Gun Laws

[Lucas101]

In my opinion, something needs to be done, BUT I don't think gun's should be banned.

Why not up the prices of ammunition and guns themselves? This might not stop killings, but I think this will make them less deadly and they would occur less often. I don't think it is right to prohibit guns themselves due to the 2nd amendment, I think that is important because the founding fathers passed that amendment so we could protect ourselves.

Random thought, but why are semi-automatic guns being sold anyway? Prohibiting those would also be a change for the better in my opinion.

That's my opinion, but I agree with you tipp, the person wielding it is at fault here.

Price increase will do nothing to curb violence resulting from firearms. Why? Well it is quite simple, people use the its to protect me from other bad guys with guns argument to justify purchasing a firearm. So a good like this is seen as necessity good meaning that a price increase will do little to nothing in terms of deterring people from purchasing guns. All that a price increase to guns and ammunition will do is make people more ****ed off leading to ...

Inert objects dont kill, they are just a tool for the killer to use.

To say that an inert object is the cause of such horrific deaths, is to day that:

The automobile is to blame, not the drunk driver, or the scapel and forcepts are to blame, not the abortion doctor, or the house fire is to blame, not the arsenist.

Evil is evil, and will find a tool to use in his/her evil act. If you paid attention to where these evil acts were commited, you will notice that there were strict gun laws in place, therebye ostensibly making the innocent, defenseless and innocent.

So no, on more gun laws.

I'm gonna have to disagree here. An automobile being driven by a drunk driver and killing someone is not even comparable to someone killing someone with a firearm, unless of course the person is similarly inebriated. Evil is evil and it will find its way to do its act but guns readily accessible means that this evil will be able to carry out its devices on a much higher scale.

History has shown that gun bans make it easier for criminals. The second you stop law abiding citizens from defending themselves, well....that's when the true colors of people will show. You see in modern day media all of the tragedies brought on by gun violence, however you do not see all of the attacks that were stopped by a person legally carrying a firearm...

That's just my two cents here

Okay statements like this seriously bug me. Please do some research before you claim that history has shown that gun bans make it easier for criminals. To simplify things lets compare two countries which are relatively similar. No surprise we will use the USA and Canada. In the USA gun control is very limited while in Canada it is very strict. In order to minimize population differences I will use per capita statistics. The statistics show that in the USA murder rates are 5 times as high as in Canada, (5.5/100000 vs 1.8/100000) which I guess makes sense since everyone is 'protecting their freedom' by playing Billy the Kid with real lives.

But one would assume that robbery, break and enters and aggravated assault would decrease if everyone has access to firearms? Wrong again robbery in the USA is 65% higher then in Canada, of course in the USA 41% of said robbery's involve a firearm while only 11% involve a firearm in Canada. Regarding break and enter crime Canada does have a slightly higher rate (574/100000 vs 494/100000) but when we incorporate residential break in rates we get that rates in Canada drop to 344/100000 and American rates drop to 321/100000, is this marginal safety worth the 500% higher risk of being killed? Also these B&E rates have DECREASED since gun control was implemented in Canada by around 35%. What does this show? Well you are not really all that much less likely to be robbed if you have a gun in your house. Why? Because with unregulated firearms its more likely that the robber will have one to

Statistics regarding Aggravated Crimes of all natures are also heavily skewed towards the USA. (300+/100000 vs 150+/100000) Again, why? Because bad guys are more likely to have a weapon where firearms are less regulated. Think of it as an investment, someone needs cash in Canada you can go get a black market piece, probably get busted but if you don't its going to cost 20x as much or wait the 60 days, have a background check, get the 4 or 5 people to sign off 'sponsoring' you take 2 or 3 safety courses per gun class and then go rob someone. Or would you just jump them with a baseball bat? Or in the States walk in get a gun mug someone and then run off, does that make sense?

What the study that I am using also suggests is that guns mean more criminal activities such as drug running. These rates are also skewed towards the US (400/100000 vs 100/100000) and why wouldnt they be? If you are nailed for drug running in Canada a weapon means an extra 5-10 years. Not so in the USA. I could go on an on with this study but I am sure that I have already bored everyone here.

