|
|
|
|
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 9:18:01 AM | I agree with both Montreal Guy and Late - I'm not anti-gun and am very pro-gun control, registration and education.
In my own, somewhat naive little world, I would like to believe that guns are unnecessary in day to day living.
That said, on the one hand, there are those who hunt and target shoot, either in a traditional sense or as a hobby and there is a certain skill required to be successful at either. There are many responsible gun collectors and owners, who like Late, will educate and teach their children about guns.
On the other hand, the high school that my child might attend in a couple of years has already had 1 confirmed gun confiscation and 2 lockdowns for possible weapons on premises. It is only October.
I think any changes in gun registration/ownership will only work for those who are already playing by the rules, and quite frankly, that scares me. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 10:51:43 AM | | sorry to the top of this page but...how can you fight for your whatever without guns....you cant its simple maths...therefore if a govt has no weapons to fight it who could stop a coup...and vice versa.....who....but that puts us back in the hands of the farkwit governor or president that happens to control at that time...guess what as far as my experience goes in australia is that i would prefer to sleep with a venemous snake.....bloody true | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 11:19:13 AM | Stricter gun laws simply means law abidding citizens are less likely to be armed- and its not the law abidding citizens that we need to fear in the first place.
Not to mention that, by ensuring people have a freedom to own a gun, you can ensure that Despotism will never visit your country without a fight..... | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 12:22:39 PM | as far as gun deaths here in the u.s goes, more people are killed in car accidents every year, add alcohol to the mix and it gets worse. yet i never hear hear anyone suggest we outlaw cars or try prohibition...again. here in in the peoples republic of Cali, more kids are killed in swimming pool accidents than by guns..and yet i don't hear a loud cry for folks to fill in their pools, that would be to hard not mention unpopular.
the best way to prevent your kids from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else is to educate them, not by hiding or getting rid of your guns. i think schools should also be required to teach kids about real gun safety (like the eddie eagle program). | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 2:47:06 PM | Contrary to what most believe in the US, we can own firearms in Canada, and gun control isn't "new" here, nor is ownership a right, this isn't new either, both have been around since before Confederation.
Our society evolved along different lines, and like it or not, though cars kill more people than guns in the US.
Guns kill 15X per capita in the U.S. than they do in Canada and firearms are only in 4X per capita more homes in the U.S. than Canada...
Our view of gun ownership as a privilege is part of the cultural divergence between our two countries and it's a fundamental difference that goes back centuries.
Our way can't be used in the U.S., just as your way wouldn't work here....
That boat left the dock a loooong time ago.
Is our way better?
It is ....for Canada.
I don't believe private firearm ownership can protect you from an oppressive government as effectively as being vigilant concerning letting them get their foot in the door to violate rights under the guise of security, and the smoke and mirrors of the politics of fear.
The weapons to prevent this aren't made of blue steel...
The ammo, ....doesn't come in bullets, ....it comes in the form of a skeptical electorate. And, in regards to this weapon, ...from the outside looking in?
It looks like your most effective weapons against an oppressive government have beed eroded, both by administrative malfeasance and fraud, ...and a much too powerful corporate hegemony lobby.
Guns don't protect people (from oppressive administrations), people protect people. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 56 | |
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 3:16:35 PM |
Guns kill 15X per capita in the U.S. than they do in Canada and firearms are only in 4X per capita more homes in the U.S. than Canada...
That's just counting the guns, not type of Guns. I am betting the ratio of hand guns and the semi automatics ownership would be much more lopsided if compared directly.
Our view of gun ownership as a privilege is part of the cultural divergence between our two countries and it's a fundamental difference that goes back centuries.
This is absolutely correct and basically the root of the whole debate. Canada separated from mother England gradually, not violently like the Americans. The founding fathers put the second amendment in there to warn the British that if they come back, they have to fuk with a whole country of armed population. An ideology that Americans maintained right through the WWII.
Our way can't be used in the U.S., just as your way wouldn't work here....
I disagree. Fondamentali, as cultures, we are more similar than dissimilar and have much more in common than not. The difference is that the Americans have a habit of letting their politicians get away with being corrupt and the gun lobby has massive amounts of power.
Most americans want tougher gun ownership regulations and everybody knows that. They just can't get it past their politicians. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 4:55:18 PM | We are quite similar, in so many ways. We are also incredibly different, in others.
We don't have a culture that glorifies violence. Before you get upset at that remark, let me try and explain it. American popular culture has, at it's root, a repeating motif. In some ways, I believe it relates to our differences in our beliefs over individual rights versus collective rights, as well as our different histories.
