probably not.

Legitimate purpose? Hunting is, target shooting is, defence of property is,defence of self is . I would bet you meant legitimate purpose according to myata

[M.Dancer]

This is one of those threads where I look at the title and a thought comes to me which is not the one I believe the OP intended.....

Gun Control.......first and foremost you muct control your breathing....master that and you are well on the way of hitting the target every time.

Edited February 4, 2008 by M.Dancer

[myata]

And the fact that it doesnt is lost on you. Insulting Cons is not the right idea, especially when your own position has been quashed.

Quashed?? Strange and I didn't notice, when did it happen, again? Maybe in your (pipe) dream?

American gun owners are for the most part, quite conscious of having one on them, and they do not pull the gun out unless they mean to shoot someone. And that is fairly rare occurence. And even more rare is they dont shoot the bad guy.

Just about 5 (and more) time less rare than everywhere else in the developed world. No, surely it should be the other way around, with them responsible owners. Must be those numbers, they always lie.

Hmm....willing to give up your extra car? How about your extra TV. Nope probably not.

Correct, but owning gun isn't a right. It's a privilege that is strictly controlled and can be revoked. Too much risk if they fall into wrong hands. As numerous incidents cited here clearly show.

Legitimate purpose? Hunting is, target shooting is, defence of property is,defence of self is . I would bet you meant legitimate purpose according to myata

Some are, others (defense of property) aren't. Legitimate purpose does not mean that there should be no control or registration, on the contrary, they help to ensure that the purpose is indeed legitimate. Or is too much of a mental challenge to comprehend?

To Wilber:

I understand that you aren't proposing "that we be like the US", however your argument for dismantling the only system that allows comprehensive tracking of legally owned guns, will eventually (if followed through, they - Harper's Conservatives i.e still have to pass it in the parliament, I wonder if they'll dare it now their standings being less than stellar), bring us much closer to the US system of unrestricted gun ownership. As may have been a plan all along (one little step at a time).

[Wilber]

Just about 5 (and more) time less rare than everywhere else in the developed world. No, surely it should be the other way around, with them responsible owners. Must be those numbers, they always lie.

As Guyser said, ours isn't and never has been so what is your point?

I understand that you aren't proposing "that we be like the US", however your argument for dismantling the only system that allows comprehensive tracking of legally owned guns, will eventually (if followed through, they - Harper's Conservatives i.e still have to pass it in the parliament, I wonder if they'll dare it now their standings being less than stellar), bring us much closer to the US system of unrestricted gun ownership. As may have been a plan all along (one little step at a time).

That is a big assumption on your part and one I don't share. There will never be unrestricted gun ownership in Canada no matter who is in power.

By the way, gun ownership is not unrestricted in the US, it is just far less restricted in some areas, particularly hand guns. It is also subject to state and local laws. Our present government is not suggesting anything about changing restrictions on them other than making the penalties for using them more severe.

[myata]

As Guyser said, ours isn't and never has been so what is your point?

Isn't not in the least because 1) the gun control regime in Canda has been consistently strengthening, up until now. Harpers government is the first one that promised to buck the trend. And there're also squeaks and grunts from some conservatives, posted in this thread, about "inefficiencies" of handgun control too. Won't take a genius to put two and two together. And 2) Canada isn't anywhere as much urbanized as the US. The US show us very clearly where a country with a weak gun control regime will end up, no matter how "severe" penalties. And that's exactly the direction this government is taking. Dismantling gun control regime, both openly and quetly behind the doors, while strengthening "severity" of penalties. Maybe, to make us more distinct from the south neighbour? New innovative approach to reduce crime? No need to waste time and money, just look how wonderfully it works for them.

But why do I keep stating obviuos facts, when all you have to do is keep droning, after Harper, "less restricted gun ownership plus more jails will solve our crime problems". It doesn't work, it doesn't happen anywhere on this planet (except maybe that wondrous gun lobby showvtown, what's the name?), but who cares, right?

[Wilber]

All the Harper government has done is be consistent in its stand that the long gun registry is over priced, over rated and they are not commited to it. They are also in favour of increased penalties for crimes involving firearms. The rest is pure conjecture that you have dreamed up on your own.

[White Doors]

Isn't not in the least because 1) the gun control regime in Canda has been consistently strengthening, up until now. Harpers government is the first one that promised to buck the trend. And there're also squeaks and grunts from some conservatives, posted in this thread, about "inefficiencies" of handgun control too. Won't take a genius to put two and two together. And 2) Canada isn't anywhere as much urbanized as the US. The US show us very clearly where a country with a weak gun control regime will end up, no matter how "severe" penalties. And that's exactly the direction this government is taking. Dismantling gun control regime, both openly and quetly behind the doors, while strengthening "severity" of penalties. Maybe, to make us more distinct from the south neighbour? New innovative approach to reduce crime? No need to waste time and money, just look how wonderfully it works for them.

