More guns = more homicides

[gunrutz]

http://www.wave3.com/story/19440764/rineyville-teen-killed-in-accidental-shooting

Another shooting death. Apparently accidental. Guns kill many more owners, children of gun owners and friends than they do masked marauders invading your home.

Of course that would have nothing to do with the fact that it is almost impossible to use a gun in Canada for self defense without being arrested for it, and in places where that isn't a concern firearms are used regularly for self defence so your statement would require some actual statistics to be considered.

[GostHacked]

I dont know... I know lots of gun owners including myself, and they are really carefull with their guns and their ammo. And the vast vast vast majority of firearms owners dont have any stupid ideas about their guns being for self defense either.

I get that, but you always see the careless ones being touted as a reason to have more gun control along side of the illegal guns in the hands of criminals. There is a reason you never look down the barrel of a gun without checking to see if the gun is loaded. Eventhough you had the gun locked up in a safe with a trigger lock and such, you always check the chamber regardless. Carelessness will cause harm one way or another.

There is no way you should be punished for safe storage of your firearms because criminals and idiots cause violence with them or accidentally shot themselves, or others. I would also contest that anyone who does have firearms does have protection in the back of their minds.

Since I don't have any firearms, I have a nice aluminum bat that can make an intruder's day turn very ugly.

[Guest Derek L]

I dont know... I know lots of gun owners including myself, and they are really carefull with their guns and their ammo. And the vast vast vast majority of firearms owners dont have any stupid ideas about their guns being for self defense either.

Exactly.

[Guest Derek L]

I get that, but you always see the careless ones being touted as a reason to have more gun control along side of the illegal guns in the hands of criminals. There is a reason you never look down the barrel of a gun without checking to see if the gun is loaded. Eventhough you had the gun locked up in a safe with a trigger lock and such, you always check the chamber regardless. Carelessness will cause harm one way or another.

There is no way you should be punished for safe storage of your firearms because criminals and idiots cause violence with them or accidentally shot themselves, or others. I would also contest that anyone who does have firearms does have protection in the back of their minds.

Since I don't have any firearms, I have a nice aluminum bat that can make an intruder's day turn very ugly.

Indeed, and the biggest sponsor of private gun safety within the United States is the NRA…………With their safety protocols, those advocated here in Canada via the current PAL/RPAL safety courses and what is taught to the vast majority of law enforcement and military all draw their linage from Jeff Cooper’s dogma:

1. All guns are always loaded.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

Said four "golden rules" are followed, no accidents........simple as that.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

I get that, but you always see the careless ones being touted as a reason to have more gun control along side of the illegal guns in the hands of criminals. There is a reason you never look down the barrel of a gun without checking to see if the gun is loaded. Eventhough you had the gun locked up in a safe with a trigger lock and such, you always check the chamber regardless. Carelessness will cause harm one way or another.

There is no way you should be punished for safe storage of your firearms because criminals and idiots cause violence with them or accidentally shot themselves, or others. I would also contest that anyone who does have firearms does have protection in the back of their minds.

Since I don't have any firearms, I have a nice aluminum bat that can make an intruder's day turn very ugly.

The problem isnt people that treat guns like tools. Its people with the notion they need to use guns for self defense. This is inherently dangerous because it requires that the weapons be easily accessible and stored either loaded or with the ammunition.

For example... My guns are trigger-locked inside a large steel safe, and the ammo is also locked up. If someone invaded my home they are completely useless because it would take too long for me to unlock them and load them. So even though I have a bunch of different firearms, I keep an aluminum ballbat next to my door on the off chance I need to deal with a belligerent.

If had some silly notion that my guns were for self defense, then I would make them easier to get at, and I would probably want them to be loaded as well. And THIS is how accidents happen.

Edited September 4, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

The problem isnt people that treat guns like tools. Its people with the notion they need to use guns for self defense. This is inherently dangerous because it requires that the weapons be easily accessible and stored either loaded or with the ammunition.

For example... My guns are trigger-locked inside a large steel safe, and the ammo is also locked up. If someone invaded my home they are completely useless because it would take too long for me to unlock them and load them. So even though I have a bunch of different firearms, I keep an aluminum ballbat next to my door on the off chance I need to deal with a belligerent.

