If heritage is important to you, I’m a direct descendant through my mother of someone who came over on the Mayflower. My family, on both sides, were Americans. Does this make me more American than you? My grandfather fought in WWI and I have many relatives who served in WWII. My family lived in Halifax, so the war was a big part of everyone’s everyday life. And Canada was in the war from the very beginning. Your assumption that Canadians know nothing about war is ignorant and insulting. I don’t think there’s much point in me responding to much of this. The BNA act does not govern Canada … “socialist utopia” … “nothing more than a glorified British Colony.” This is intended to be an insult, I’m guessing. You are clueless, my friend. Yeah, you’re right. WWI and WWII weren’t real wars anyway. Unbelievable!!! You are missing the point entirely. Nuclear warheads don’t go off on their own either, but I bet you wouldn’t want one next door. Even if you did, I’m reasonably sure that there are American laws that would prevent it, and for good reason. Are you honestly telling me you don’t understand why? And so all the guns on the streets of America in the hands of criminals materialised out of thin air? Is that what you are trying to tell me? No law-abiding citizen has ever lost a gun in the US? Is that what you’re trying to sell me? Do you have gun trees down there I don’t know about? Where do the criminals get their guns? Have you ever even asked yourself that question? Try reading a newspaper. Auto manufacturers get sued all the time, and sometimes even get charged with criminal offences. They have a responsibility to build *reasonably* safe vehicles, and when they breach this duty of care they are sued, or charged. The object is deemed safe or not, not the driver. Society, by precedent or statute, decides what “safe” means. There are numerous other examples of which I’m sure you are fully aware. This is pretty simple and obvious stuff. You haven’t responded to any of the facts I presented. Not one. Have you even read them? The statistics were produced by the governments of the US and Canada. I suppose they, along with the Queen (she seems to be a favourite of yours), are all part of some commie, fascist, alien conspiracy to take your guns? There’s not really much point in my continuing this. You ignore the facts. You avoid simple logic. You feed me one ridiculous statement after the next. You are intentionally avoiding addressing the points I raised. If you don’t want to talk about this reasonably, that fine. No sweat. Have a nice life. G-bye! On last thing caught my eye before I quit reading. The Firearms Smuggling Work Group conducted the largest empirical study ever undertaken of the source of 8879 guns recovered by 10 police forces. The study confirmed that the smuggling of handguns was a problem, particularly in larger cities. (11) But the majority of the firearms recovered in crime were rifles and shotguns. Overall, of the firearms recovered in crime: -47%, almost half, were rifles and shotguns -1% [typo in original]were handguns and, of these, 40% had been previously registered, an estimated 60% were illegally imported. -4% were prohibited weapons, many of them rifles and shotguns which had been sawed off 28% were airguns, replica firearms etc. -In most communities the proportion of rifles and shotguns used in crime exceeded the proportion of handguns. -In larger cities - Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver - the proportion of traceable handguns which had previously been registered was much smaller. (11) -Rifles and shotguns are also the most frequently used firearms in suicides. (2) Illegal Markets: The illegal trade is difficult to measure. Guns enter illegal markets through smuggling, theft from persons and institutions and licensed dealers selling firearms illegally. Empirical evidence on firearms recovered in crime indicates that the majority of smuggled firearms are American in origin. Although rifles and shotguns cannot be easily traced, there is little evidence that rifles and shotguns are smuggled into Canada - 75% of the guns seized at the border are handguns. (2) Of firearms recovered in crime 21% were handguns and, of these, 40% had been previously registered, an estimated 60% were illegally imported. For the referenced works see this page: http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/Content/Americas/Canada/CAN(sept7).htm You don’t think we do research here? Unbelievable! You run your mouth without having a clue what you are talking about, and without having done even the most rudimentary *fair* research. I don’t have much time for that.