If you look at American culture, there is this image that's been around for a long time. One man, with a gun, stands up for what's right. That starts with Bunker Hill, then to "Cowboys and Indians", and progresses through to the gunfighters of Boot Hill, to Gettysburg, to the gangsters and lawmen of the Roaring Twenties, and right through to Die Hard and 24.
It's a basic part of American culture, and the message it sends is that one man with a gun (or a group of them) is a "good" thing. It's the same with those war movies, where men with guns save the day.
Now in Canada, none of those things are present. In our culture, our "heros" are not armed. The Mounties aren't known for killing their man, their known for getting their man. Although our military has fought very well in various battles over our history, most Canadians have a vision of them as Peacekeepers. That's so deeply ingrained in our society that , before we went into Afghanistan, the military had to do a PR tour telling Canadians that well....we were going over their to kill some people.
That's almost silly, if you look at the same situation from an American perspective. It's not if you look at it from ours.
When our sniper teams from Afghanistan were recommended for a unit citation by the USA for their lethal work in the first part of the Aghanistan invasion, our governments initial reaction was to say no. It took a public outcry to allow that to happen.
We fought a rather tough successful battle in Yugoslavia, in the Medina pocket. It took perhaps five years for it to become known to most Canadians. Had that same type of situation occurred with a US unit, there would have been stories and films left and right.
That, again, is not to imply that we are better. It's simply because our history has been much different, and the models that we used to apply solutions to our were also different. We didn't have to kill anyone to get our independence, we just negotiated it over a table.
We also do not have as deep a racial divide here, again because of our history. That's another reason for less violence and crime. The gap between rich and poor is smaller, and conditions are more reasonable for our poor. We don't have any ghettos that come even close to America's, although we certainly have groups of poor people living in certain areas.
You also have to look at our different population densities, and to how that also has an effect.
In short, were you to apply the American access to guns to Canadians overnight, I doubt that you would see the same numbers of fatalities occurring. The death rate from them would increase dramatically, but I think it would still be lower than what occurs there.
Another example, from just a couple of weeks ago. We had a guy stab his girlfriend to death in Montreal. The police were called, in broad daylight, to the apartment. It wound up in a situation where probably a dozen policemen and women had the man encircled.
He still had his knife, and they all had their handguns pulled. They kept on yelling for him to drop the knife, and he refused.
He charged the police.
He was shot, but he was well enough to appear in court the next morning to be charged with the murder of his girlfriend.
Had that same situation happened in most American cities, I doubt that would have occurred.
 | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 7:05:41 PM | | the gun lobby as you like to put it is a mere civil rights organization - it wields the power of the NAACP and for good reason. the second amendment is a right that needs to be protected and forever guaranteed. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 7:18:36 PM | | As long as Americans hold gun's they have a line of defence against their "government". | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 7:56:51 PM | | I dont go so far as to own firearms as a stand against the government - more as a collectors kind of thing or as a self defence issue. If anything if the government was to fail - say from a collapse in basic services brought on by natural (Katrina) or man made catastrophes (say the subhuman al qaeda knocked out power grids) guns are a wonderful thing to have in any ensuing anarchy. and yes, if it means my family/friends safety over that of a looter/rapist, 2 to the chest and one to the head, rinse, repeat. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/26/2006 7:57:50 AM | That was against a group of foreigners that were armed pretty equally with the insurgents, and fighting with a supply line that stretched across the Atlantic, with sailing ships taking weeks to arrive. They also wore bright red uniforms, and lined up in rows. Not exactly tactical geniuses, if you weren't playing "cricket".
Things have changed a lot in the last oh......200 hundred years. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/26/2006 8:29:28 AM |
"but, as I said , you'll never convince me that Americans will ever be able to overthrow their own government by force of arms should it become necessary in their opinion." Um, didn't we already do that once? I think we celebrate it every 4th of July.
This doesn't seem to mesh with your other observation:
You can dream all you want, but even one hundred men fully trained with an armoury are not going to win when you get the full force of the government against them. It would make the Alamo look like a grade one play.
Ovenight, you'd be branded as a terrorist, and you'd be tracked down like a wild animal by everyone else that bought the company line. Against an enemy like that, you have zero chance.”
Seems like a complete contradiction to your attitude toward the Iraq mess. Iraq “Wacos” ok, but others are not?
Fourth of July?
Well, in the historical context, given the co-opting of the 14th amendment in the cause of corporate hegemony, why celebrate a "hostile take-over", the only difference between the bondage of an aristocracy and the bondage of a psuedo-aristocracy is the addition of a prefix.