If had some silly notion that my guns were for self defense, then I would make them easier to get at, and I would probably want them to be loaded as well. And THIS is how accidents happen.

Legally, if locked in a safe, you don’t have to keep non-restricted firearms trigger locked, and if stored inside a safe, you can keep ammo with them (and loaded magazines)……….If in the off chance, I had to deal with a belligerent, it doesn’t take much to unlock said safe and grab a rifle n’ box mag.

[The_Squid]

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120907/NEWS21/309070084/Father-blamed-son-s-access-gun-accidental-shooting?nclick_check=1

According to a deputy’s report on the Tuesday night accident, the 11-year-old said he thought the gun was a toy.

More guns and lax gun control = more deaths.

Way more accidental shootings than shootings of burglars and such.

[The_Squid]

For every self defense shooting there are four unintentional shootings. Not good stats for the gun nuts.

This type of study is what should be involved in making public policy, not some gun lovers who shout simplistic slogans and advocate for banning cars.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:

We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

[waldo]

more guns don't kill people... more guns in the hands of more people kill people!

I bought a case of 10 surplus semi-auto Soviet battle rifles a few days after the LGR ended......

what's the name of your militia?... how many members?

[Guest Derek L]

more guns don't kill people... more guns in the hands of more people kill people!

Then surely gun shows should be the most deadliest places on earth……..

The ATT's will be next.........Maybe a reclassification of the Armalite Rifle # 15, to non-restricted will be on the docket too.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Then surely gun shows should be the most deadliest places on earth……..

The ATT's will be next.........Maybe a reclassification of the Armalite Rifle # 15, to non-restricted will be on the docket too.

reinforcing your position as MLW's resident gun-freak, hey? But really, this needs just a bit more focus/clarity:

you seem to think this has significance... so we shouldn't expect you to beak-off about the ongoing past repeat deferrals of the full implementation of the Gun Show Regulations - right? You seem quite giddy over the Toews/Harper Conservative killing off the Gun Show Regulations - yes?

I was particularly taken with this part of the Harper Conservative rationale put forward... as in, there's no need for these regulations since:

"

Firearm advocates, including the Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, have suggested that the

majority

of gun show sponsors and exhibitors

generally meet safety requirements

set out in the Regulations and

most sponsors voluntarily inform

law enforcement that a show is taking place

."

clearly, these Gun Show Regulations have no place providing "administration burden" for the minority of non-complying gun show sponsors and exhibitors... or for the majority that only manages a "general" compliance in meeting safety requirements... or for sponsors that don't voluntarily inform law enforcement. Well done, Toews/Harper Conservatives. Clearly, these Gun Show Regulations are such a heavy, heavy, heavy burden and have no place in helping to tighten sponsorship rules for gun shows!

Harper Conservative Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews:

"The repeal of the regulations shows the Conservative government is focusing on protecting families and communities and not pushing administrative burdens on law-abiding gun owners."

[bleeding heart]

The problem isnt people that treat guns like tools. Its people with the notion they need to use guns for self defense. This is inherently dangerous because it requires that the weapons be easily accessible and stored either loaded or with the ammunition.

For example... My guns are trigger-locked inside a large steel safe, and the ammo is also locked up. If someone invaded my home they are completely useless because it would take too long for me to unlock them and load them. So even though I have a bunch of different firearms, I keep an aluminum ballbat next to my door on the off chance I need to deal with a belligerent.

If had some silly notion that my guns were for self defense, then I would make them easier to get at, and I would probably want them to be loaded as well. And THIS is how accidents happen.

Well said.

And as you pointed out earlier, very few gun owners are gun owners for purposes of self-defense; even many who claim it are only using the theme as rhetorical justification for a perfectly legal enterprise.

In other words, they're letting their opponents set the terms of debate, and then going on the defensive within these debate parameters.

I see no problem with owning firearms; as many posters have said, follow standard, well-known safety rules, and there's little chance of things turning tragic.

But there is an ideologue's tendency for argument that doesn't help the case at all.

