Gun Control Doesn't work...Never did, Never will!

[Topaz]

When Obama became the president elect there was a run on gun stores and people were paying them up because he was going to do something about the guns in the US and I think I heard that there was also going to be a short of bullets, I could be wrong there. So it looks like US citizens don't either feel safe within their country or just its just a country of violent and mean people.

[noahbody]

Most people who are against gun control seem to be right-wingers,

Most people are against the long gun registry because it is a waste of money.

the same type of people who are all for crackin' down and gettin' tough on criminals and fighting an endless war on drugs.

Prison is a form of gun control. Therefore all lefties who are against prison are against gun control. The same type of people who want to get high all the the time and collect welfare. Aren't stereotypes wonderful?

Right-wingers for their own partisan reasons, refuse to budge or compel the government to focus on the causes of crime where guns are used, 90% of which is caused by drug prohibition.

How about Harper giving tax credits for enrolling kids in sports/music? Wouldn't you say that is targeted at the root of the problem? There are many programs in canada that address this. What people on the left fail to realize is that all people are not the same. For some prison is the best answer.

Despite all appearances it seems right-wingers actually have little if any problem with governments wasting billions of dollars on completely useless policies.

Back to the gun registry, they do. However you don't seem to mind.

[Mr.Canada]

WHy would the left mind?

It isn't their money. Many of them get refunds at tax time as they don't make enough money to pay anything into the country. They're just playing with peoples money like it's a game. Why not, right lefties? It isn't your money that's being wasted.

[Oleg Bach]

Remember the left are almost all urbanites. Guns to these people are from another world. City feminists and male urban sissies believe that guns kill people when - people kill people regardless. The left have already outlawed the human fist - what's next?

[eyeball]

This lefty lives out in the sticks and I can show you many traffic signs hereabouts with bullet holes through them. I especially shudder at the stop sign on a logging road that crosses the same road our kids travelled to school by bus.

If I had anything to say about it gun control would also involve registering bullets and retro-fitting guns with GPS chips so they can be tracked. The gun-powder in bullets would contain chemical markers that identify their purchaser. Guns would have to be stored in armouries and checked out and returned to storage when not in use, etc etc etc.

I probably stop short of banning guns outright but I'd certainly try to take as much fun out of owning one as I could. There are just far to many stupid people loose in the world to leave as many guns lying about as do.

[wulf42]

There is actually a town in Georgia where it is Mandatory to own a gun....and the crime rate there is near zero! Proof Gun control does not work actually just the opposite!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

[Mr.Canada]

This lefty lives out in the sticks and I can show you many traffic signs hereabouts with bullet holes through them. I especially shudder at the stop sign on a logging road that crosses the same road our kids travelled to school by bus.

If I had anything to say about it gun control would also involve registering bullets and retro-fitting guns with GPS chips so they can be tracked. The gun-powder in bullets would contain chemical markers that identify their purchaser. Guns would have to be stored in armouries and checked out and returned to storage when not in use, etc etc etc.

I probably stop short of banning guns outright but I'd certainly try to take as much fun out of owning one as I could. There are just far to many stupid people loose in the world to leave as many guns lying about as do.

The thing that gun control does is punishes the law abiding gun owner, nothing more. Bad guys will get guns no matter how many laws there are. Don't you understand this?

[MolonLabe]

This lefty lives out in the sticks and I can show you many traffic signs hereabouts with bullet holes through them. I especially shudder at the stop sign on a logging road that crosses the same road our kids travelled to school by bus.

And the problem is?

If I had anything to say about it gun control would also involve registering bullets

The gun registry cost a minimum of 1 billion for only 7 million guns...$143 per gun.

How much do you think it would cost for ammunition considering just how many rounds are out there? To register a single box of 20 rounds per gun owner, each round registered would then cost the taxpayers 20 billion dollars.

I can only imagine just how much more money it would cost for a box of pistol rounds that come with 50 rounds in each box...not to mention the most common cartridge in the world being 22LR which all come in boxes of 50, 250, and 1000.

Need I also mention that I can make bullets easily from lead, copper, brass etc at home with a small smelter, swaging press, and reload dies.

Lead is less than a dollar for a POUND, and I have made copper jackets from plumbing supplies.

and retro-fitting guns with GPS chips so they can be tracked.

Yeah like that will work...where exactly in the gun would you put these GPS tracking devices? In the removable stock? The removable bolt? The removable barrels?