Bait n' switch.
Things have changed a lot in the last oh......200 hundred years.
Some things, other things ....not so much.
| |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/26/2006 11:53:38 PM | spinner: i agree with you about the main purpose for owning guns which is self protection. i pointed out in another thread about guns, that after Katrina new Orleans police went around illegally confiscating guns from law abiding people who stayed behind for what ever reason, leaving these individuals at the mercy of looters and criminals. then afterwards refused to give these people back their property, regardless of weather they had proof of ownership or not. it took a lawsuit by the NRA to get these "public servants" to return what was taken.
here in los angeles, when we had the Rodney king riots, entire neighborhoods were looted and burned, especially businesses owned by non-blacks, specifically Korean owned businesses. there, on the news was a strip-mall where all the businesses were Korean owned, the owners and their employees had blocked off the parking lot with their cars and posted large signs, "anybody who enters this parking lot will be shot". these owners and their employees stood guard on the roof tops with rifles and handguns protecting their lively hood....not one of those businesses was touched during the riots while everything else around them looked like a bomb had gone off. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/27/2006 1:53:39 AM | On the other hand, placing as much money and effort as is spent on firearms/NRA PR on improving those neighborhoods and trying to reduce the various economic and social factors that lead to those riots would be far too logical to even presume to address.
Those types of things occur, and there can only be two real main reasons. Either those people are evil, or the conditions that they live in are.
Why can Canada not have these same types of situations, especially since we are rather less fully armed than the USA is ? Why do we not have riots like those ?
Perhaps it's better to solve the question, than it is to keep answering it with bullets. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/27/2006 6:54:13 AM |
Why can Canada not have these same types of situations, especially since we are rather less fully armed than the USA is ? Why do we not have riots like those ?
Now we're back to the facets of this issue already addressed in post # 61.
That horse has left the stable. | |
|
Jay152
|
Joined: 10/11/2006
Msg: 66 | |
| Guns
Posted: 10/28/2006 12:26:44 AM | As long as Americans hold gun's they have a line of defence against their "government".
The people don't have no where near the firepower that the government does. However, self defence in a human right. They serve to protect us from criminals; but not the government. If you shoot a cop whether your in the right or not; you won't live very long......thats a fact...cop Killers rarley see a Judge. | |
|
Top It
|
Joined: 5/26/2006
Msg: 67 | |
| Guns
Posted: 10/29/2006 8:32:23 PM | It's actually easier to make your own (gun, IED) than to purchase.
I won't include the blueprints, directions, or guidance from working in Criminal Justice field for 20+ years, although you would be amazed.
I only need three things to make a gun by the way. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 6:19:21 AM | | Sorry, your numbers are dead wrong- after your gun control program went into effect, Australia saw a 48% rise in armed robberies first year- do not let the gun control nuts lead you astray- your own police stats confirm that as well as virtually every independent study- if your government or politicians are telling you different, they are quite simply lieing same as the RCMP and liberals in Canada did to the Canadian population | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 8:04:45 AM | | If you were to seriously try to change the gun laws in the US, you'd probably get shot. | |
|
4peace
|
Joined: 4/18/2006
Msg: 70 | |
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 8:23:02 AM | | I know I will be in the minority on this one. Anything that can be used by a 2 year old to accidently blow their head off should be outlawed. As an advocate for peace, I do believe there should be strict gun control. The less guns out there, the better in my opinion. As far as all you who have acquired them legally, well I sure hope you keep them locked up. Where do you think all the criminals get most their guns? They STEAL them from all you good gun loving americans, or trade/buy for them from all you gun loving american weapons collectors who don't care about even the existing gun control laws. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 1:33:19 PM |
They are sold as semi-auto. My mistake in saying they were sold as fully-auto, but would I be wrong in saying that anyone with a basic knowledge of engineering could convert such a weapon to fire fully-auto? Yes, you'd be wrong. I build all my long guns that I use in competition. Literally put together each detent, spring, ring etc. You can not easily convert these to full auto.
An interesting side note. Since 1934 when fully automatic weapons became federally regulated there has been only ONE instance of a legal one being used to commit a crime. And that was by a cop. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 2:03:38 PM |
To have a semi version certified by the BATFE for general sale, the maker has to submit design documents along with pre-production samples to the BATFE , when then will attempt to make the gun into a full-automatic.