For an analogy, consider poster "socialist" and all the good he does for typical left-wing causes!

Edited September 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

reinforcing your position as MLW's resident gun-freak, hey? But really, this needs just a bit more focus/clarity:

you seem to think this has significance... so we shouldn't expect you to beak-off about the ongoing past repeat deferrals of the full implementation of the Gun Show Regulations - right? You seem quite giddy over the Toews/Harper Conservative killing off the Gun Show Regulations - yes?

I was particularly taken with this part of the Harper Conservative rationale put forward... as in, there's no need for these regulations since:

"

Firearm advocates, including the Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, have suggested that the

majority

of gun show sponsors and exhibitors

generally meet safety requirements

set out in the Regulations and

most sponsors voluntarily inform

law enforcement that a show is taking place

."

clearly, these Gun Show Regulations have no place providing "administration burden" for the minority of non-complying gun show sponsors and exhibitors... or for the majority that only manages a "general" compliance in meeting safety requirements... or for sponsors that don't voluntarily inform law enforcement. Well done, Toews/Harper Conservatives. Clearly, these Gun Show Regulations are such a heavy, heavy, heavy burden and have no place in helping to tighten sponsorship rules for gun shows!

You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about, fore the duplicity associated with the Gun Show Regulations and the already defined transport/storage/display regulations found within Bill C-68 are mirrored and redundant…………………As such, this is a demonstration by the Conservative Government of deregulation of a segment of laws that play no effect on public safety nor the polices ability to fight crime, but were made/proposed for no valid reason…………….As I said, the ATT and the reclassification of the scary looking AR-15 should be next.

I notice you didn’t nibble at my suggestion, that since “more guns = more homicides”, gun shows should be the most deadliest places to visit in Canada eh?

[waldo]

You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about

even accepting to the Harper Conservative rationale; where... "generally"... "most"... is, apparently, good enough for you, hey? Burdensome administration keeping the Gun Show man down!

I was particularly taken with this part of the Harper Conservative rationale put forward... as in, there's no need for these regulations since:

"

Firearm advocates, including the Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, have suggested that the

majority

of gun show sponsors and exhibitors

generally meet safety requirements

set out in the Regulations and

most sponsors voluntarily inform

law enforcement that a show is taking place

."

clearly, these Gun Show Regulations have no place providing "administration burden" for the

minority of non-complying gun show sponsors and exhibitors... or for the majority that only manages a "general" compliance in meeting safety requirements... or for sponsors that don't voluntarily inform law enforcement.

Well done, Toews/Harper Conservatives. Clearly,

these Gun Show Regulations

are such a heavy, heavy, heavy burden and have no place in helping to tighten sponsorship rules for gun shows!

[Guest Manny]

reinforcing your position as MLW's resident gun-freak, hey? But really, this needs just a bit more focus/clarity:

you seem to think this has significance... so we shouldn't expect you to beak-off about the ongoing past repeat deferrals of the full implementation of the Gun Show Regulations - right? You seem quite giddy over the Toews/Harper Conservative killing off the Gun Show Regulations - yes?

I was particularly taken with this part of the Harper Conservative rationale put forward... as in, there's no need for these regulations since:

"

Firearm advocates, including the Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, have suggested that the

majority

of gun show sponsors and exhibitors

generally meet safety requirements

set out in the Regulations and

most sponsors voluntarily inform

law enforcement that a show is taking place

."

clearly, these Gun Show Regulations have no place providing "administration burden" for the minority of non-complying gun show sponsors and exhibitors... or for the majority that only manages a "general" compliance in meeting safety requirements... or for sponsors that don't voluntarily inform law enforcement. Well done, Toews/Harper Conservatives. Clearly, these Gun Show Regulations are such a heavy, heavy, heavy burden and have no place in helping to tighten sponsorship rules for gun shows!

Why are they so keen on trying to please the NRA? Are they getting funding, or what. Cause prior to this it was a virtual non-issue that didn't require such immediate attention from the federal government.

[Guest Derek L]

Why are they so keen on trying to please the NRA? Are they getting funding, or what. Cause prior to this it was a virtual non-issue that didn't require such immediate attention from the federal government.

