|
|
|
|
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/14/2007 12:18:57 PM | I have stated this in a different forum, so I'm sorry I'm repeatative, but ANYONE can buy a gun...doesn't matter if they have a record of mental illness or not...all they have to do is lie...and they aren't required to learn how to use it. Just because I think you should be required to learn how a gun works, doesn't mean I am against guns. Yes we all have the right to bear arms, but don't tell me you shouldn't have to know how to use them. If you think you're doing the responsible thing when you can walk in and pick out whatever you like, then walk out with no training, you're a fool. You are putting yourself in danger and anyone that comes into contact with you.
Would you feel comfortable that all our police never had to learn to shoot? That our soldiers went over with a "here ya go...good luck with that.." and no training?
We should be allowed to defend ourselves. But we should know HOW to defend ourselves.
And btw, I was a victim once, and I was able to draw the guy. So don't assume every victim is unable to help out in that way, either. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/14/2007 12:38:07 PM |
I have stated this in a different forum, so I'm sorry I'm repeatative, but ANYONE can buy a gun...doesn't matter if they have a record of mental illness or not...all they have to do is lie...and they aren't required to learn how to use it.
That isn't the case here in Canada. While no system is perfect, ours does allow free gun ownership with an oversight to ensure the least possible danger to society.
I could buy a gun here easily, and here's what I'd have to do.
To own or buy rifles and shotguns, Canadians are required to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Owning or buying handguns, requires completion of the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course.
Spousal Notification Required
Under the new law, all Canadian citizens applying for a firearms license are required to have their present and past spouse or common-law partner sign the application. Refusal of the spouse, for any reason, to sign the application will trigger further investigation by law enforcement officers.
In addition, the Canadian government has set up a "spousal notification" toll-free information line (1-800-731-4000) through which spouses can report crimes or express concerns about a person's qualifications to posses firearms.
Handgun Ownership Restricted
Canada, with a population of 31 million, limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.
In addition to licensing all gun owners and buyers, the Canadian Firearms Act requires every gun in the Country to have a certificate of registration.
On Feb. 11, 2000, the Canadian Firearms Centre reported the following objectives of the Firearms Act of 1995 as already being met:
* Across Canada, 1,287 firearms licenses have been refused or revoked for public safety reasons since the new law came into effect December 1, 1998. This is over ten times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals than the total for the past five years.
* Thanks to continuous background checks, 653 new applications have been refused for public safety reasons and we have revoked 634 licenses to individuals who were no longer eligible.
* Since Dec. 1, 1998, approximately 8 percent (3,439) of all gun sales have resulted in cases where the new background checks required further investigation. Of these, approximately 8 percent (281 cases) of the sales were refused.
* The new spousal notification line has received over 2,800 calls. This has proven to be an excellent tool for an applicant’s spouse (or others) to share concerns about public safety.
* Police now have an online registry of owners and their firearms.
* Extensive background checks are conducted on every person (59,132 to date) who acquires a firearm. (Similar to the requirements of the United States' Brady Handgun Control Act, Canadian authorities conduct extensive background checks on every applicant before a license is issued and before a firearm is transferred to a new owner.)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500a.htm
New requirements introduced in 1991 with Bill C-17 strengthened the screening requirements by adding a mandatory training course, a detailed questionnaire, references, a photograph and a 28-day waiting period. It raised the age for an FAC from 16 to 18 with provisions for minors’ permits. The law also reinforced the powers of the Firearms Officer to refuse an FAC if it was not in the interests of the safety of the applicant or any other person by shifting the burden of proof on appeal of the decision. That is, it required that the applicant prove that the Firearms Officer erred in his or her refusal. This law also defined safe storage requirements, and prohibited semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons as well as large capacity magazines.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:CPliZ43i5ocJ:www.guncontrol.ca/
English/Home/Law/ChangesToTheLaw.pdf+Firearm+acquisition
+license+in+Canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15
Were I to want a weapon, I could expect to have my employer called to verify my identity and state of mind. The police would do a background check. It makes perfect sense to me that any spouse or ex-spouse would also be contacted. They are frequently a target, so it's logical to see what they have to say.