I can see the GPS device being destroyed on the first shot if it is in the barrel somewhere due to expansive pressure. And not to mention that if they run on batteries, and sooner or later those batteries will die and need to be changed. If the battery can be changed then it can also be removed.

I can see you have given this enormous thought

Also...how will any of these measure affect the other 17 million guns out there that aren't registered...or those that are in the US that are not in the same Canadian system that are being smuggled regularly across the border?

The gun-powder in bullets would contain chemical markers that identify their purchaser.

I can make gunpowder at home with minimal chemicals...not to mention that I can make substitute powder composites with household chemicals as well.

Black powder is still as simple to make as it was 600 years ago...smokeless gun cotton is still as simple to make as it was 130 years ago.

Guns would have to be stored in armouries and checked out and returned to storage when not in use, etc etc etc.

One stop shopping locations for criminals and gang members

Such armouries don't stop criminals from breaking into them in military installations...wth fences, gates, and armed guards on duty 24/7

I probably stop short of banning guns outright but I'd certainly try to take as much fun out of owning one as I could. There are just far to many stupid people loose in the world to leave as many guns lying about as do.

All you will do is drive it underground by means of the paths of least resistance. Why should anyone bother with the safety exams, and get a license, and waiting periods, and registration transfers, and Authorizations To Transport to and from the range, and, and, and.

When guns can be had easily on the street for cash and a smile, such restrictions will only serve to redirect people to less resistive sources.

Any other bright ideas?

[Oleg Bach]

To the lefty that lives out in the sticks and is shocked by the boys drinking beer and popping a few holes in a stop sign with the family 22 - big deal! Property damage at best - but like a typical lefty - he inserts the warm and fussy fear based premise that a "school bus" passes by that bullet riddled stop sign...typical - use children to further your agenda of engineering more socialism...give me a break - no red neck is going to fire at a stupid stop sign if he thinks a school bus is about to appear in his line of sight....I remember some lefties from the city who came up to a rural house.... to a red neck dwelling and took the kids into care because they had a FIRE PLACE...these lefties have never seen fire before and were sure that the kids were going to tumble in...pitiful...As a former red neck and rural person - there have been weapons and fire for a thousand years...not one kid was shot - and not one fell into the flames...maybe the lefties should figure out why their social engineering has not generated responible adults and children in the city...seems they get burned and shoot each other - we don't.

[eyeball]

And the problem is?

The holes in the stop sign I mentioned indicate the bullets crossed the road at about the same height as the bottom of a window in a school bus.

[eyeball]

The thing that gun control does is punishes the law abiding gun owner, nothing more. Bad guys will get guns no matter how many laws there are. Don't you understand this?

Yes, I clearly understand the futility of trying to prohibit things. You always end up with bad guys no matter how many laws there are but nobody seems to care about that. So...like I said I support going after guns in the hopes that doing so will finally drive you gun addicts nuts to the extent you'll pressure the government to prohibit prohibition.

I still think something needs to be done to control the kind of idiot that would shoot bullets through a public throughway though. This should be an abject embarrasment to any law abiding gun advocate.

...and the problem is...

Give your freakin' head a shake.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, the young black urbanites who are holding our cities hostage always use legally registered firearms right?

How will prohibiting law abiding gun owners in Canada from having guns stop these thugs from killing Jane Creba with their Glocks obtained from the USA?

[marcinmoka]

the Government is trying to line their pockets with these peoples money while actually trying to sell the Canadian public that it is safer when in actual fact the Government is simply doing what it always does to honest people and screw them over and take their money and use it on their new cars...pools...Vacations...etc

Exactly. Our Don, Stevie "The Necktie" Harper personally takes a 40% cut on gun licensing fees. Pay up..sucka

There is actually a town in Georgia where it is Mandatory to own a gun....and the crime rate there is near zero! Proof Gun control does not work actually just the opposite!

Sorta like Iraq..

[eyeball]

How will prohibiting law abiding gun owners in Canada from having guns stop these thugs from killing Jane Creba with their Glocks obtained from the USA?

In a roundabout way. You people will become increasingly desperate and frustrated and finally force the government to address the causes of gun crimes - namely the gang-land turf wars that are inspired by drug profits that have been ridiculously over-inflated by prohibition.

The only way to stop US guns from entering Canada is to seal the border and search everything and everyone that comes across. As for the cost of sealing the border the US will happily pay for that themselves once we end prohibition.