I'll admit that late Monday evening after a long weekend with screaming kids in the car is not the best time to debate a subject you feel strongly about... so I'll try and be more cordial this time around. True, your parliament does. A parliament that was set up to "provide for the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire", whereas our government was set up based upon personal freedoms. IMO this whole discussion is about freedom. A freedom my forefathers (and yours) fought so hard to maintain which you would gladly deprive me and millions of other of. (the BNA act is accepted as the document that established Canada as a country much as our declaration of independence and constitution, this information is from websites concerning Canadian history created by Canadians) Your country has socialized medicine, and you seem very eager to deprive individuals of their personal freedom and rights for the perceived safety of society as a whole, this reeks of socialism. To that I'll just say no thanks. Tell me you aren't seriously trying to draw a parallel between nuclear warheads and hand guns. One is a weapon of mass destruction and the other is a means for personal protection. Apples and freaking Oranges. PS Nuclear warheads are all over our country and for good reason... as a deterrent against a determined enemy. Next door, next town, next state, it doesn't really make a difference. The risk associated with nuclear warheads is the cost of freedom. The risk associated with the personal ownership of fire arms is also the cost of freedom. I really liked this part, I've gotta get me one of them there gun trees. Sure criminals get some guns in the commission of a crime, but once again your answer is to deprive law abiding citizens who take extreme care of their guns for the carelessness of a few. I'm telling you ALL the gun owners I know take extreme care to avoid their guns falling into the wrong hands. I feel exactly the same as you. You also have ignored the facts I've presented. You avoid simple logic. I'm not intentionally avoiding any points and I've provided unbiased statistics to counter your points you claim I've ignored. Not all of your sources are as unbiased as you would like me to believe. Hey you learn something new every day. My response to this is... Judging from your crime statistics you were so quick to champion for your city this isn't a major problem. Also it is YOUR border, better control of of it should cut down on this problem. As you know we have a problem with illegal drugs smuggled into this country from Mexico. It is our job to patrol our border to the criminals and the illegal substances they seek to smuggle in to our country out. Once again I feel exactly the same as you. My research was equally as *fair* as yours. These cases you refer to are very rare when compared to the number of fatalities in automobiles. In the majority of accidents the driver is charged, not the automaker because the driver is ultimately in control. If would do your research you would find that many anti-gun groups have brought many lawsuits against gun manufactures trying to sue them out of business to further their agenda. The American court system has found on numerous occasions that the manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of person behind the gun and that guns are *reasonably* safe products. Below is an article that substantiates this. <i>Courts Reject Lawsuits Against Gun Makers More than two dozen cities and counties have filed suit against the firearms industry for law enforcement and public health expenses those localities say they incur from gun injuries and deaths. Court after court, including the U.S. Supreme Court and three state Supreme Courts, have rejected these lawsuits. Spearheaded by the anti-gun lobby, the suits are intended to circumvent Congress and state legislatures—all of which have rejected handgun prohibition legislation—by attempting to achieve handgun prohibition through the courts. There are basically two claims used by the localities that have filed suit. Their "public nuisance" claims allege that manufacturers have created a public nuisance by flooding the market, in areas with less-restrictive gun control laws, so that the criminals in other areas can gain access to guns. This theory is severely flawed on several counts, chief among them the belief that gun control laws prevent crime and that, somehow, criminals will obey such laws. It's also ridiculous to believe that the gun industry wants to supply guns to the criminal element. Other suits allege that the manufacturers have been negligent because they have not developed a "smart" gun which can be fired only by its owner. The plaintiffs conveniently ignore the fact that the technology they demand has yet to become practical. In a National Review article (Dec. 21, 1998), Prof. John R. Lott, Jr. wrote: "The futuristic guns advocated in the New Orleans suit . . . are far from reliable and will cost $900 when they are finally available." That cost, he said, "will fall far more heavily on law-abiding citizens than on criminals, decreasing the number of innocent people who could use guns to protect themselves." Even if so-called "smart" guns prevented some accidental gun deaths, they would do so at what price? How many more lives might be lost because mandating such technology diminishes the ability of less affluent citizens to defend themselves and their families? In all these suits the plaintiffs seek to wipe out centuries-old tort law principle. In product liability cases, plaintiffs traditionally have been able to sue for compensation for injuries because: 1) a product was defective, 2) the defect posed an unreasonable danger to the user, and 3) the defect caused the injury. A "defective" product is one that doesn't operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable consumer would expect, or as other products of its type. Courts uniformly have held that a defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that a plaintiff's injury must have been the result of that defect. Defendants can't be held liable for injuries that occur only because a properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused. Recognizing that the real intent of anti-gun politicians and their lawyers is to bankrupt a lawful industry with exorbitant legal expenses, state legislatures across the nation are reacting by prohibiting localities from filing these suits. Since the first suit was introduced, 28 states have enacted NRA-backed legislation that does just that (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming), and other states have pending legislation. While anti-gun organizations, including the American Bar Association, have used crime victims to create these lawsuits in order to further their political agenda, courts in numerous states have made it clear that these cases have no basis in law. On Oct. 7, 1999, Ohio Judge Robert Ruehlman dismissed with prejudice Cincinnati's suit, calling it "an improper attempt to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, something which this court is neither inclined nor empowered to do." On December 10, 1999, Superior Court Judge Robert F. McWeeny threw out the city of Bridgeport's suit, writing: "[T]he court finds as a matter of law that the plaintiffs lack standing to litigate these claims; thus, the court is without jurisdiction to hear this case." On December 13, 1999 Florida Circuit Judge Amy Dean dismissed Miami-Dade County's lawsuit against the industry with a similar decision, stating that: "Public nuisance does not apply to the design, manufacture, and distribution of a lawful product." Recently, three state supreme courts ruled against frivolous lawsuits: On April 3, 2001, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted 5-2 to dismiss the City of New Orleans suit, the first of its kind to be filed, upholding the state law which forbids municipalities in Louisiana from bringing these types of suits. (In October, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Louisiana court's decision to stand, by refusing to review the case on appeal.) On August 6, 2001, the California Supreme Court issued a 5-1 ruling that gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible when their products are used to commit crimes. The Court decision referred to a 1983 California law prohibiting this type of lawsuit. On October 1, 2001, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a ruling that dismissed Bridgeport’s suit in 1999 because the city lacked "...any statutory authorization to initiate...claims" of liability against the firearms industry. After the rejection of the New Orleans suit, Bridgeport's Mayor Joseph Ganim told the Associated Press an appeal of his city’s suit to the U.S. Supreme Court was, "probably not a likely route for us" and "It's not likely we’re in a very strong position." </i> You have continued to blame the gun, not the criminal. You focus on the negative while ignoring the positive. So lets look at this one last time objectively... According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. Add to that the Homicides & accidental deaths involving firearms. 824 accidental, 10,828 homicide (1999 statistics but close enough for this comparison) That is a total of 545,122 crimes and accidents involving the use of a firearm out of 6.3+ violent crimes. If, in a perfect world and guns no longer existed, and assuming the criminals who used guns in the commission of their crimes would opt not to commit their crimes with out their guns, <b>you are at best effecting 8.6% of all violent crime.</b> For this you are suggesting we deny the right to private firearm ownership to the 60-65 million legal Gun owners in the U.S.? 45% of all US homes. No thanks. (This also does not take into account "the as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.") I'm PROUD to be an American and I'm proud to live in a country where people still have some freedom, especially the freedom of self defense. Anyone who tells me I should give up this freedom for the good of society as a whole, has no idea what freedom is all about. As a closing note I'm going to consider this discussion closed, and we can agree to disagree, because I'm not a fast typist and I've spent so much time online with this BBS that my wife thinks I'm having an online affair.
A fact I was sure would be ignored... <b>Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not solve the problem of violent crime.</b> <b> and from person much more in tune to the needs of the people he represents than some one from another country</b> <b> deny the people the right to provide for their own welfare and defense? Yes that sounds like a good idea.</b>
VooDooPope- I asked a question to no one in particular earlier that has always botheredme. It was ignored, so I'm asking you since you seem to be paying attention to the thread and are pro-gun. Why is it that the same people who are pro-gun because "Guns don't kill, people do" are usually against the legalization of even mar1juana because "drugs kill". It seems like those that are so fiery about a personal freedom like gun ownnership would be, if not actively for it, at least not actively opposed to it.
Htownhero - You mislabeled me as pro-gun when actually I'm pro-freedom. Guns just happen to be a big part of our personal freedom, the freedom of self defense. The freedom to rely upon yourself for your own well being. To answer your question... I personally believe the war on drugs is a HUGE waste of tax payers money, has proven to be uneffective, and is a war that can never be won. I'm pro-legalization for mar1juana for medicinal and personal use. If alcohol is legal, taxed and regulated, then pot should be also. Harder drugs like cocaine and herion are another story, and I'm not educated enough about the effects to make state an opinion one way or the other. What I will say is this... I'm pro-freedom. If you choose to smoke pot in the privacy of you home who are you hurting besides yourself (IF you were to take away the illegal aspect with legalization)? No one. People choose to blame an object... the drug, the gun, the car, when it is actually a person who is in control or at fault. And for the record... I do not smoke pot. I do however know teachers, doctors, and police officers that on occasion do.