The 28 day wait accomplishes two things. It allows the authorities to verify my information, and (were I angry or suicidal) it allows a cooling off period.
I'd also have to store my weapon properly, and have strict limits to how it could be transported.
Again, that type of program stands no chance to be put into place there, for reasons we have already discussed.
It does work here, although again no system will ever be perfect.
I can still have a weapon, should I choose to. The freedom to own that weapon carries with it certain obligations, and those are in place to protect people from those same weapons being misused and mishandled.
I don't think that's too much to ask, and it's record is proven here. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/14/2007 1:17:55 PM | | THAT'S what I'm saying...thank you. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/15/2007 11:01:29 PM | | When I think of guns I think of that scene in The Sixth Sense where the little boy says something to the effect of "I know where my Dad keeps his guns" and he turns around and half or his head is gone. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/16/2007 4:43:56 AM | | I go with rightwinggood guy, it's better to have a gun and not need than to need one and not have one. The criminals will have total power, actually I saw some good news in another thread a kid shot a guy in an attempted home invasion and killed him, if more stuff like that happens then criminals would think twice. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/17/2007 3:45:49 AM | I own several guns, two of which are an AK-47 and an M-4. While I can see why those may scare people, especially in the hands of criminals, you have to realize that criminals will always have guns like that rather they are legal or not. The United States has a very violent culture and the guns just make it more lethal.
I would rather be well armed in a violent culture than unarmed. I'm not some gun nut that thinks the revolution is going to happen anytime soon, but I have walked in on people burglarizing my old home. It took the police over 30 minutes to respond to a burglary in progress call. I bought my first firearm the next day.
There is A LOT of truth to the saying guns don't kill people, people do. Sweden and Israel come to mind of two countries with probably a higher gun ownership rate that the USA and they both have a very low murder rate (not counting terrorism).
I actually like the background checks and if there was a week waiting period, I would be cool with it. Beyond that through, I don't see the point. As a law abiding citizen I should be allowed to own most firearms. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 2:49:51 PM | the whole concept of a waiting period to exercise your human rights is ridiculous. if someone threatens you today, then no government has any right to say you have to wait a week or more before effectively defending yourself.
ben franklin said it right when he stated that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 3:23:04 PM |
the whole concept of a waiting period to exercise your human rights is ridiculous. if someone threatens you today, then no government has any right to say you have to wait a week or more before effectively defending yourself.
Again, that's a reflection of your society. It's not that way in almost any other industrialized democratic nation in the world. I don't see my waiting a month to get a gun as being a problem. I see it as responsible gun ownership. It also means that some people that should not get guns, will be stopped from getting them.
It also means that I, if suicidal, would have time to reconsider or be discovered.
Canadians are not at the mercy of gun toting criminals, due to a variety of factors. We've gone into all of those in this thread, and others. In the end, with less police, less jail cells, and far less firearms (and that's even more evident with handguns) - we are not being overrun by the Mongel hordes up here. That's not just because of our society (although that's a large part of it), but it's because we view guns here differently.
I said it before, but I work with police regularly as part of my job. The number of hold-ups I've dealt with (over ten years) with a person carrying a real firearm ?
I could count them on the fingers of one hand.
Guns here, for the overwhelming majority of Canadians, are for collecting, hunting and target shooting. I've never heard anyone claim they have a weapon primarily for self-defense here. In fact, to follow the law here you have to store your weapons in a secure location - and without being loaded.
Because of your history, your society, and your focus on individual rights over the collective, and the gun manufacturers and other lobbyists there - that can never happen in America.
