Handguns in Canada

[dlkenny]

your stats are incorrect, about only 9 to 11% of gun crime a year are homicides, and out of these 90% are performed with black market guns (unregistered of course)... the rest are traces of domestic disputes and other unfortunate circumstances... that add up to roughly 4 to 10 deaths a year...

hardly a "problem".

Actually guns probably have a great deal to do with keeping the crime rate down..

as we should remember, in Australia, after their insane and crypto communist gun banning on 1999:

"According to the Service station armed robbery in Australia paper released today by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) there was a 31 percent increase in the number of service station armed robberies between 2004-06, continuing a trend which during the 1990s saw the incidence of such robberies increase by 214 percent."

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2009/july/20090716.aspx

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%

Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"

From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions

The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

Hey, I'm on your side. I got my stats from the national firearms centre and if yours support what I'm saying all the better. My point is that I was reading a "ban handguns" flyer that was floating around and realized that people are carrying weapons anyway and we are criminalizing people for protecting themselves instead of educating them.

I am not against guns and I think the current laws are sufficient...I think it's the lack of respect and training that causes gun crime from legally purchased firearms. I am of the opinion that it's much easier to acquire a gun from the US than to try to rob one. Certainly if the thing is properly cared for.

Getting a gun from the US is incredibly easy simply because it's entirely legal in the US and Canada Post only inspects less than 1% of all packages.

[dlkenny]

We need concealed carry licenses here in Canada. That would cut down on crime. If the minority gangs knew that people could be packing legally they'd think twice about mugging someone or robbing a store.

This is what I'm talking about. I think a person should be allowed to take a tactical training course and get a permit for concealed carry. If a bank teller could carry on his or her person it would take a very brave soul to want to rob a bank wouldn't it! In response to the person who suggested that a purse with a handgun would be a bonus to a purse snatcher, I think a concealed carry weapon would have to be kept somehow on a person and not in any kind of bag for this reason exactly.

[dlkenny]

People should allowed to be armed..........there are a lot of scumballs out there and

people should have the right to self defense!

Exactly!!

[dlkenny]

Read the Wiki article BC2004 linked. You can't say more guns equal more/less crimes and you can't say no guns mean more/less crimes because there is no evidence one way or the other.

Sure, but it depends on who is packing. If average people were trained and could pack it would make criminals think twice before doing something stupid.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, but it depends on who is packing. If average people were trained and could pack it would make criminals think twice before doing something stupid.

OK.....but if criminals would spend some time on the shooting range, they could also up their game.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure, but it depends on who is packing. If average people were trained and could pack it would make criminals think twice before doing something stupid.

Problem is firearm training tends to consist of point and shoot, it doesn't teach people to evalute whether it's a good time to use the gun and it sure as hell doesn't teach discipline. I prefer Topaz's solution more people need to learn martial arts, learn some dicsipline. Of course this only works in a melee situation, if the guy has a gun do the smart thing and give him your money.

Edited November 1, 2009 by TrueMetis

[dlkenny]

Because we want to kill them.

It needs to be both. If you're going to give someone the right and privilege of carrying lethal force you have to also train them in less than lethal defense options to ensure that the lethal force option is the last resort and not a knee jerk reaction to a threatening situation.

In Japan the police are forced to use their weapons less for this reason exactly. In a martial arts oriented society more people are armed with the ability to properly defend themselves and are trained in self restraint and so there are far fewer incidents involving lethal force.

[bush_cheney2004]

It needs to be both. If you're going to give someone the right and privilege of carrying lethal force you have to also train them in less than lethal defense options to ensure that the lethal force option is the last resort and not a knee jerk reaction to a threatening situation.

Perhaps, but the purpose of the concealed firearm is lethal force, not something less. We do not shoot to disable or injure....we do not brandish to scare....we do not unholster for show....we shoot to kill.

In Japan the police are forced to use their weapons less for this reason exactly. In a martial arts oriented society more people are armed with the ability to properly defend themselves and are trained in self restraint and so there are far fewer incidents involving lethal force.