More is found here

http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/m/mfc/41-240.nsf/0/10ff8b04ff3a317885256d88005720f6/$FILE/ATT8BNDV/0110185-002-XIE.pdf

So you see Jupiter, if your main argument holds then I America is by far the most screwed up nation on the planet, every and I mean every other country with gun control has normal crime rates.

Also, Jupiter the worst part of that statement was the whole you dont see the people who were defending themselves spiel. This is why we have justice, police, the courts, ie. the judicial branch of government. The second amendment was brought about by bears and Indians attack white settlers, its time to modernize and implement strict gun laws in the USA.

[King Alboin]

I disagree with your disagreement. for one I was not comparing horror to horror, that would be asinine and disrespectful. I was making the statement of blame, the what or the who. In all the cases I mentioned, the who should be blamed, not the what. In this case, the whats are being blamed, not the who, by those who have a political agenda. Fear mongering a what, an inert object is not the solution.To put blame on a what, I think is rediculous. To follow that line of reasoning, pick the most deadly object in either the USA or Canada, and bann it. right? Well that would be the scapel and forcepts. So ban the scapel and forcepts, then ban the car, then housefires, before you ban fire arms.

In this country, like it or not, one is not a criminal till one commits a crime. In this country we are innocent until otherwise proven not innocent. Law abiding citizens are not to blame for what happened in that small town. To justify a solution by blaming their right to carry what so ever legal firearm they choose to carry for whatever reason they want, because they are free to determine for themselves, why they want a firearm. Not you, not Gill, not Canada.

Oh and while we are on the subject, that man in china, where gun laws are very well restricted, he murdered those poor sweet innocent school children with a blade weapon.

See, dirtbaggs come in all flavors and nationalities,despite the law, and they will use any tool to accomplish their goals of evil.

[Gillivray]

I am not sure where all your hostility is from or why you are misrepresenting what I have said. No one is placing all blame on the weapons. It is the combination of a mentally ill person (and evil and mentally ill are not synonymous) having easy access to weapons.

Your reference to the attack in China is also factually inaccurate. Yes, he did attack school children and they were injured, but NONE of them are dead because he was not firing 6-11 bullets per second into them, and I guarantee you that any parent would rather have an injured child than a dead child.

Your prior post says don't blame the automobile, blame the drunk driver... Guess what?? Drunk driving is illegal, and yet you want no laws regulating guns? that is illogical.

You accuse me and lucas of having political agendas. I know that my ONLY agenda is safety of my children and the children of this country, and that is the only agenda I saw in Lucas' post. If anyone here has a political agenda it is the ones arguing against all regulation of guns despite all reason and logic.

[Lucas101]

I disagree with your disagreement. for one I was not comparing horror to horror, that would be asinine and disrespectful. I was making the statement of blame, the what or the who. In all the cases I mentioned, the who should be blamed, not the what. In this case, the whats are being blamed, not the who, by those who have a political agenda. Fear mongering a what, an inert object is not the solution.To put blame on a what, I think is rediculous. To follow that line of reasoning, pick the most deadly object in either the USA or Canada, and bann it. right? Well that would be the scapel and forcepts. So ban the scapel and forcepts, then ban the car, then housefires, before you ban fire arms.

In this country, like it or not, one is not a criminal till one commits a crime. In this country we are innocent until otherwise proven not innocent. Law abiding citizens are not to blame for what happened in that small town. To justify a solution by blaming their right to carry what so ever legal firearm they choose to carry for whatever reason they want, because they are free to determine for themselves, why they want a firearm. Not you, not Gill, not Canada.

Oh and while we are on the subject, that man in china, where gun laws are very well restricted, he murdered those poor sweet innocent school children with a blade weapon.

See, dirtbaggs come in all flavors and nationalities,despite the law, and they will use any tool to accomplish their goals of evil.