That doesn't mean it won't work as a concept almost anywhere else. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 3:40:51 PM | "Again, that's a reflection of your society." this has nothing to do with american society...america stands against human rights about as much as most other countries in the world...just like the other countries, the specific government here chooses which rights to oppose in which ways.
"Canadians are not at the mercy of gun toting criminals" which is blatantly untrue. there are too many assaults, rapes, and murders in canada for that country to have found a way to prevent bad people from being violent. canadians have no magical superiority that makes them immune to damage.
"Because of your history, your society, and your focus on individual rights over the collective" there is no such thing as 'collective rights'. we all have rights that extend to everything short of infringing on the rights of others. the only way to give a group more 'rights' as you would call them than that would be to infringe upon the rights of the people | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 4:16:34 PM |
"Canadians are not at the mercy of gun toting criminals" which is blatantly untrue. there are too many assaults, rapes, and murders in canada for that country to have found a way to prevent bad people from being violent. canadians have no magical superiority that makes them immune to damage.
You are right, we don't have any magical superiority. We just have a different way of seeing things.
You are wrong about violent crime, and I'll prove that to you right here and now.
Assaults (per capita) by country
#6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
Far less firepower, and less assaults here.
Burglaries (per capita) by country
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
OK, you win that one. Since most burglaries occur when people are not home - guns have zero impact on that crime.
Robberies (per capita) by country
#11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
#22 Canada: 0.823411 per 1,000 people
Again, the less armed are better off.
Rapes by country
#1 United States: 89,110
#3 Canada: 24,049
On a per capita basis, Canada is far ahead. That might at least be explained by Canadian laws being somewhat more advanced on rape cases, and women here being more open to prosecuting rapists. Compared to what can happen in an American courtroom, women have a bit easier time here.
Total crimes (per capita) by country
#8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
#12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
Overall, still ahead.
Murders by country
#6 United States: 12,658
#26 Canada: 489
With roughly ten times our population, we are still (per capita) only one third as likely to be murdered.
Murders with firearms by country
#4 United States: 8,259
#12 Canada: 165
There's the most telling statistic. If firearms made you safer, this statistic would not occur. As I said, it's not just the gun laws. Those do play a substantial part in helping reduce such crimes.
Prisoners > Per capita by country
#1 United States: 715 per 100,000 people
#73 Canada: 116 per 100,000 people
Per capita, you are six times more likely to be imprisoned there.
Source all : NationMaster.com
So, there you go.
Proof positive that guns alone do not make you any safer. If that were true, those statistics would not show the marked differences that they do.
Nor do prisons, or police officers, which you have more of as well. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 5:08:42 PM | The thing with America is we view firearms as a right, not a priviledge. It is also a bit of a different mindset. Countries like Canada are socialist and believe more in big government and the government taking care of people. Americans despise the idea (or are supposed to) of big government and intrusive government, and of the idea that people need government to take care of them.
As for whether having firearms decreases crime or not, one could argue with statistics all day, but if you ban firearms all you do is leave the criminals who don't obey the laws armed.
New Orleans was brought back under control by gun-owning civilians, because the police abandoned many of their posts to go save their own families. Had no responsible civilians had firearms, they'd have been at the mercy of the criminals who had firearms. Which shows in a situation of pure anarchy, the responsible gun-owning civilians don't go out and start shooting each other.
In my humble opinion, the moment a society makes the decision that firearms are something only the government should have, you are headed in the long-run towards a controlling, totalitarian-type of society.
NO ONE can predict the future; there is no way to know if the people of America might one day have to stand up against a tyrannical government in the future.
Historically, there was a lot less violence in America back when firearms were a lot more prevalent; people were familiar with their use, and people respected each other. What causes violence is society itself, which is screwy. In 1960s America, a kid could take their rifle to school, show it to the principal, and then shoot in the school shooting club later on. These days, if a kid brings rifle to a school, a SWAT team arrives. And kids are so crazy-seeming these days. They lack respect for authority.