I am unconvinced that Japanese police officers are Bruce Lee certified.

[M.Dancer]

I am unconvinced that Japanese police officers are Bruce Lee certified.

Violent crime in japan is rarer than a non racist post from lictor...

Cops don't need kung fu in Japan, just good forensic math and polite manners.

[bush_cheney2004]

Violent crime in japan is rarer than a non racist post from lictor...

Cops don't need kung fu in Japan, just good forensic math and polite manners.

Then why do they use these as standard issue:

Nanbau Model 60 .38 Revolver.

S&W Model 37 .38 Revolver.

SIG P-230JP 9mm Semi-Auto Pistol.

H&K MP-5J 9mm submachinegun.

Howa M-1500 7.62 Sniper rifle.

[M.Dancer]

Then why do they use these as standard issue:

Nanbau Model 60 .38 Revolver.

S&W Model 37 .38 Revolver.

SIG P-230JP 9mm Semi-Auto Pistol.

H&K MP-5J 9mm submachinegun.

Howa M-1500 7.62 Sniper rifle.

They like to be well dressed.

Japanese crime stats

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/ja...crime&all=1

[dlkenny]

Perhaps, but the purpose of the concealed firearm is lethal force, not something less. We do not shoot to disable or injure....we do not brandish to scare....we do not unholster for show....we shoot to kill.

I am unconvinced that Japanese police officers are Bruce Lee certified.

Many average japanese people are highly trained and so it rarely comes to the need for lethal force because they're capable of defending themselves in other ways. I certainly think martial arts training is equally important and more people should take that too. I don't think everyone should be carrying a weapon but that's just it, if you were going to mug someone and you knew that they could be carrying you'd think twice.

And you're right, we do shoot to kill but it's the same as a police officer where if you're giving them the right to use lethal force they must also be trained in less than lethal force. The potential for lethal force doesn't mean you have to use it, but I do think that in the right hands along with the right training it would be a deterrent to violent crime.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many average japanese people are highly trained and so it rarely comes to the need for lethal force because they're capable of defending themselves in other ways. I certainly think martial arts training is equally important and more people should take that too. I don't think everyone should be carrying a weapon but that's just it, if you were going to mug someone and you knew that they could be carrying you'd think twice.

I disagree....many private citizens are armed specifically because they are unable to thwart an assault for any number of reasons. It is unreasonable to ask a 110 lb. woman to fight hand-to-gland before shooting a perp.

And you're right, we do shoot to kill but it's the same as a police officer where if you're giving them the right to use lethal force they must also be trained in less than lethal force. The potential for lethal force doesn't mean you have to use it, but I do think that in the right hands along with the right training it would be a deterrent to violent crime.

No, the private citizens are trained for insurance and legal liabilities.

SIC VIS PACUM PARA BELLUM.

“If you want peace, prepare for war”

Edited November 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

It needs to be both. If you're going to give someone the right and privilege of carrying lethal force you have to also train them in less than lethal defense options to ensure that the lethal force option is the last resort and not a knee jerk reaction to a threatening situation.

In Japan the police are forced to use their weapons less for this reason exactly. In a martial arts oriented society more people are armed with the ability to properly defend themselves and are trained in self restraint and so there are far fewer incidents involving lethal force.

It is a lot more than that. I doubt that many Japanese have martial arts training. It is a different moral code. The Japanese have a respect for law and order as well property that is foreign in many parts of the world including ours. I spent a lot of time in Japan. When I was training there, I used to get my months expenses in cash. I had no reservations about leaving the equivalent of $2000 USD in an envelope in my hotel room, just taking money out as I needed it. The same went for any of my other personal effects. Hotel room safes? Who needs them? I can't think of another country I have been to where I would feel comfortable doing that. If I had ever lost my wallet, I would not have been surprised to find it at the nearest police box or back at my hotel. When that happens here, we consider the person who returned it as some kind of hero. There, it is just the expected thing to do.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Wilber

[Thomas Kwon]