But why do I keep stating obviuos facts, when all you have to do is keep droning, after Harper, "less restricted gun ownership plus more jails will solve our crime problems". It doesn't work, it doesn't happen anywhere on this planet (except maybe that wondrous gun lobby showvtown, what's the name?), but who cares, right?

1) Canada is more urbanized that the US.

2) Switzerland has fully automatic weapons in all homes with males over 18 years old. What does that tell you? That automatic guns are safe?

You really need to stop making such desperate attempts to link your anti-gun sentiment with your anti-americanism. if you did, you would really have nothing to say. Please try.

[myata]

All the Harper government has done is be consistent in its stand that the long gun registry is over priced,

Not true - find correct information in this thread. Arar's 1 year of prison cost us $10 mln and the annual cost of registration is $25 million. For that we're getting comprehensive gun control regime for the first time in this country's history, facilitated investigation, and host of over potential benefits. Stop droning obviously wrong statements, over and over, it's becoming annoying not to mention that it's not a very smart strategy in a discussion, with any level of intelligence that is.

They are also in favour of increased penalties for crimes involving firearms.

Which crimes exactly?? Did you forget to mention? There're already 29 offences, most gun related, that already carry minimum sentences (find more info in this thread). What specifically is proposed, and will it stand the rights challege (as with reverese bail obligation), I'm not interested in the least to hear any more of the "tough on crime" drone, it's only good for those who think with somebody else's brain.

The rest is pure conjecture that you have dreamed up on your own.

What is a conjecture? What US has less restrictive gun regime? That they're super tough on crime? Or what their violent crime rates are way above everybody else? Or what Harper's moves take us closer to their strategy (less control, tougher justice)? Please share, preferably with some logical argumentation.

[White Doors]

Please explain the mysterious correlation you make between loosened gun regulation and higher crime rates.

ie: PROVE IT

[myata]

I'm not sure it's even possible to prove anything to anybody who can't (or won't) read, in the specific sense of, recognizing and understanding logical arguments, and hopefully, responding in a logical manner too. Indeed, I won't even try, sorry.

[noahbody]

Is it any surprise that their murder rate is 5 times higher than anybody else's in the developed world?

Educate yourself:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita

[Wilber]

What is a conjecture? What US has less restrictive gun regime? That they're super tough on crime? Or what their violent crime rates are way above everybody else? Or what Harper's moves take us closer to their strategy (less control, tougher justice)? Please share, preferably with some logical argumentation.

What is conjecture is your belief that somehow this is the US. Time to take a geography lesson.

Aside from their non support of the long gun registry please show me where the Harper government has advocated less control over firearms.

[myata]

What is conjecture is your belief that somehow this is the US. Time to take a geography lesson.

Aside from their non support of the long gun registry please show me where the Harper government has advocated less control over firearms.

It's all here, in this thread, just read. Dropping import gun markings, again, against police recommendations, insinuations about efficiency of handgun registration by some vocal backbenchers (and Harper knows how to handle vocal backbenchers when needed, so this one isn't a priority, or maybe even an asset?). Super calm response to calls to do something about escalating gun violence in Toronto (i.e ban handguns; prevent illegal imports). Enough, for now? And how many times need it to be repeated to finally sink in?

To noahbody:

Sure, it's all in the question (and being creative with it). How about this one, from your own source: Homicides per capita by country

Excerpt

Ukraine: 9.27

US: 9.1

.....

Australia: 1.88

Germany: 1.66

Spain: 1.49

9.1 / (average of 1.88, 1.66, 1.49) = 5.41. Even a bit higher than stated, but then these are supposed to be the latest stats, right? Looks like somebody here indeed needs some education...

[noahbody]

To noahbody:

Sure, it's all in the question (and being creative with it). How about this one, from your own source: Homicides per capita by country

Excerpt

Ukraine: 9.27

US: 9.1

.....

Australia: 1.88

Germany: 1.66

Spain: 1.49

9.1 / (average of 1.88, 1.66, 1.49) = 5.41. Even a bit higher than stated, but then these are supposed to be the latest stats, right? Looks like somebody here indeed needs some education...

Sorry, I linked to unrelated statistics in haste. You're noting unrelated stats as well as it's not specific to firearms. I'll give a proper link later.