There is also a general belief that military and law-enforcement are better-trained and more responsible in the use of firearms than civilians. Americans do not believe this, and it is not true IMO. The average police officer and military soldier is not as well-trained as a civilian who shoots regularly. Only SWAT teams, combat-arms soldiers, and specialist government-type SWAT teams would be better-trained, and even then, that makes the civilians no less responsible in their use.
And like I said, Americans do not know if there would ever be a need to fight off a tyrannical government in the future.
Many people say they can understand having hunting weapons but they don't understand access to assault weapons, well there are a few reasons for that: one, being that, like Monteal Guy said with reference to Canadians, firearms are also for SPORT. An assault weapon that can fire full-auto is a LOT of fun and brings a thrill. Two, the notion that assault weapons are more dangerous than hunting weapons is not really true. Three, Americans view firearms as a right, so letting gov't decide what part of a right one should have access to, is very bad, and four: everytime gov't starts deciding what part of a right one should have access to, usually they just mess things up rather than make things better (which happened with Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban, which banned many firearms that were far less dangerous than many that remained legal; it did so because it went more by looks instead of technical issues of the weapons; thus, the ban was rather pointless for its intended purpose). | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 5:50:11 PM | No ones arguing for a ban on all firearms here, and that's not the case in Canada.We are talking regulation, not a total ban.
We've repeated this many times, but you are never going to outgun Big Brother. As Late said, if you get to that point - it's already too late. Whatever you have, they have more of - and far better versions. Bullets will never beat ballots.
All the guns at the Waco or Ruby Ridge meant zero - when the government is up against you. You have full auto machine guns ?
They have devices that can see through walls, and Cobra gunships. It's a fallacy to think you can outgun them if that day comes. It's not 1776 anymore. Even in Iraq, against common US military equipment, IED's are far more dangerous than a man with an automatic weapon.
Most industrialized western societies have gun regulation as part of their powers, and none of them is talking a slide towards a dictatorship. In fact, one could argue that far more rights have been taken away from US citizens, than any other Western industrial nation recently.
Crime is based on many things. If one sets up a society to make the life of the poorest people livable, then you stand a better chance of creating a society that is less crime free. Poverty and hopelessness destroys families.Those situations encourage alcoholism and drug abuse. The products of those homes involved may in fact be more likely to commit crime, especially if your society is based around wealth and consumption. Combine that with a life without education, and you are on a one way street towards creating more criminals.
I walk the streets freely here, in a neighborhood that is quite working class/poor. I often do that late at night. I've never felt threatened once. I've never been a victim of violent crime, nor do I know anyone that has.
I've lived here for forty nine years. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 6:04:53 PM |
In my humble opinion, the moment a society makes the decision that firearms are something only the government should have, you are headed in the long-run towards a controlling, totalitarian-type of society.
you have guns as a right, the patriot act and george bush. Your country just started a war for oil based on lies, now your rattling your swords at iran and north korea..who is it heading for a totalitarian, tyrannical society again? | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/20/2007 11:08:23 PM | True Montreal Guy, society is the problem that creates violence. I don't believe much in regulation of firearms though because the regulation is done by people who usually don't have one clue about firearms, which we have seen in the U.S. Furthermore, I don't think it makes sense, as since firearms are a right here (or supposed to be), one shouldn't need a firearm based on any "need;" it can be based on need or want; people for regulation might want to regulate it so that only firearms people would need, such as handguns or hunting rifles, are permitted, but assault rifles banned, but I disagree because IMO it wouldn't make much sense. There are plenty of hunting rifles that can do far more damage than many assault rifles, which means it wouldn't make much sense to ban assault rifles except because of pre-conceived notions or just plain dislike many anti-gun folk might have regarding them.
