Canadian Gun Control: Survey

[bigbaldbob]

Originally Posted by TEX-NARDI

I really don't know what to say...

I don't blindly follow with other sheep...

If handguns were completely outlawed, 100%, gone! Would the number of shootings go down?

100% of all Guns gone shootings would go down.

Look to the prisons.
Almost a 100% near perfect record of a gun free zone. Why are people in prison still murdered, stabbed, and raped daily? Hey we did successfully take away the criminal guns so why are they still committing violent crimes?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by TEX-NARDI

I really don't know what to say...

I don't blindly follow with other sheep...

If handguns were completely outlawed, 100%, gone! Would the number of shootings go down?

Absolutely not. What the hell makes you think that criminals are going to turn in their guns for one. Second what the hell makes you think a criminal is going to stop using a tool because it was made illegal.

Think about it man. The simple definition of a criminal: Someone who commits an ILLEGAL act.

So WTF makes you think a criminal is going to stop carrying because it was made illegal

[Curlysue]

Originally Posted by TEX-NARDI

Why is it that Canada ( per capita ) has a lower crime rate than the USA?

CULTURE. Some countries have higher crime rates than others. Guns have nothing to do with much of it. You should read this study by two criminologists (an American and a Canadian): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

A couple important parts: England used to have virtually no crime, they banned guns and their crime rate increased dramatically. While England's crime rate was going up and they were banning guns, the US's was going down and they were increasing gun rights (mostly through concealed carry laws). Some of the countries with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest crime.

What does this all mean?
"Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world."

[xjeeper]

Guns are not just about stopping gun crime,they are useful in stopping other crimes. Even if it were possible to get all criminals to give up their guns, that does not mean that law abiding citizens would not need handguns anymore. Two reasons that they would still be needed; protection from non gun crimes, and protection from oppression by the governments of the world, ours included. The main reason that the japanese did not invade any populated part of the western US was fear of our armed population. Our Founding Fathers realized that the power of the state must be held in check by the population, and the rights of the individual must have some recourse against thetyranny of the majority.

[rdc]

Originally Posted by xjeeper

Guns are not just about stopping gun crime,they are useful in stopping other crimes. Even if it were possible to get all criminals to give up their guns, that does not mean that law abiding citizens would not need handguns anymore. Two reasons that they would still be needed; protection from non gun crimes, and protection from oppression by the governments of the world, ours included. The main reason that the japanese did not invade any populated part of the western US was fear of our armed population. Our Founding Fathers realized that the power of the state must be held in check by the population, and the rights of the individual must have some recourse against thetyranny of the majority.

True, but he was talking primarily about crime, so that was the gist of the thread. You talk to a sheep about overthrow of a corrupt government, and you'll give him a stroke!

[xjeeper]

I am not talking overthrow, just self protection from abusive agents of our Government, BATF in Waco, for example. The second amendment was written for a reason, when we give up our rights because we do not need them now, they will not be available in the future when the need arises.

[rdc]

Originally Posted by xjeeper

I am not talking overthrow, just self protection from abusive agents of our Government, BATF in Waco, for example. The second amendment was written for a reason, when we give up our rights because we do not need them now, they will not be available in the future when the need arises.

If you ever draw on a Federal agent, and you AREN'T planning overthrow with a lot of like-minded help, then you are just talking "suicide". Once the shooting starts, it won't stop until one side defeats the other. And one side is BIG, with a lot of resources.

[xjeeper]

I am not planning on it, The whole thing about private gun ownership is that the potential for self defense is what keeps abuses from happening in the first place. In an armed society (like Arizona) people think harder about the consequences before acting against someone. This limits crimes comitted by officials and regular people alike.

[rdc]

Originally Posted by xjeeper

I am not planning on it, The whole thing about private gun ownership is that the potential for self defense is what keeps abuses from happening in the first place. In an armed society (like Arizona) people think harder about the consequences before acting against someone. This limits crimes comitted by officials and regular people alike.

Well, maybe we're just arguing semantics here. But I see the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment as to give the populace the means to protect itself against a tyranny (as you suggest). But that presupposes the willingness to use those arms against the source of said tyranny - the government.

Like you, I pray that never becomes necessary. But I could see it happening real soon now.

[MDarrough]

Originally Posted by Dave

So WTF makes you think a criminal is going to stop carrying because it was made illegal

Exactly!!! Just like locks only keep out the honest...laws really only persuade the honest people.

It's like I was eluding to in my previous post...there are laws that say I can't possess heroin/cocain/whatever kind of contraban you want to insert here. But, in any city in America (or Canada too), how long would it take me to buy some?

Mark