Guns: The Problem OR Solution?

[caesar]

How many people are killed by drivers with road rage??? Your example merely show a need for proper education and storage of firearms and ammunition.

Down in the USA; where they pack pistols; too many.

We don't have that problem here in Canada to anything to the same degree.

People with emotional or anger problems should not be allowed to own a gun.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I DO, however, believe everyone should be able to purchase a gun if they so desire (After sanity tests, of course).

How am I supposed to defend myself when the communist conspirators in the medical profession declare me mentally unfit to posses a gun?!

[caesar]

How am I supposed to defend myself when the communist conspirators in the medical profession declare me mentally unfit to posses a gun?!

I suppose you think this remark is funny????

[caesar]

And that self-satisfied sense of security will last until your home has been broken into.

That is what we have a police force for. I will sleep much better; knowing that any child or granchild of mine will not find a handgun and play with it; or that some unscrupulous person burglarizing my home will get a hold of another hand gun. I will phone for help not shoot some innocent person at my door looking for help in the middle of the night.

[caesar]

Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice.

Yes, right. A bunch of scared untrained people shooting up each other. How many would die by the "good guys"???? Even trained police officers sometimes hit their own personnel during shoot outs with the criminals.

End of story. Think before you type eh

[I Miss Trudeau]

How am I supposed to defend myself when the communist conspirators in the medical profession declare me mentally unfit to posses a gun?!

I suppose you think this remark is funny????

No, but it is about as supportable as the claim that "Guns make me safer!"

[PocketRocket]

Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice.

Yes, right. A bunch of scared untrained people shooting up each other. How many would die by the "good guys"???? Even trained police officers sometimes hit their own personnel during shoot outs with the criminals.

End of story. Think before you type eh

Et-tu, CAESAR:

2 replies to this......

1) The whole tenor of the post you chose to quote was meant in fun, but.....

2) In that same post I also mentioned firearm safety training and infered that it be mandatory for gun owners.

But the particular line you quoted was a silly response to a silly argument. "Shoot-em-uppers".

It's like saying we should ban automobiles because someone could get on a busy highway like the 401, and cause several deaths, along with their own, by deliberately causing an accident, which, on the 401, usually evolves into a multi-vehicle pile up in less time than it takes to say.

I hope that explains that, eh

In all honesty I see little reason to carry a firearm around on a regular basis.

I certainly don't carry one, but I enjoy target shooting, and I take some small comfort in knowing that if it became a necessity, I could feed my family by hunting.

(For the record, I have done little hunting in the past 20 years because I do not see it as "sporting", the animals simply don't have a chance. But I do have some skill in that regard, and edible game is plentiful and easy to bag in my part of the country.)

[caesar]

Et-tu, CAESAR:

2 replies to this......

1) The whole tenor of the post you chose to quote was meant in fun, but.....

2) In that same post I also mentioned firearm safety training and infered that it be mandatory for gun owners.

QUOTE 

Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice.

You thought that was funny???????

Actually, I have no problem with hunters or farmers owning long guns (shot guns or rifles) I was raised with these weapons in the home and very well trained to not touch without permission or when allowed to use very responsibly (shooting into the hill, etc)

However, children today cannot be threatened to be skinned alive if they disobeyed; nor have the crap beat out of them. It kept us in line much moreso than parents can today; especially with two working parents and limited punishments allowed by law.

Plus, while my father was strict; he was , also, very careful . Many other hunters are very careless and gung ho while hunting and have accidently shot someone else or themselves. As I mentioned before; two teenage neighbour brothers got into an argument; the younger brother grabbed a handy gun and shot his brother. He immediately regretted his action when he saw his brother laying there dying and called the police and ambulance; but too late. Both were nice boys; but a weapon was too easily available in the heat of passion. A trigger is much less personal and easily dispatch than a knife.

Register all guns and qualify all gun owners; this should not unduly bother anyone with a real reason to own these weapons.

Comparing guns to automobiles as a vehicle of death is NOT comparable. Guns are for one reason only; killing and can be used without much fear of detection. Automobile, may be used for killing, as you say; but that is not their primary use.