I believe that USED to be the case. Gun legislation passed during the Clinton administration stopped that legal conversion. I believe as the law stands now, there can be no new full auto weapons manufactured for private sector Class 3 liscense holders. Whatever number of full autos are registered in the USA, those are the only ones now allowed to exist. If you want to go the procedure of owning a full auto, you must purchase one already in existence and transfer ownership to you, via BATF, from the current Class 3 owner, etc. In essence, full autos are techinaclly banned, except for this grandfather/transfer clause.
I dont remember if this was a part of the "Brady" act or not. If it was, perhaps it has expired and I stand corrected??
One, a class 3 license, is an endorsement on an FFL, not something a private citizen needs to own "title 2" firearms. The way the laws stand now, are that no new FA firearms could be imported after 1968. (Explaination for the rareness of full auto AK's and IMI Uzi's add the 2 up, there are less than ten in the country) Also, none could be made after 1986. HOWEVER, you can have all the replacement parts you want. If you have an M-16 and break the sear, you can buy a brand new sear. If your a government contractor, or a security contractor for certain types of places, like nuclear power plants, as a private company, you may still buy brand new fully automatic weapons. As far as suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns go, if your willing to do the paperwork, your good to go. Again, legal ones, have never been used in a crime in this country.
4peace, no offense, but you are truely lacking depth of thought here. Look at Switzerland. It's mandated that each family be armed, and well armed. The Swiss enjoy their firearms and are very big into the shooting sports. The Germans passed them up on their little rampage in the 30s and 40s because even as small as Switzerland is, it was estimated that it would cost the Germans over a quarter of a million casualties. Today, being so well armed, the Swiss are still a safe and respectful people. Again, the most violent cities in the US, are the ones with the tightest gun control, or like St louis, are feeling the effects of tight guncontrol from east St Louis, which is in Illinois, and has the same tight gun control that Chicago does. Washington DC, if your not a cop, a fed, or military, you cannot possess a gun. Yet it is one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
To the people that advocate fixing poverty as a way to reduce crime. You also lack the depth of thinking required here for intelligent debate. No offense intended. We do not have a crime problem in the U.S. because we have poor people. We have a crime problem in the U.S. because all of our "social" programs like welfare gave lazy people a sense of entitlment. The masses think that they are owed something, and have consequently become lazy and have no work ethic. It's a byproduct of growing up in a home, where no one worked, seeing mommy and daddy get a welfare check and food stamps. The vast majority of these idiot criminals that live in the poor, inner cities, would tell you to take your job offer and shove it, they don't want to work, if they did, jobs are available. They want a hand out, even if they have to reach in your pocket at gun point for it.
Lastly, don't for one second, even start about "need" for certain weapons or thinking that military style arms are evil and should be banned even though you'll "let" us keep our hunting rifles. In 1934 the US supreme court upheld the conviction of a man that had a short barrel shotgun. The reason for upholding it, "the United states military doesn't have a weapon of this nature in it's a***nal, if it did, we would overturn the conviction"
So yeah, I have a constitutional, God given, right to own all the firearms I do, and I will keep them at all costs. You see, Moussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, etc etc etc all disarmed their populations before getting a little irritated at them and started killing them in droves. They couldn't fight back, they had no arms. They'd gone from citizens, to subjects. So whether it be Deer, or a Tyrannical government, all arms, are for hunting. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/19/2006 2:08:02 PM |
The people don't have no where near the firepower that the government does. However, self defence in a human right. They serve to protect us from criminals; but not the government. If you shoot a cop whether your in the right or not; you won't live very long......thats a fact...cop Killers rarley see a Judge. Again, with the lack of depth of thinking. Believe it or not, a great many cops, soldiers, and Marines, would not only NOT comply with an order to disarm U.S. Citizens, but many would be grabbing gear and coming over to the side of the Patriots. You can bank on that. Plus, after Ruby Ridge, even the sheeple are highly suspicious of the Government slaughtering civilians. I pray in never comes down to a fight, hell I pray no one ever puts me in a spot where I have to shoot them. But if the flag goes up, it's time to load up. | |
|
4peace
|
Joined: 4/18/2006
Msg: 74 | |
| Guns
Posted: 11/24/2006 9:48:04 PM | | No offence to you either, Glock22shooter, but I believe people with your type of attitude about weapons lack depth of thinking when it comes to WHY people are killing each other. You are so afraid of being a victim of firearms you feel compelled to arm yourself to the hilt. Maybe you feel the world is beyond hope but I don't, even though it looks pretty bad. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 11/24/2006 11:18:35 PM | | Hey OP. I've heard that in australia after all the tough gun laws illegal gunownership is actually up, gun prices are up as well as armed home robbery. Kind of backfired eh... | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