[Wilber]

It's all here, in this thread, just read. Dropping import gun markings, again, against police recommendations, insinuations about efficiency of handgun registration by some vocal backbenchers (and Harper knows how to handle vocal backbenchers when needed, so this one isn't a priority, or maybe even an asset?). Super calm response to calls to do something about escalating gun violence in Toronto (i.e ban handguns; prevent illegal imports). Enough, for now? And how many times need it to be repeated to finally sink in?

I'm not sure what marking import guns accomplishes as they all have serial numbers and those numbers should be accounted for if the guns entered the country legally. I'm also not sure what difference it makes whether a gun was imported or not if it was illegally obtained and used in a crime. For what it is worth (not much in the real world) I will give you that one.

As far as mouthy back bencher's go, so what? That doesn't make it government policy and Harper knows there is no public appetite for removing the handgun registry. Probably not even among a majority of gun owners.

When confronted with hysterical knee jerk reactions every time there is an incident, I would hope a government would act calmly instead of just giving in to them. Police and border personnel are trying to deal with illegal gun imports but that is just as difficult as dealing with the illegal drug exports which in large part pay for them. Banning legal weapons will not have an effect on the number of illegal weapons on the street unless penalties for their possession make it counterproductive for criminals to carry them. Hard to do business if you are sitting in the slammer for possession of a restricted weapon.

[jbg]

Please explain the mysterious correlation you make between loosened gun regulation and higher crime rates.

ie: PROVE IT

In Canada, a proof is a proof. So I just proved it.

-Jean Chretien.

[Drea]

Banning legal weapons will not have an effect on the number of illegal weapons on the street unless penalties for their possession make it counterproductive for criminals to carry them. Hard to do business if you are sitting in the slammer for possession of a restricted weapon.

Hear Hear!

5 years mandatory for anyone caught with an illegal gun in their possession. Whether or not it was used in a crime. If it were used in a crime, that jail time is to be added to the 5 years, imv.

[Wilber]

Hear Hear!

5 years mandatory for anyone caught with an illegal gun in their possession. Whether or not it was used in a crime. If it were used in a crime, that jail time is to be added to the 5 years, imv.

I doubt there is a show balls chance in hell of that ever happening and I don't think it is necessary but even if it was just 30 days for a first offense, 60 for a second, 90 for a third etc, without waiting over six months for each charge to be dealt with in court, it could quite possibly inconvenience them enough that it wouldn't be worth their trouble to be caught with one.

[Pliny]

It's all here, in this thread, just read. Dropping import gun markings, again, against police recommendations, insinuations about efficiency of handgun registration by some vocal backbenchers (and Harper knows how to handle vocal backbenchers when needed, so this one isn't a priority, or maybe even an asset?). Super calm response to calls to do something about escalating gun violence in Toronto (i.e ban handguns; prevent illegal imports). Enough, for now? And how many times need it to be repeated to finally sink in?

To noahbody:

Sure, it's all in the question (and being creative with it). How about this one, from your own source: Homicides per capita by country

Excerpt

Ukraine: 9.27

US: 9.1

.....

Australia: 1.88

Germany: 1.66

Spain: 1.49

9.1 / (average of 1.88, 1.66, 1.49) = 5.41. Even a bit higher than stated, but then these are supposed to be the latest stats, right? Looks like somebody here indeed needs some education...

You better stop quoting statistics then if as you say it is all in the question.

Statistics are a poor means of argumentation or debate unless the statistical question is known, the source is known, the context it is made in, the demographics it is applied to, and the intention of the interpretation.

This graph -> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_...per-100-000-pop

is more relevant to guns, the subject of this thread, and I don't see that the nearest first world country is 5 times lower than the US. The nearest is only 3 times and that is if you consider Mexico a third world country. I won't argue it isn't. Now 3 times would be very significant if it were 10,000/100,000 but we are talking 1 and 3/100,000. That is a difference of two/100,000 and is hardly worth bringing up. But I must say murder rate of US is triple that of nearest first world country sounds shocking.

Should we compare a country with out gun control then let's use Switzerland. The US is closer to Canada in it's gun control laws than it is to the least restrictive country of Switzerland.

Your argument is hollow Myata. You are right, if anyone should not have a gun it is you. I hereby put forth that Myata shall be restricted from ever bearing firearms. I think she will agree with this as she has no legitimate need for one.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Pliny

[noahbody]

Hear Hear!

5 years mandatory for anyone caught with an illegal gun in their possession. Whether or not it was used in a crime. If it were used in a crime, that jail time is to be added to the 5 years, imv.