Do you remember Liberal Bill C-68? It may have been a “non-issue” for you, but angered millions with it’s senseless regulations that did noting to deter crime or benefit public safety (Up or down) and cost taxpayers millions……….

[waldo]

Do you remember Liberal Bill C-68? It may have been a “non-issue” for you, but angered millions with it’s senseless regulations that did noting to deter crime or benefit public safety (Up or down) and cost taxpayers millions……….

uhhh Manny, don't be confused or swayed by this MLW member, 'Derek L', distraction... away from 'Gun Show Regulations'?

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh Manny, don't be confused or swayed by this MLW member, 'Derek L', distraction... away from 'Gun Show Regulations'?

Or Waldo’s refusal to answer the redundancy found in the “Gun Show Regulations” and already existing storage/transportation/display regulations found within the Canadian Firearms Act.

[waldo]

Or Waldo’s refusal to answer the redundancy found in the “Gun Show Regulations” and already existing storage/transportation/display regulations found within the Canadian Firearms Act.

my answer was provided to you, several times now... you know, in the most generalized and non-specific Harper Conservative rationale offered - "generally"... "most"... "ignoring the minority that don't comply"! I simply relish in allowing Harper Conservatives words to do their own talking!

[Guest Derek L]

my answer was provided to you, several times now... you know, in the most generalized and non-specific Harper Conservative rationale offered - "generally"... "most"... "ignoring the minority that don't comply"! I simply relish in allowing Harper Conservatives words to do their own talking!

Isn’t that a question of enforcement then? Perhaps a policing question as opposed to a political one? Police (and media) are as welcomed at gun shows as the general public………They’re hardly events held within dark & dank basements with a perquisite secret knock and password…..

[waldo]

Police (and media) are as welcomed at gun shows as the general public………They’re hardly events held within dark & dank basements with a perquisite secret knock and password…..

thanks for the freebee! Apparently, according to the Harper Conservative rationale, "most sponsors voluntarily inform law enforcement that a show is taking place." Most... but not all. Of course, what is "most" - an NDP 50+1?

[Guest Derek L]

thanks for the freebee! Apparently, according to the Harper Conservative rationale, "most sponsors voluntarily inform law enforcement that a show is taking place." Most... but not all. Of course, what is "most" - an NDP 50+1?

There’s somewhere between 2-3 million legal gun owners in Canada………..I don’t know of a reasonable way to illustrate what percent attend gun shows, and of attendees, how many are holders of a PAL/RPAL (hence legal) as opposed to curious on lookers……………

You have any data suggesting the number of infractions at said shows?

Also, I revert back to the Firearms Act, if said infractions do occur, they will all ready fall under the auspices of the Federal Firearms Act, hence no reason for a second set of laws………….

As I suggested with the Authorization to Transport permits………Such regulations and perquisites already fall under the auspices of the issuance of a Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence………Why the double redundancy? Would the RCMP issue a Restricted licence to a person, thus allowing them to purchase a restricted firearm (Handgun/AR-15), but not issue them a ATT?

[gunrutz]

How many people have been shot at a gun show in Canada?

[Pliny]

More guns equates to more deaths by gun violence.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

The pro-gun lobby is completely wrong and should be ignored when it comes to making policy about gun control. Scientific studies have shown that if a society has more guns then there will be more gun violence and death by guns.

It isn't the number of guns that is the problem. The level of gun control seems to be a better indicator of violence with no guns allowed being the worst scenario. Think of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot.

And Switzerland is always a thorn in the side of those gun control statisticians. Washington DC has the toughest gun control legislation in the US and one of the worst homicide rates, there must be a lot of guns there.

[The_Squid]

More consequences from easy access to guns:

Rainey reportedly hid in one of the closets, and decided to jump out and scare one of his friends. Authorities say the other boy, who was carrying a .38 caliber handgun, was spooked and fired at Rainey.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ala-teen-accidentally-shot-prank-article-1.1183592#ixzz29OUxsdAK

Investigators say Ray Fernandez, 18, was showing off a gun to friends when it accidentally went off.

Fernandez was shot in the stomach.

http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_12386.shtml