Blame the intent of shooting while sober with killing while intoxicated? That is a very thin statement. However, I agree with you to an extent. Consider a drunk driver and some madman with plans to shoot up some place. Driver goes out has a couple beers, makes a CHOICE to drive while under the influence, this decision leads to an ACCIDENTAL death caused by the choice of the drunk wo/man. A mad person goes gets a gun and makes a CHOICE to shoot and intentionally kill a bunch of people. Do you see the difference I am trying to establish?

Again, using ratio's of intentional/total which ratio is going to be the highest out of scalpels, cars, housefires and guns? I am not trying to pin the blame on any 'law-abiding citizen' but what gives these citizens the right to play sheriff? If one breaks the law, which everyone does, how is s/he responsible enough to take a life? Do the statistics I posted mean nothing to you? It's been shown time and time again that gun-control lessens crime. Sure its great that everyone can arm themselves, but the problem with this is that both the good and bad guys can arm themselves, who is more likely to pull the trigger?

In Canada we have the same innocent till proven guilty clause, but the minority ruined it after the Montreal Massacre, which is why gun restrictions were introduced, and surprise, we havent had a massive problem since. As a Canadian the reason I am so in favour of introducing gun control south of us is because I fear that we will soon start having copy-cats motivated by all the crap going on south of us.

I'm not going to defile this discussion by mergining it with that sick tragedy, and I will ask that you do the same. Things like that bring bias from both sides which is not going to help us.

But to address you last point, dirtbags do come in all shapes and sizes, and there is nothing we can do about that. But a dirtbag coming at you with a stick, vs one coming at you with a gun? I will take the stick every time. Again, the statistics I posted don't lie, people lie.

[King Alboin]

pulling up statistics I would suppose you will find, that chicago is crime ridden, about 200 plus shootings everyweekend. I drive up there, and hear the reports on the news. Let me tell you, it is very so much totally illegal to have even a handgun in chicago, same with detroit, same with new york city. Washington DC used to be the most deadliest city in the us, until they relaxed on there gun abatements. now the criminals dont know who has a weapon, and thinks twice before committing the crime. I am too tired and have to drive soon to look up a statistic I heard today, but paraphrasing it, it said that the murder rate has gone down by 50% from the 1980's till now, because of the advent of conceal and carry.

Unlike Canada, Lucas, the US does have a constitution, that limits what goverment can do. We have certain inalienable rights, starting with freedom of speech and religion, and followed up closely with the right to keep and bear arms [plural]. Gill said it wholly when she stated it, but attached made up meanings to it whole cloth.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indeed a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, [notice the comma?] the definitive statement is the second half, which you can read right there, [cap lock time]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[notice the period at the end?]

it does not have another comma as to suggest only for protection against indian raids, and bears. It does not put a limit on magazine capacity, it is not specific about a musket, smooth bore, or rifled barrel. The reason it does state the first half for the need for a well regulated militia is so that those who practice the art of firing fire arms, can be called up to protect our free state. However the right is not co-dependent of the first half, it is the first half that is solely dependent on the second half.

Most sales of firearms here are civilian weapons. designed for civilian use. The word "assault" weapon is a cue word for kneejerking purposes. If you use a knife and assault a group of folks with it, then the knife by definition becomes an assault weapon. The reason folks are buying civilian designed weapons, though they look military, is because they are really sound weapon platforms. But they are not military weapons. It is illegal to own or possess a fully automatic weapon in any state of the union. has been since 1934. These semi auto's are thought to provide the user with what the user thinks he/she needs. Its an individual's choice, because it is their right to choose any legal firearms they so desire. It is incumbant however, to understand that with freedom come a heavy responsibility. The responsibilty to secure the weapon, train on the weapon of choice, to understand the safe operation of that weapon. In most states, you have to be 21 to even legally purchase a firearm. You still need to go through a background check. And must take the responsibilty and serve time, should some unforseen crime happen with your firearm. On the most part, millions of gun owners dont take their freedom to keep and bear arms, lightly, which is how it should be.

you guys up in Canada, mind your own affairs. If you dont want handguns, that is your business. and no, given time I could come up with statistics that would refute your statistics, on the simple basis your survey model is flawed, due to the "per capita" sampling errors, and the hidden agenda of who did the study.