It is a lot more than that. I doubt that many Japanese have martial arts training. It is a different moral code. The Japanese have a respect for law and order as well property that is foreign in many parts of the world including ours. I spent a lot of time in Japan. When I was training there, I used to get my months expenses in cash. I had no reservations about leaving the equivalent of $2000 USD in an envelope in my hotel room, just taking money out as I needed it. The same went for any of my other personal effects. Hotel room safes? Who needs them? I can't think of another country I have been to where I would feel comfortable doing that. If I had ever lost my wallet, I would not have been surprised to find it at the nearest police box or back at my hotel. When that happens here, we consider the person who returned it as some kind of hero. There, it is just the expected thing to do.

I am not sure about Japan,

But in South Korea, most kids have black belt in at least one major form of martial arts before entering middle school. Maybe because one month tuition (6 times a week) costs less than $100, and Dojo's are everywhere..

Martial Arts is a prominent culture in oriental countries, and I guarantee you that you'd have a harder time robbing a skinny student where I come from compared to robbing a school football player in Canada.

Everyone person in my family of my generation is trained in martial arts and have black belts.

Have fun robbing us when we trained for at least 3 years, 6 days a week for at least an hour a day.

However, in Canada, people do not have convenient access to such training facilities, ergo helpless when held at knifepoint, etc. In Asian countries, restrictions on concealment - I understand. In Western countries, restrictions on concealment makes no sense - especially for fragile women who are often victims of crimes that could have been prevented with self-defense.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Everyone person in my family of my generation is trained in martial arts and have black belts.

Have fun robbing us when we trained for at least 3 years, 6 days a week for at least an hour a day....

Are you faster than a speeding bullet?

[Thomas Kwon]

Are you faster than a speeding bullet?

No, but we know when an individual might have the intent to shoot us, get her gun, etc, we are able to take actions to prevent the bullet from firing..

But what I'm trying to say is, a robber, regardless of his arsenal, will have harder time robbing people in Asia (where people have formal self-defense training but no gun) than in Canada (where most people have neither gun or self-defense training).

[wyly]

No, but we know when an individual might have the intent to shoot us, get her gun, etc, we are able to take actions to prevent the bullet from firing..

But what I'm trying to say is, a robber, regardless of his arsenal, will have harder time robbing people in Asia (where people have formal self-defense training but no gun) than in Canada (where most people have neither gun or self-defense training).

what absolute bullshit...I've a tae kwon do Black belt...and I was taught by a Grand Master...and in the words of my instructor when a student asked what to do when confronted with a gun..."that's a stupid question, you give him your money...you watch to many hollywood movies, he will kill you"

[Guest TrueMetis]

what absolute bullshit...I've a tae kwon do Black belt...and I was taught by a Grand Master...and in the words of my instructor when a student asked what to do when confronted with a gun..."that's a stupid question, you give him your money...you watch to many hollywood movies, he will kill you"

Sounds like my Master in Gracie Combatives and Hapkido "We're here to learn to fight and eventually you will be able to break bricks, but remember no matter how well trained you are you're not going to be able to stop a bullet".

Edited November 1, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Thomas Kwon]

Sounds like my Master in Graci Combatives and Hapkido "We're here to learn to fight and eventually you will be able to break bricks, but remember no matter how well trained you are you're not going to be able to stop a bullet".

Sigh, you do not get my point at all.

If you were a robber, who would you rob? A person with a black belt in Hapkido, or a person with no means of self defense? What if you had no weapons? What if you had a knife? What if you had a gun? Personally, unless I have a gun and is skilled at using it, I wouldn't risk trying to rob a person who is skilled in aikido, hapkido, judo, etc, etc, etc.

And doesn't Hapkido have some sort of disarming techniques? I know for my Kendo dojo, we had a workshop once a month in self defense against weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sigh, you do not get my point at all.

If you were a robber, who would you rob?

Whoever has some money.....robbery in Asia is not as rare as you may think.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sigh, you do not get my point at all.