[Hugo]

Firstly, consider the original reason why Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, recognised that an armed citizenry is more difficult to tyrannize. Throughout history and especially in the 20th Century, by far the greatest number of murders, tortures and other terrible human rights violations have been committed not by private citizens but by agents of the state. To restrict guns to the agents of the state is to restrict weapons to that class of people who have, historically, committed the most crimes!

The most terrible mass murders and genocides in history were committed against unarmed populaces. Countries that allow or have allowed citizens to retain their right to bear arms (such as the USA, Canada, the UK or Switzerland) have generally conducted themselves much better in the respect of human rights than those that deny or have denied weapons to their citizens (e.g. the USSR, the PRC, North Korea, Nazi Germany or Cuba).

As to the question of firearms registration, consider with whom are these firearms being registered. In our case, we are required to register firearms with agents of the state, who are historically the worst criminals and even today, among the most likely to actually injure or kill another person with a firearm. The question as I see it is not why the state should trust private citizens, but why private citizens should trust the state. It logically follows that to judge all citizens by the standard of the Washington sniper is to judge all governments by the standard of Stalin.

Caesar suggests that people should be trained in firearms before being allowed to own one. Good idea, but we don't need government involvement to do it. It is unlikely that an insurance company would issue liability insurance to a gun owner who did not have a certification in its safe use, just as an insurance company won't insure a tradesman without the relevant qualifications, and people won't deal with uninsured tradesmen, as when a person moved into a neighbourhood with a gun and no liability insurance, people would be highly suspicious and mistrustful of that person and certainly keep their hands on their own holsters when they saw him.

This certainly isn't foolproof or perfect, however, neither is a system that relies upon tracking down, arresting, prosecuting, convicting and jailing every citizen who fails to register a firearm or become certified in its use.

[caesar]

As to the question of firearms registration, consider with whom are these firearms being registered. In our case, we are required to register firearms with agents of the state, who are historically the worst criminals and even today, among the most likely to actually injure or kill another person with a firearm. The question as I see it is not why the state should trust private citizens, but why private citizens should trust the state. It logically follows that to judge all citizens by the standard of the Washington sniper is to judge all governments by the standard of Stalin.

You are ridiculous!!!!!! That is libel!!!! That is garbage!!!

[PocketRocket]

 

Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice.

You thought that was funny???????

Well, in light of the fact that most people would say something like "Eeek" or "OH MY GOD", rather than "Oh, look...", yeah.

I guess it would translate better with voices. I was hearing it as John Cleese in my mind when I wrote it.

So I'll concede the point that my sense of humour isn't all that great.

See my disclaimer at the end of this post.

Actually, I have no problem with hunters or farmers owning long guns (shot guns or rifles)  I was raised with these weapons in the home and very well trained to not touch without permission or when allowed to use very responsibly (shooting into the hill, etc)

Likewise

However, children today cannot be threatened to be skinned alive if they disobeyed; nor have the crap beat out of them.  It kept us in line much moreso than parents can today; especially with two working parents and limited punishments allowed by law.

I disagree. I have still threatened to beat the crap out of my kids. I have still spanked them. It's all in the delivery. When the kids threatened to call Children's Aid (both kids took a stab at this approach), I explained in great detail how they would get to live in an orphanage and eat oatmeal 3 times a day, and not watch tv etc etc...... Being kids, they bought it. But then again, they had both seen Oliver Twist.

Plus, while my father was strict; he was , also, very careful .  Many other hunters are very careless and gung ho while hunting and have accidently shot someone else or themselves.

Your Dad sounds like my kind of guy. Sounds a lot like my own Dad.

But, when handling firearms, that's the only way to be.

As I mentioned before; two teenage neighbour brothers got into an argument; the younger brother grabbed a handy gun and shot his brother.  He immediately regretted his action when he saw his brother laying there dying and called the police and ambulance; but too late.  Both were nice boys; but a weapon was too easily available in the heat of passion.  A trigger is much less personal and easily dispatch than a knife.

I hadn't seen this story. Sorry. But this speaks to safe storage of firearms. The "heat of passion" has time to dissipate whilst you're fiddling with a locked cabinet to get at the guns.

Register all guns and qualify all gun owners; this should not unduly bother anyone with a real reason to own these weapons.