Let me ask you this? Have you ever heard of a coward dirtbagg going to a firing range and trying to shoot up the place? No? I wonder why?

[gottibabe1]

the scapel and forcepts are to blame, not the abortion doctor

Um. Wut.

[Saxonite]

I feel as if, it strange that people honestly believe anything you do will change these tragedies. If we are honest with ourselves, whether anyone had a gun there at the time or not, do you really believe it would have occurred to them to use it? Self preservation is a human instinct. It takes more than a law to change that. Do you think that the kids from the Columbine incident would have not gone through with the shootings if gun laws changed? Do you really think they would need a gun license to get a gun?

Don't be so naive.

The people who follow the laws are the ones being punished. Not the law-breakers.

[Saxonite]

Inert objects dont kill, they are just a tool for the killer to use.

To say that an inert object is the cause of such horrific deaths, is to day that:

The automobile is to blame, not the drunk driver, or the scapel and forcepts are to blame, not the abortion doctor, or the house fire is to blame, not the arsenist.

Evil is evil, and will find a tool to use in his/her evil act. If you paid attention to where these evil acts were commited, you will notice that there were strict gun laws in place, therebye ostensibly making the innocent, defenseless and innocent.

So no, on more gun laws.

oh ...

The problem with that statement is that guns have a purpose to harm someone/something. Whether its a target, animal or person, whatever is at the end of that bullet with be dead soon enough.

Cars on the other hand aren't meant to kill people. Their original purpose is to be driven. Sooooo I'm not sure where you think that fits in but....

And "innocents" are not defenseless because of guns laws. Where did you get that idea? People who don't have guns choose not to own them or get a license for them, not because they aren't allowed to.

People who should not have guns do not apply for a license and pay for a permit.

[Lucas101]

pulling up statistics I would suppose you will find, that chicago is crime ridden, about 200 plus shootings everyweekend. I drive up there, and hear the reports on the news. Let me tell you, it is very so much totally illegal to have even a handgun in chicago, same with detroit, same with new york city. Washington DC used to be the most deadliest city in the us, until they relaxed on there gun abatements. now the criminals dont know who has a weapon, and thinks twice before committing the crime. I am too tired and have to drive soon to look up a statistic I heard today, but paraphrasing it, it said that the murder rate has gone down by 50% from the 1980's till now, because of the advent of conceal and carry.

Unlike Canada, Lucas, the US does have a constitution, that limits what goverment can do. We have certain inalienable rights, starting with freedom of speech and religion, and followed up closely with the right to keep and bear arms [plural]. Gill said it wholly when she stated it, but attached made up meanings to it whole cloth.



Indeed a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, [notice the comma?] the definitive statement is the second half, which you can read right there, [cap lock time]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[notice the period at the end?]

it does not have another comma as to suggest only for protection against indian raids, and bears. It does not put a limit on magazine capacity, it is not specific about a musket, smooth bore, or rifled barrel. The reason it does state the first half for the need for a well regulated militia is so that those who practice the art of firing fire arms, can be called up to protect our free state. However the right is not co-dependent of the first half, it is the first half that is solely dependent on the second half.

Most sales of firearms here are civilian weapons. designed for civilian use. The word "assault" weapon is a cue word for kneejerking purposes. If you use a knife and assault a group of folks with it, then the knife by definition becomes an assault weapon. The reason folks are buying civilian designed weapons, though they look military, is because they are really sound weapon platforms. But they are not military weapons. It is illegal to own or possess a fully automatic weapon in any state of the union. has been since 1934. These semi auto's are thought to provide the user with what the user thinks he/she needs. Its an individual's choice, because it is their right to choose any legal firearms they so desire. It is incumbant however, to understand that with freedom come a heavy responsibility. The responsibilty to secure the weapon, train on the weapon of choice, to understand the safe operation of that weapon. In most states, you have to be 21 to even legally purchase a firearm. You still need to go through a background check. And must take the responsibilty and serve time, should some unforseen crime happen with your firearm. On the most part, millions of gun owners dont take their freedom to keep and bear arms, lightly, which is how it should be.

you guys up in Canada, mind your own affairs. If you dont want handguns, that is your business. and no, given time I could come up with statistics that would refute your statistics, on the simple basis your survey model is flawed, due to the "per capita" sampling errors, and the hidden agenda of who did the study.