Maintain prohibition however and you can expect more shootings and more innocent deaths and more calls for gun control. In the face of continued prohibition what choice does society have? Arm everyone? I'd say ending prohibition is definitely the lesser of these two evils.

Edited December 14, 2008 by eyeball

[noahbody]

The holes in the stop sign I mentioned indicate the bullets crossed the road at about the same height as the bottom of a window in a school bus.

Did this happen during the day or at 2 a.m. I'd assume the latter. Not saying shooting off a rifle at any time of day is safe, but using the school bus for emotional response is a bit of a stretch. I'd be far more conerned with children getting killed by a stray bullet by gang members as they're doing their gun play in broad daylight. It's already happened.

[Mr.Canada]

We need to start issuing CCW permits so at least Canadian citizens can fight back and defend themselves against these thugs. We are creating a society of victims instead of a strong, self sufficient society.

[Oleg Bach]

You can not control guns - the best you can do is control the trigger finger. In order to do that you have to control the body and mind of the citizen. Not in a negative slavish way though. The message has go to get though that real human evolution and honourable manhood comes though a thing called bravery confidence and faith - in ones own mental and spiritual abilities. The message should be instilled in our young men - that you are a coward and a pussy if you need a weapon. Insult them into submission. Teach our young boys to be men...so far we have engineered screaming hetro-f*gs who if your took their gun away would cower when looked upon. Why the hell did we allow our males to be so debased to the point where they can not walk into a room and command respect because they are caring and loving men - but - men that are capable of great defensive actions against physical violence - the mind and heart should be their gun.

[marcinmoka]

We need to start issuing CCW permits so at least Canadian citizens can fight back and defend themselves against these thugs.

I strongly doubt there are too many guns in my neighbourhood, and would very much like to keep it that way. Even more, the last thing I want to see is a bunch of self appointed vigilantes who see a threat behind every corner (see above). Paranoid schizophrenics and concealed weapons don't mix.

However, if you want to meet a bunch more like minded individuals as yourself:

Directions: (Arriving from Hicksville, ON)

1.Get off at Union Station

2. Take the train northbound, direction "Downsview" station

3. Wait for Bus # 108

4. Get off at the Finch St.W stop

5. Godspeed!

[Mr.Canada]

I strongly doubt there are too many guns in my neighbourhood, and would very much like to keep it that way. Even more, the last thing I want to see is a bunch of self appointed vigilantes who see a threat behind every corner (see above). Paranoid schizophrenics and concealed weapons don't mix.

However, if you want to meet a bunch more like minded individuals as yourself:

Directions: (Arriving from Hicksville, ON)

1.Get off at Union Station

2. Take the train northbound, direction "Downsview" station

3. Wait for Bus # 108

4. Get off at the Finch St.W stop

5. Godspeed!

CCw works just fine in the US. Are you saying they are better decision makers than we are?

You obviously don't have much faith in your fellow countrymen to do the right thing and not shoot into the air like it's the wild west.

In the US not everyone gets a CCW it's a very involved process and gun are restricted from many public places.

Home invasions would not be as popular if people were allowed to protect their property.

We are a society of victims and that's wrong.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[marcinmoka]

CCw works just fine in the US. Are you saying they are better decision makers than we are?

No. In fact, the 3 places which do appeal to me in the U.S, (N.Y.C, Chicago and D.C) happen to share my point of view.

You obviously don't have much faith in your fellow countrymen to do the right thing and not shoot into the air like it's the wild west.

In conversing with trigger-happy people such as yourself, you are right. I clearly don't have faith in some of my fellow countrymen. A small fraction, but still a fraction.

Then again, I'm not the one who sees a gun-toting threat lurching behind every shadow. So who's the one mistrusting who?

Home invasions would not be as popular if people were allowed to protect their property.

I think you mean common. I highly doubt they are that "popular", in the Hanna Montana sense. Anyways, do you have any stats to back this up?

We are a society of victims and that's wrong.

Victim? My my, feeling a bit invirile, no?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep anyone who seems so desperate to shoot something (I don't care if they are wanna-be gangstas or wanna-be Batmans) far away from my wife and loved ones.

P.S. If you do feel truly threatened, there are far, far more effective means. Plus they provide excellent company.

[MolonLabe]

No. In fact, the 3 places which do appeal to me in the U.S, (N.Y.C, Chicago and D.C) happen to share my point of view.

You do realize that Chicago and DC have some of the highest homicide rates in all of North America right?