I agree. I have no problem registering my rifles, except for one thing. The MNR won't honor the hunter-training certificate which I earned by passing an MNR course, because they say it was too long ago, so they won't give me a FAC. I don't see time as a factor. Safe handling of a firearm is safe handling of a firearm. That hasn't changed, and I'm certainly better equipped to appreciate the potential harm of improper handling now than I was when I was sixteen, at which age I tok the course. If I had got a hunting license every year after passing the course, it wouldn't be a problem, but, as stated in an earlier post, I don't hunt.

They want me to pay around $600.00 to take the course again. I refuse to. So, no FAC, no register.

Doesn't bother me, though. My guns are safely locked up. The ammunition is hidden elsewhere.

Comparing guns to automobiles as a vehicle of death is NOT comparable.

Again, I agree. But while you make your argument in a logical manner, a few others have spouted rubbish.

I suppose it's no worse than comparing marriages to mayonaisse

Guns are for one reason only; killing and can be used without much fear of detection.

Now come on, they can also be used for maiming

Automobile, may be used for killing, as you say; but that is not their primary use.

Evidently you've never seen my ex-wife drive

(DISCLAIMER: Some comments in this post may not be as funny as I think they are. Especially the last two)

[Guest eureka]

PR:

Youhave come up against one of the problems with these discussions: humour does not translate and gentle sarcasm is seen as a lethal assault.

The discussions are evidence that words can be as dangerous as guns.

In a school in my city, recently one student took a gun from his locker and pistol whipped another student into unconsciouness. I don't know the details. However, a teacher has said that the victim, now recovered, has threatend to get even. He has said that he will not use a gun, which, he claims to have access to also, but some other weapon. What that is, nobody knows but it sounds ominous.

Gun control is not nearly rigorous enough.

[PocketRocket]

  PR: 

Yes, good morning to you too, EUREKA. Always a pleasure.

You have come up against one of the problems with these discussions: humour does not translate and gentle sarcasm is seen as a lethal assault.

I'll have to take your word on this one as I have never seen anyone fall over dead as a result of sarcasm. In fact I've never even seen anyone start bleeding, or even sustain mild bruising from sarcasm. Oh geez, there I go again. I hope it didn't hurt. Sorry.

The discussions are evidence that words can be as dangerous as guns.

Are we getting a trifle over-zealous??? C'mon, it's just a discussion, and we're all on the same side. We all want a safe society, we simply sometimes disagree on what will make in so.

In a school in my city, recently one student took a gun from his locker and pistol whipped another student into unconsciouness. I don't know the details. However, a teacher has said that the victim, now recovered, has threatend to get even. He has said that he will not use a gun, which, he claims to have access to also, but some other weapon. What that is, nobody knows but it sounds ominous.

Well, let's see now. Pistol whipped. In other words, struck repeatedly with a somewhat heavy blunt object.

I can see that if the kid didn't have access to a pistol, then he would have had nothing to use to beat the other kid with. Like a rock, or a bat, or a hammer, or a big stick, or a piece of pipe, or......you get my drift??? (Damn, sarcasm again. Sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.)

Now if he had SHOT the other kid with the pistol it would reinforce your point a bit better.

But I agree with you on one thing, both these kids need to be reined in and taught a thing or two. The hard way if necessary.

Amongst other things, perhaps it's time for schools in trouble areas to resume mandatory surprise locker-checks. First time someone is caught with something questionable in their locker, you put them on a short list to be checked on a random day each week. Hell, check 'em ALL on a weekly basis. Put the short-list on daily checks.

What the hell is a pistol doing in a teenager's locker??? Was it a registered firearm??? Where did he get it??? Grill the kid. Find out who the hell is distributing illegal handguns among school kids. If it came from his home, confiscate the weapon, and ALL other firearms in the family home. Make such practices routine.

Would that be enough control for you???

In fact, make it illegal for anyone with a history of violent crime to own a firearm for a set period. Say ten years offense-free before they are allowed to own even a target rifle. How would that be in your opinion???

I would have no problem with such a legislation.

Gun control is not nearly rigorous enough. 

Gun control, gun registration, etc, I've already said I have little or no problem with.

Pistols are already practically banned in Canada. You need a special licence to (legally) purchase a handgun. Then, you are only allowed to carry it from your home to the shooting range (the range must be a registered, recognized establishment) and back home again, BY THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE. Cannot stop for groceries. Cannot detour to pick up a friend.