There is a need for crime to be the qualifier. To easy to plant a gun in your wife's car should you want a vacation.

[myata]

I'm not sure what marking import guns accomplishes as they all have serial numbers and those numbers should be accounted for if the guns entered the country legally.

OK, so next time when you'll share your valued opinion on another expert matter, like e.g. how much concrete can be saved on building a bridge, we should take it against that of qualified professionals (i.e, police in this case).

As far as mouthy back bencher's go, so what? That doesn't make it government policy and Harper knows there is no public appetite for removing the handgun registry. Probably not even among a majority of gun owners.

Yet Harper has been very efficient in silencing them "mouthy back benchers", than they dared to talk agianst his line. Guess this one isnt, correct?

knee jerk reaction ...

Hard to do business if you are sitting in the slammer for possession of a restricted weapon.

Not a knee jerk reaction, simply recognition of reality: ie. that urban downtown isn't your prairie ranch, and there no place in it for loose guns.

...

That's again your dream world, go to your nearest border crossing for a reality check and watch cars waved through one after another. Any one of them can be loaded with guns. People who tote them aren't afraid of showing or using them in public. There's no reason to expect that adding few years to sentence would scare them away from bringing them into the country.

The realistic approaches to fight this kind of crime were mentioned already. They require consistent long term strategies, initiatives, ground work. I.e., not something this government, keen on catchy one line slogans, would be (and is) interested in.

In any case, on the balance, it's quite obvious that this government does not consider gun control as a serious matter, and even makes moves to start dismantling it. Less gun control, less prevention, more enforcement, tougher penalties - the direction they want to take the country is quite clear. By all indications, it won't result in actually less crime, but who cares, right? What does the reality matter to a true believer?

[Wilber]

OK, so next time when you'll share your valued opinion on another expert matter, like e.g. how much concrete can be saved on building a bridge, we should take it against that of qualified professionals (i.e, police in this case).

I have police officers as friends and in the family. I know that their individual views can vary on some of these issues, often depending on the area of policing they are in. One issue where they vary little (particularly with the cops on the ground) is their belief the law itself and the judicial system is severely lacking when it comes to its part in dealing with this problem.

Yet Harper has been very efficient in silencing them "mouthy back benchers", than they dared to talk agianst his line. Guess this one isnt, correct?

What line is that? Are you maintaining Harper has expressed a desire to do away with the handgun registry?

Not a knee jerk reaction, simply recognition of reality: ie. that urban downtown isn't your prairie ranch, and there no place in it for loose guns.

What makes you think you will find "loose" guns on a prairie ranch?

That's again your dream world, go to your nearest border crossing for a reality check and watch cars waved through one after another. Any one of them can be loaded with guns. People who tote them aren't afraid of showing or using them in public. There's no reason to expect that adding few years to sentence would scare them away from bringing them into the country.

I live next to a border crossing and have property on the other side. It is very difficult to stop the transport of drugs and guns across the border without paralyzing the thing completely, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying. A majority of their most successfully busts are the result of extensive investigations, often involving undercover work , not the random searching of vehicles. It is really the only effective way of dealing with the problem without causing gridlock at the borders. The reason people who tote them aren't afraid of showing or using them in public is because the penalties aren't there which would make it counterproductive to do so. They have little reason to be afraid of the law, only other gun toting creeps. That should be obvious to the thickest person.

The realistic approaches to fight this kind of crime were mentioned already. They require consistent long term strategies, initiatives, ground work. I.e., not something this government, keen on catchy one line slogans, would be (and is) interested in.

"Ban hand guns". That's not a catchy one line slogan? It's hardly even a line. What long term strategies and ground work? Making restricted weapons, illegally owned, the only firearms in the country?

In any case, on the balance, it's quite obvious that this government does not consider gun control as a serious matter, and even makes moves to start dismantling it. Less gun control, less prevention, more enforcement, tougher penalties - the direction they want to take the country is quite clear. By all indications, it won't result in actually less crime, but who cares, right? What does the reality matter to a true believer?

If you consider not supporting a long gun registry less gun control, maybe, but not much less. As for the rest, I think it is pretty obvious who the true believer is.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Wilber

[myata]

If you consider not supporting a long gun registry less gun control ...

No, certainly not, how could you say that ??! They aren't really "guns", just toys for the grown up boys. Nothing to do with gun control, really.

Gun control is all about them, baddies. They should go to jail from about junior kindergaten. Everybody else should get at least five guns per household, and peace and love will rule forever.