If you were a robber, who would you rob? A person with a black belt in Hapkido, or a person with no means of self defense? What if you had no weapons? What if you had a knife? What if you had a gun? Personally, unless I have a gun and is skilled at using it, I wouldn't risk trying to rob a person who is skilled in aikido, hapkido, judo, etc, etc, etc.

And doesn't Hapkido have some sort of disarming techniques? I know for my Kendo dojo, we had a workshop once a month in self defense against weapons.

How exactly is the robber going to know whether the person know martial arts? I don't go around wearing my belt.

Yes it has disarming techniques but they're for knives not guns.

[Shwa]

"The verisimilitude of contrary or favorable conclusions cannot be determined."

That's right, so there is no need to change the status quo for any reason. Surely advocating for any change is unreasonable and thus the discussion is, more or less, moot. And here is why:

"I disagree....many private citizens are armed specifically because they are unable to thwart an assault for any number of reasons."

Really? Do you have some insightful data on this or are you merely citing your opinion? Because the way I see it, your opinion can be boiled down to the point out that many private citizens live in fear. In which case not only would advocating for change lead be unreasonable it would be based on fear. So let's try and extend this a little further with a little Canadian test:

We have a good idea of what the crime rate is and for the average reasonable person, their chances of being involved in a violent crime where their life is at severe risk are small, even rare. But crime rates count incidents that happen, most people ignore the other side of the percentage - the rate at which crime does not happen. And really, when you imagine the total sum of interactions between people of a given region and then count how many of those interactions are of a life risk violent crime, it is pretty safe to say that a person could - a reasonable person - could interact their daily lives without much fear of being involved in a life threatening violent act. I believe that most private citizens in this country interact their daily lives in this exact way. To act any other way is to act on an unreasonable fear.

So advocating for a change to allow legal gun concealment is based on unreasonable fear - the unreasonable fear that some minority gangsta, bad teenager or other villain is going to attempt to murder you, to kill a loved one or bring fatal harm in some direct way. Most reasonable people I know tend to call this unreasonable fear "paranoia."

Now that maybe a titch anecdotal for you, but you can test it here in Canada all on your own and draw your own conclusions. There are reasons for having guns, some people have better reasons than others and most have no reason at all outside of hunting or some other recreational use. And for the vast majority there is no need for concealing any guns at all. Which is why the laws are as they are I guess.

For those that truly think they need a concealed gun, then before they even think of owing a gun or handgun they should not only take the requisite firearms course, but maybe try some therapy first to try and find the root of that unreasonable fear. It can't be nice living in your skin hiding away from the rest of the world because you think there is a chance that someone might want to murder you one day.

[bush_cheney2004]

"The verisimilitude of contrary or favorable conclusions cannot be determined."

That's right, so there is no need to change the status quo for any reason. Surely advocating for any change is unreasonable and thus the discussion is, more or less, moot. And here is why:

No, given the present dynamics in "gun control", your static position is moot.

"I disagree....many private citizens are armed specifically because they are unable to thwart an assault for any number of reasons."

Really? Do you have some insightful data on this or are you merely citing your opinion? Because the way I see it, your opinion can be boiled down to the point out that many private citizens live in fear. In which case not only would advocating for change lead be unreasonable it would be based on fear. So let's try and extend this a little further with a little Canadian test:

Fear is a great motivator....particularly after experiencing a robbery or assault.... I remember the stun gun craze from the 80's...we have returned to a more reliable solution with better standoff range....firearms, Tasers, and pepper sprays.

It doesn't really matter that your are ignorant of such things, or demand that the status quo be maintained....your/my opinion are irrelevant when others are faced with personal choices....even in Canada.

Somebody is buying all those guns, eh?

[wulf42]

Why don't more people take martial arts, its alot safer than carrying a gun and you can do just as much damage without killing anyone. Women especially should learn this and if the RCMP had used this on the Polish man, he would have been alive today.

I guy with marshall arts up against a guy with a 9mm i wonder who is going to come out

still breathing in that situation.......