I do not believe that an armed society could not stand up to "Big Brother." There is no way the military could stand up to 80 million gun-owning citizens with some 300 million firearms spread across the country. The government would have to bomb every town and city in the U.S., along with infrastructure, upon which they would end up harming themselves much in the process, financial-wise and infrastructure-wise. You can have all the high-technology in the world, but in the end one must always put infantry on the ground to fight and a guerilla-type war, which is what would be fought against a real Big Brother, would be dirty. That is actually one problem the U.S. military has right now; it can't get into its head that Iraq is a dirty war involving ground soldiers, IEDs, and rifles, instead of a big, glamorous war in which the military can show off all its might like it did in the Gulf War with American tanks blowing up Iraqi tanks, American fighters shooting down Iraqi fighters, stealth aircraft, attack helicopters, etc...(i.e. the glamorous stuff). But no nation has an army that can match a well-armed civilian population because the civilians would be too large a population. If that wasn't the case, then it wouldn't make much sense (IMO) for countries like China or the old Soviet Union or Hitler's Nazi Germany to keep the citizens disarmed, because they wouldn't ever have presented a threat to the government.
Firearms are an essential tool that prevent tyrannical governments. True, many societies these days have regulation and/or bans on firearms, and are plenty safe and civilized, but IMO, 1) no one knows the future 100 or 200 years from now, for example Britain is growing more and more intrusive into its citizens, and 2) if some big disaster happens, the populace is at the mercy of the criminals. In America, that doesn't happen because a good deal of the non-criminal citizens are armed. I do not believe America's high crime rate is because of the proliferation of firearms here, I think it is because society itself is the problem. For example, Japan is a very non-violent country, and firearms are banned amongst civilians there, but I honestly think if firearms were suddenly made completely legal in Japan, that Japan would remain a mostly crime-free society, because they have a society in which people respect each other. I think America could be the same way (it used to be that way). Firearms aren't the problem, and they guarantee a society remains free should the government ever turn bad. They also guarantee the ability of the people to fend for themselves should the government prove unable to aid them in a time of crises (actually the American philosophy is that the Federal government is not supposed to come to your aid; that the local and state gov'ts and individuals can take care of themselves, but times have since changed).
I just think the future is far too unpredictable; there could be a catostrophic event that could happen that could alter the world or nation, such as a HUGE asteroid impact or something (you never know) that could alter the nation forever and turn people towards socialism or fascism (it was WWI and a destroyed economy from the Great Depression that led to Germany turning to fascism and electing in Hitler).
I think though that firearms are tools and the key to creating a non-violent society deals with good PARENTING and moral values coming back into play, and also ending the socialist policies we have towards poor people here which simply breeds more and more poverty; removing this and making the people work will create a better standard of living in the long run for them, and more disciplined and respecting people, which will lead to less crime and thus less violence.
A society that loves wealth and consumption/materialism is fine IMO, as long as people understand they must WORK for it; that builds a great society. When people get greedy and want lots of consumption without working for it, then that makes a bad society. Unfortunately, America has grown into a society where much of the population are greedy and materialistic without wanting to work for it. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/22/2007 8:47:10 PM | | People are gonna kill people with or without guns i wont give my guns up no matter what the law is there will always be a way to get a gun and you can bet your bottom dollar that no matter the laws i will have a gun.You cant take the guns away from us here in the usa we will not stand for it plain and simple , if you ask me thats a good way to start another civil war cause that my friends will be the last straw.I dont take my guns out and rob folks i hunt i shoot for the sport of it but,if you break in my house in the middle of the night and try to steal my shit i will shoot first and ask questions later and i dont shoot to slow you down or just wing ya you wont get you day in court friend.And the last thing on my mind is wanting to shoot anyone cause i dang sure dont wanna live the rest of my life knowin that killed somebodys son or father or brother .You cant rant and rave about percent of this and that but it just wont happen in the U.S. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/23/2007 1:02:37 PM | it's a funny thing stumbling across this thread..........