D.C.: 31/100,000 pop

Chicago: 21/100,000 pop

DC has been rated first for all violent crime in the US, for at least 30 years in row now. They rank first for robbery, violent crime, homicide, property crime, aggravated assault, and vehicle theft for 2007.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention...handguns and CCW are banned in Chicago and DC. Despite that, 80% of all of DC's homicides are done with handguns. The highest homicide rate DC saw was back in the early 90's...80/100,000 pop.

Compare that to Vermont where one does not need a concealed carry license at all to carry a handgun concealed; they estimate that out of those eligible to carry a gun, 53% do. Their homicide rate has always been around 1-2/100,000 pop.

Most cities in Texas that have similar populations to DC, have homicide rates around 1-14/100,000 pop. The majority of which have CCW rights.

When CCW was first instituted in Florida, gun control advocates said there was going to be blood in the streets and road rage turned into shootings...that never happened. Instead Florida's violent crime rates all dropped while the rest of the country kept going up in homicides and violent crime.

Gun bans don't work...CCW does

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep anyone who seems so desperate to shoot something (I don't care if they are wanna-be gangstas or wanna-be Batmans) far away from my wife and loved ones.

Batman doesn't use guns Shows what you know

P.S. If you do feel truly threatened, there are far, far more effective means. Plus they provide excellent company.

I can hardly see a woman carrying one of those dogs in her purse.

Dogs are a poor choice for self defense or house defense as they can be intimidated, or outright killed. Plus, dogs are hard to conceal, not to mention that the smaller they get the far less dangerous they become. Exponentially less dangerous.

Firearms on the other hand are not relegated to such emotional directives and limitations. They don't have a brain of their own, and are far more effective for use at stopping home invaders, rapists, and robbers. A dog bite to the head or even throat will not kill immediately, and will take time to bleed out...whereas a CNS hit from most pistol rounds is instant.

Concealed carry has the one advantage of forcing would be attackers to guess who is armed and who isn't. This means that those who are not carrying a firearm end up being protected by those who do not, through assumptive fear based guess work on the part of the thief, robber, rapist, murderer, due to simply not knowing who is armed and who isn't.

This is why certain state police forces have been finding themselves arresting felons coming from states with higher rates of CCW permits. Criminals seek easier prey. They also choose to break into homes in the daytime when nobody is home so as to avoid getting shot at night by the owners.

[marcinmoka]

Compare that to Vermont where one does not need a concealed carry license at all to carry a handgun concealed;

No. That's a pathetic comparison. Vermont's biggest "metropolis" has a staggering 35,000 residents, and hardly has the same societal makeup as larger, more urban centers (prevalence of the drug trade, concentration of poverty, density, etc).

Most cities in Texas that have similar populations to DC, have homicide rates around 1-14/100,000 pop. The majority of which have CCW rights.

And nearly three times the murder rate of NYC.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention...handguns and CCW are banned in Chicago and DC. Despite that, 80% of all of DC's homicides are done with handguns

But you also forgot to mention that most were bought legally and ultimately stolen or smuggled. Or that the cities with the BIGGEST homicide rate DO HAVE CCW rights.

I can hardly see a woman carrying one of those dogs in her purse.

Ummm.....whatever floats your boat. I tend to walk mine on a leash.

Dogs are a poor choice for self defense or house defense as they can be intimidated, or outright killed.

But people holding guns in self defence cannot?

Firearms on the other hand are not relegated to such emotional directives and limitations

Right, because firearms operate within a vacuum, no operator involved. They simply load, cock, aim and pull automatically.

A dog bite to the head or even throat will not kill immediately, and will take time to bleed out...whereas a CNS hit from most pistol rounds is instant.

Armed methhead vs. Rhodesian Ridgeback protecting his territory in total darkness? My money would be on the Ridgeback.

This means that those who are not carrying a firearm end up being protected by those who do not, through assumptive fear based guess work on the part of the thief, robber, rapist, murderer, due to simply not knowing who is armed and who isn't.

You mean as happens in Detroit, right? Not to mention most violent crime is NOT carefully premeditated, calculated and planned by somewhat rational individuals?

-----

On the whole, it seems that many CCW 'campaigners' are far too influenced by some romanticized, Hollywoodian ideal, namely that the protagonist (in this case, yourself) wins the conflict. They often assume that should there ever be such a scenario, they will always have an upper hand over the adversary, i.e. you will reach for your weapon faster, will have better, if not perfect aim, etc

Furthermore, they give the perps far too much credit, namely by assuming the other party is a rational individual, who will run away at the sight of your gun. But what if they simply meant to use theirs to intimidate you, but upon noticing you have one, they decide to shoot first. People do get emotional should a plan ever go awry.