Let me ask you this? Have you ever heard of a coward dirtbagg going to a firing range and trying to shoot up the place? No? I wonder why?

Statistics back up your claims, so does that just suggest that the USA is just ass backwards from every other state on the face of the earth? Still a decrease to 3 times as high as the next highest developed country doesnt say much. I guess the question becomes not should we eliminate guns but was it the lack of restrictions on firearms that brought this about in the first place. Further what does this indicate for the future? Are we going to see a Hobbesian state of nature in the USA, or the one proposed by Thomas Jefferson? The way its looking is that we are starting to spin towards Hobbseian, how do we get out of it? Give up the right to bear arms to the government.

We have a constitution in Canada KA, what we don't have is a bunch of checks and balances that reduce our system to grid lock on issues such as this. Madison devised the system that you guys have brilliantly, unfortunately that system is outdated today and it shows on issues such as this.

Thanks for clearing up the gun background, but it was the exact same way up here, the minority spoiled it for the majority but we are now much better off without it.

I seriously challange you to find statistics that refute mine. You will find it a futile effort since they don't exist. Regarding your claim of bias and methodology again you will have to state your reasoning as it confuses me. The report is comprised of crime rates, it isn't an opinionated survey it is impossible for the results to be skewed. Also what issue do you have with per capita sampling errors? I was not aware scaling results by a common factor it would be possible to change them. The hidden agenda? UWindsor is the most Americanized university in Canada, that aside there is no political agenda in that report. It's a scientific journal not some anti-gun manifesto. Maybe the issue is that everyone is so quick to suspect everything which results in everyone needing guns?

Regarding your last point ... So you want to turn the streets into a shooting range where everyone must have a gun to be equally protected? That's responsible gunmanship and free choice right there.

[King Alboin]

I am tired, and dont have the energy to look up hobsenian, but will at a future date. Will also bring you some stats. Will also find you a reason why you are wrong about our system being outdated, and why a statistical error for per capita initializes with the near fact that our poplulation is ten times that of yours, where bye it will take a very long time in think tank mode to go over all the variables that may or may not support your thesis.

And no, Lucas, you know I was not putting guns in everyone's hands like in a firingrange, the point if you had actually thought to honestly answer the question was to demostrate that coward dirtbaggs choose to prey on those of easy target with the least resistance of defence.

Um. Wut.

Partial birth abortion. the doctor pulls the baby out partially breech with forcepts, takes a scapel and slices into the brain cavity at the nape of the neck, then sucks the brains out, so the skull will deplete to a size that will comfortably fit through the vagina. do I need to be any more clearer than that?

The problem with that statement is that guns have a purpose to harm someone/something. Whether its a target, animal or person, whatever is at the end of that bullet with be dead soon enough.

Cars on the other hand aren't meant to kill people. Their original purpose is to be driven. Sooooo I'm not sure where you think that fits in but....

And "innocents" are not defenseless because of guns laws. Where did you get that idea? People who don't have guns choose not to own them or get a license for them, not because they aren't allowed to.

People who should not have guns do not apply for a license and pay for a permit.

It is a question of an inanimate object that has the potential to take a life. A driver of any vehicle, knows that he/she must operate that vehicle in a safe manner. Should said driver choose to impair themselves with druggs or alchyhol, and then choose to drive, they have chosen to use the vehicle as a potential weapon that could take a life. With all the advertisements on drunk driving kills, and all the news reports of drunk drivers killing others, why then do some drivers still think that they can drive drunk? therefore I was trying to make a statement that equates the blame for a what, i.e gun ... vrs a who i.e. coward dirtbagg. the who gets blamed in a drunk driving case, yet some will blame a gun and not the coward dirtbagg. simple.

I will give you another example, in question form:

Who or what is to blame in the world trade towers trajedies, ... the planes or the dirtbagg cowards?