while i was at physical therapy this morning i heard something real crazy on the radio. it was an advertisement for people to get guns. pennsylvania is taking away the smokers rights for smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants but they're allowing the radio stations to promote gun sales? what the hell is the united states thinking of? they're saying for protection against robberies or rape of women. that's fine but there are other ways of self defense. don't get me wrong, i do have a gun, i've had it for 2 years now. i've had it long before they started announcing over the airways for buying a gun for self defense.
take away our smoker's rights and cigarette billboards and promote drinking (alcohol), promote the sale of condoms. sure...get drunk, have sex, hell..shoot someone if you like just don't get caught smoking in a bar.
and i live in this country? geez, no wonder why i wanna get outta here. | |
|
4peace
|
Joined: 4/18/2006
Msg: 116 | |
| Guns
Posted: 1/23/2007 8:30:00 PM | | I understand hunting when justified. I just think if people would refrain from gun violence in all ways, well that isn't a bad thing.. The only way that it can begin is if you make it illegal.. over the course of years, the criminals will be reliquished of their firearms. It may take a while but the escalating of firearms is not the answer to peaceful coexistence. If someone can come up with another solution to the gun problem, go fer it. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 1/27/2007 10:34:09 AM | | Well it all comes down to, you cant take the guns away from Americans it just cant be done do you have any idea what kind of a crap storm that would start,we are not like these other countrys and just stand idly by and let them take our guns away.Even if you did take the guns away the bad guys will still have guns there would be no takin them away from them and besides that any man with any kind of skills can build a gun in a matter of days in your own shop,have you ever heard of a zip gun? | |
|
| |
| Guns
Posted: 5/3/2007 9:14:46 PM | Montreal Guy, the waiting period just gives the anti gun crowd a false sense of security. For example, let's say the waiting period stopped 10,000 felons from purchasing guns in the US and Canada last year. Of those 10,000 how many bought one off the street instead? How many had a friend with a clean record buy the gun for them? How many stole one?
I do not disagree with the difference in crime between the US and Canada. But I don't think the higher crime we have here is because of guns. You made a good point about society being a big reason.
We have a very violent society in the US and I think it's a result of many things other than guns that lead to crime:
-The breakdown of the tradtional family. Fewer and fewer children live with both parents today. Many (not all) children of broken families lack the structure and discipline as those who are raised with both parents in the home.
-Drugs. This country has done a pi** poor job of prosecuting drug dealers. The drug problem would be drastically reduced if the dealers knew they'd go to prison for life for selling drugs. If that means building more prisons so be it. Drugs are a cause of a lot of problems such as destroying families......... addicts commiting roberies to support their habit........ gang wars etc....
-Another reason is the culture and ethnic diversity in the US. Now before anyone jumps all over me for saying this hear me out. With so many different cultures living in the US they eventually clash and when they do bad things happen. How often do we hear of racially motivated violence against blacks, whites, Asians etc...?
_____
Ponygirl, a smoking ban has just been passed here in Minnesota. You just nailed how hypocritical just plain stupid our state and local leaders can be. Great point! Now let's have a drink  | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 5/11/2007 11:16:00 AM | | If guns cause crime then mine must be defective. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 5/11/2007 11:46:04 AM | | Mine too ^^^^mine has never committed a crime either but after reading all theses posts i keep waiting for it to sprout legs and go shoot someone , or give me mind control orders to go and do somthin bad ha ha . Do you think that the voice that these guns give comands to people with is charlton heston's voice ???????? ha ha ha | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 5/11/2007 11:06:16 PM |
"The best way to tackle crime is probably to reduce poverty."
Give the author of post #7 a medal, I think he has hit the nail right on the head. Poverty, and the desperation brought about by it is a far greater scourge than firearms ownership.
There are many, many nails. Two easily implemented ones:
1. Eliminate all victimless crime.
2. Eliminate all anti-discrimation legislation.
Result: bad guys such as pimps and the mafia will be out of jobs, and anyone will be able to refuse them any service or association. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