Lastly, many in the pro-CCW camp also forget basic economics, i.e Supply and Demand. A greater supply of legally owned handguns to law abiding folk will ultimately mean a greater supply of handguns to the blackmarket. More guns in the market will only reduce their scarcity and the 'barriers to entry' for people with nefarious intentions will fall dramatically. Before, only the more determined, with hundreds of dollars to spare could acquire a firearm, now they would be accessible to any junkie desperate enough to find a quick fix.

P.S. Mr. Canada and MolonLabe, where do you live?

Edited December 15, 2008 by marcinmoka

[Canadian Blue]

Lastly, many in the pro-CCW camp also forget basic economics, i.e Supply and Demand. A greater supply of legally owned handguns to law abiding folk will ultimately mean a greater supply of handguns to the blackmarket. More guns in the market will only reduce their scarcity and the 'barriers to entry' for people with nefarious intentions will fall dramatically. Before, only the more determined, with hundreds of dollars to spare could acquire a firearm, now they would be accessible to any junkie desperate enough to find a quick fix.

Not necessarily. Prohibiting an item or product such as a gun will actually increase demand for it on the black market. Just because a few nancy boys in the local legislature made a bill banning the sale of guns, it does not mean that the criminals will automatically follow that one law. What it will do is make criminals of law abiding citizens. Now I currently don't own guns, however I likely will in the future; but I have no issue if a business owner of individual citizen feels that they require a firearm to protect themselves or their property.

If you want to see the effects of prohibition or other idealistic legislation, you need only look at the current use and abuse of drugs in our society.

It's far better to allow legitimate businesses to profit from selling guns instead of organized crime.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Oleg Bach]

Hand guns are banned in Canada - have been for decades. Importation of short weapons is what should be concentrated on..but there may be a lack of will to get rid of illegal guns by law enforcement..Here is an example..about 3 years ago my daughter had a distant cousin come to stay..The young girl was not from the best family nor from a good part of town..My daughter said that here cousin had "found" a camera cell phone.

She began to show me photos...There it was - some brown skinned hood holding what appeared to be a Glock in each and - he was pointing them into the lense gansta style...we continued to scroll though the pictures - there were more faces - and then a photo of a table with about 30 high end hand guns on display as if on sale - these guys I found out later were gun runners from the states.

So I quietly took the phone down to the local cop shop and spoke to an officer and explained what I had here...the phone was discharged and the pics could not be seen - He explained that they did not have the equipment to charge the phone - nor to transphere the photos to a computer...he also stated that the phone was not mine so he really could not look at it due to privacy concerns...The cop looked at me as if I was a crazy ass hole of some kind - His demeanor was dismissive...I got one call from one detective and that was it....Here I am doing my civic duty - arrests could have been made ...probably a hundred pistols would have been removed from the streets.

It was odd - it was as if law enforcement either did not have the will to do what was right or it was some sort of policy to allow violence to continue - I really don't know which was the case.

[marcinmoka]

prohibiting an item or product such as a gun will actually increase demand for it on the black market

No. It will increase the scarcity, and thus the price, reducing demand. I fail to see how you get to your aforementioned conclusion. How would making it illegal overall increase demand?

If you want to see the effects of prohibition or other idealistic legislation, you need only look at the current use and abuse of drugs in our society.

First you compare Bumblef*#k, Vermont to Chicago, but comparing demand for drugs to that of firearms? While both can be viewed as an ego/confidence booster of sorts (feelings of invirility, escapism, etc), never have I heard of any physiological dependence on Glocks and such. Please explain.

In any case, I would really like to see your thoughts on this:

On the whole, it seems that many CCW 'campaigners' are far too influenced by some romanticized, Hollywoodian ideal, namely that the protagonist (in this case, yourself) wins the conflict. They often assume that should there ever be such a scenario, they will always have an upper hand over the adversary, i.e. you will reach for your weapon faster, will have better, if not perfect aim, etc

Furthermore, they give the perps far too much credit, namely by assuming the other party is a rational individual, who will run away at the sight of your gun. But what if they simply meant to use theirs to intimidate you, but upon noticing you have one, they decide to shoot first. People do get emotional should a plan ever go awry.