The firearm laws in Canada are fine. If they are enforced, they are quite effective. Obviously, the kid in the example above was NOT observing current carrying-laws. But that's part of the problem. As I stated in an earlier post, it is very easy to obtain an illegal, unregistered pistol. All you need is between $400-$1,000, and an evening in a seedy barroom, and odds are high that you can find a handgun that's been smuggled in from the good ol' US of A.

And that's the big problem. Easy access to illegal firearms.

[Guest eureka]

I am sure the police here are asking the same questions. Gun control is what I include the question of illegal firearms in. Why can we not do a better job of that? Some countries seem to.

[caesar]

I disagree. I have still threatened to beat the crap out of my kids. I have still spanked them. It's all in the delivery. When the kids threatened to call Children's Aid (both kids took a stab at this approach), I explained in great detail how they would get to live in an orphanage and eat oatmeal 3 times a day, and not watch tv etc etc...... Being kids, they bought it. But then again, they had both seen Oliver Twist.

Now that is funny. Like your handling of the situation.

I agree that a swat on the rear is better than raising disrespectful kids. There is a difference between safe punishment and abuse. Sounds like we both know the difference.

[caesar]

QUOTE (caesar @ Feb 9 2005, 10:59 AM)

Automobile, may be used for killing, as you say; but that is not their primary use. 

Evidently you've never seen my ex-wife drive 

Now this I got a chuckle from. Your ex wife may not find it quite so funny though

[PocketRocket]

CAESAR.....good morning, always nice to chat with you...

RE Swats on the rear: I firmly believe that some measure of corporal punishjment is necessary with most (not all) kids. It's not that the kids are bad, but, being kids, sometimes it takes a whack just to get their attention. And by a "whack" I DON'T mean clubbing them with a closed-fist. Usually just the insult of actually having been hit is enough to bring a kid close to tears, and at that point you have their full and undivided attention, so a little love-tap is generally more than enough. When the kids get older, then you can use logic. As a kid I was a bloody hellion. The ONLY way to get my attention was to clobber me, or at least to make me THINK I was being clobbered. If nothing else, it teaches that actions have consequences.

RE Funny: Thank you. Sometimes we just have to lighten things up a bit to keep them in perspective. EUREKA didn't seem to appreciate some of my attempts at humour. I don't blame him. Sometimes my jokes are pretty bad. But hey, you can't be "on" all the time.

Have a good one.

[PocketRocket]

I am sure the police here are asking the same questions. Gun control is what I include the question of illegal firearms in. Why can we not do a better job of that? Some countries seem to.

That's a good question. It's easy to control firearms when you know where they are and who has them. It's a bit tougher when they are smuggled in and sold on the black market to people who never register them.

However, I'm not quite sure just how much better these "other" countries are doing. Do you think that every drive-by shooting is reported world-wide???

How about muggings where someone is actually shot???

I'm sure there are more unregistered, illegal weapons in every country than any of us will ever be aware of. That's the whole point of not reporting possession of a weapon, so that no one will know you have it.

In spirit though, you and I agree on this one.

[Guest eureka]

Where did you get the idea that I didn't appreciate your humour? I don't remeber complaining of any effort. I do think you try too hard at times and that subtlety is not necessarily your forte. That probably comes from dealing with the prickles of many contributors in internet fora.

I think it is self-evident that many countries do a better job of gun control. The simple numbers of gun related crimes and deaths are telling. In many countries they are far lower than even in Canada never mind the US.

[caesar]

I beleieve that it is the USA influence that is making a big deal out of registering guns. We would not have such a problem with illegal firearms if they were not so easily available from the USA. The USA likes to poke its nose into Canadian affairs re legalizing marijuana which amazingly has already been decriminalized in many American states, already. The USA likes to point to Canada as a source of illegal aliens in their country; yet, most of the terrorists of 9/11 were legally in the USA on student visa; recieved flying instructions within the USA.

Clean up their own back yard before they start pointing fingers eh.

[Fortunata]

I think we've got more of a problem with guns and gun control than a lot of European countries. I agree that they have gun smuggling there too that we don't hear about BUT we do have USA as a next door neighbour. We have European-type gun laws and USA influenced crime. Not a good combination.

But, the fact that gun-related murders was down last year is promising. That drive-by gun crime (whether they killed or hurt anyone is irrelevant) seems to be up (I don't have any stats on that, just impressions) is NOT promising. What to do? Prosecuting gun laws more aggressively could be helpful, altho harsher punishments for convictions has already been proven not to be a deterrent. We need to stop the smuggling through our border patrols (do we really have those?) and putting up the necessary resources at Customs to monitor parcels, freight and people coming in.

We need to be proactive not reactive.

[caesar]

U.S. court rejects boy's Zoloft defence in murder trial

Last Updated Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:22:42 EST

CBC News

CHARLESTON, S.C. - A 15-year-old American boy who claimed the antidepressant medication Zoloft drove him to kill his grandparents was found guilty of murder on Tuesday and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Why was this 12 year old child put on this drug? It has been found to cause emotional disturbances in some children. And WHY did these grandparents leave a gun where a child who was already having behavioral problems able to access it????

[PocketRocket]

Going off topic a bit.....

Where did you get the idea that I didn't appreciate your humour? 

My mistake, EUREKA. I was refering to an earlier post that was actually CAESAR's.

Sorry about that

  I don't remeber complaining of any effort. I do think you try too hard at times and that subtlety is not necessarily your forte. That probably comes from dealing with the prickles of many contributors in internet fora.

Aw gee, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day, but then again, I just got out of bed 15 minutes ago

Again, sorry about my error.

Back to the topic....

I think it is self-evident that many countries do a better job of gun control. The simple numbers of gun related crimes and deaths are telling. In many countries they are far lower than even in Canada never mind the US.

I think this may be the resulty of several different things. In some part, I think that because the USA and Canada are relatively young nations, both of which were founded by gun-totin' pioneers, the whole gun culture is more deeply ingrained. The wide-open spaces encourage hunting. In Europe, where the cultures are much older, the general population did not usually possess firearms. Little or no reason to. Hunting there is a diversion for the rich, which few exceptions. Nearly all European nations have a history in which you were either very rich, or you were a peasant. People were not brought up with the notion that a firearm is a normal household item. The population at large is not interested in owning a firearm.

If no one wants to own one, it makes it easier to control.

But criminals there, as here, are still armed.

Similar conclusions can be drawn about a lot of Asian countries.

But then again, look at some of the middle-eastern nations. M-16's and AK-47's are household items in many areas. Pre-teen kids taught to maintain, and shoot, automatic weapons. I think gun-control laws in some of these countries would be an excercise in futility.

In short, your statement is right, but there are underlying reasons outside the realm of control laws.

[PocketRocket]

In an earlier post in this thread, I made a "joke" about everyone being armed, in a restaraunt for example, and someone coming in to shoot up the place being, shall we say dismayed, to find himself staring down the barrels of several weapons. Actually, it went along the lines of "Oh look, a man shooting at us, let's kill him". The humour value was debated, but that's not the point here.

Interestingly enough, on the drive home from work last night, radio on CBC, I was listening to a show called "As It Happens".

Apparently, one of the states (I believe it was Arkansas, but I may be mistaken, I just got out of bed and I'm not all here yet) has passed a new concealed weapon law.

It allows people to carry concealed handguns in restaraunts and bars.

The logic behind the law is basically the same as that in my joke. One of the state representatives was interviewed via telephone on the program. His line was basically that if everyone is carrying, then the odd psycho-drunk who would be tempted to pull out a weapon and start blasting away would be discouraged by knowing that most of the people around him are packing. He expanded on this to say that if someone actually DOES start shooting, then by having lots of people shooting back, it would minimize the loss of innocent lives.

Uh-huh. In a bar.

Did it ever occur to these people that if someone is drunk enough to pull a piece and start killing people at random, then he's likely not in a rational frame of mind???

Good God. While I am sort of middle-ground on the whole gun-law thing, the LAST place I would like to see people armed is in a bar.

Make them check their weapons at the door. If you're worried about shoot'-em-ups, then arm the bouncers, but NOT the people who are sitting drinking.

(I looked briefly for a link to this news item a few minutes ago, but unsuccesfully. If anyone else finds any links to this, please post them. I'll try again tomorrow to find some)