We can agree to disagree. I actually think we have grounds to agree to disagree now. I’ll just correct a few points and then get to that. The BNA act was the act that initially governed Canada, but it has no authority now at all. It has been superseded by the Constitution Act of 1982. That may sound pretty late for us to get our own constitution, and it is, but there are reasons for that. In the first part of the last century it wasn’t a pressing issue. The Brits didn’t interfere, and we saw no pressing need. In the mid to later mid part of the century we began to address the issue but the political climate in Quebec posed a problem. Key issues were around an amending formula for the constitution. Quebec wanted a veto, and the rest of Canada didn’t want to be hamstrung by that. To make a very long story short, we now have a constitution. The amending formula for most issues is the agreement of 7 out of 10 provinces comprising at least 50% of the population. Quebec still hasn’t signed it, but they abide by it in full and haven’t complained about it almost since it was signed. (They currently have a “separatist” government, but they are backing away from the separation issue because it isn’t as popular anymore and they are dropping in the polls.) More to the point of our discussion, our constitution includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ We do not now, nor as I recall have we ever “promoted the Interests of the British Empire,” at least not ahead of our own. That was perhaps wishful thinking on their part. Your country has socialised tax collection, socialised law enforcement, and socialised water and sewer systems. Said another way, you don’t have competing sewer companies, and therefor you have socialised sewage collection. I’m only partially being factious. The point is that most things are made/run better in a competitive environment, but certain services are best delivered by the government. You really wouldn’t want a private company doing tax collection, or three sewer lines coming into your house, would you? Health care is one of those things that is best delivered by a single insurer system, IMO. See the other recent threads for more on that discussion. One more comment on the “socialism” issue. Do you realise that Tony Blair is a socialist? Not only is he a socialist, he and his Labour Party belong to an international socialist organisation called the Second Socialist International. http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng.html Canada, btw, is not governed by a socialist party. My point is that the “evil socialist” rhetoric is old and out of date. The parties that belong to the Second Socialist International are Democratic Socialist parties, not Russian Communist, not Chinese Communist, not Algerian Communist, not National Socialists. Think liberals in the US. I was using the more subtle example of the assault riffle before, but you weren’t catching on. The point is that it is not only the person at the trigger that is the concern, it is the weapon itself. You agree that allowing Bob your neighbour to have a nuclear warhead in his basement poses too much of a risk. Fine. The question then becomes a matter of degree. Which weapons pose too much of a risk? Automatic assault riffles: Yes. Handguns: you say no, I say yes. This is where we can agree to disagree. It’s not that the guns don’t pose a risk. They do. They don’t give you freedom they take it away. The question is whether that risk and loss of freedom is acceptable or not. I say no, and I give stats comparing Canada and the US to show why. You say yes, and have at the bottom provided some reasonable stats, (not enough to convince me, but reasonable) which I will get to presently. Glad you liked it. Kind of a twisted version of the Jello tree, you might say. Yes, my opinion is that if you take the handguns away from everybody, the majority of the public will be better off. Yes the particularly careful skilled individuals will be faced with a restriction that is not needed for them, but the majority would be better off. Speed limits aren’t set for the best drivers, they are set for the average driver, or even the below average driver, so the rest of us won’t have suffer when the below average guy, who can’t handle the speed, makes a mistake. Another gun law option would be to make handguns a lot tougher to get, and not allow the below average guy to have a gun in a first place. I think there is more than one solution to the problem. You’re right. Statistically they aren’t much of a problem. It was just a throw in comment on my part. The people who fall victim to those handguns may find that statistic more significant, however. You get illegal drugs smuggled in from BC too. You won’t get an argument from me on that. These are some of the realties of having one of the world’s longest dry land borders. The point is that there is a duty of care on the manufactures, regulators, and anybody else who is responsible for those guns being on the street. The responsibility is not just with the criminal. The criminal is responsible for his or her actions, but the people who manufacture and regulate guns are responsible for making them and their use reasonably safe, and that is what I think we are going to differ on, what “reasonable safe” means. Ideally, gun laws should be enacted by public demand. Lawsuits against tobacco companies have been successful, but for almost any law to be successful it should have strong public support. That last part is a pretty bizarre argument. Maybe we need to have $20 guns to all our kid can take them to school so they will be safe there to. Better yet, let’s allow home made guns. The more people that have them the better. The only way we can be truly be safe and free is if we’re all packing a piece! (!?!) Frankly, $900 doesn’t seem like that much for that kind of added safety. These details aren’t really part of my argument though, and I really know nothing about them. I don’t think this is true, and it’s also a pretty bizarre statement. The Ford Pinto, asbestos, tobacco, are all examples of products that were deemed to be unsafe without having any “defect.” The key was that the producer knew they were unsafe when it sold them. The first sentence is quite bizarre. Tort law is based on precedent. Precedents are set not often, but not infrequently either. The implication that there have been no precedents set in this type of law for centuries is wildly untrue, and perhaps even a slight to one of the basic principles of our justice system, the ability to adapt with the changing times. Quick correction. They are both required for the gun crime to be committed. The criminal is responsible for his or her actions, but the society that puts the gun on the streets is responsible for that. Take the gun off the street and the crimes will be fewer and less severe. The stats bear that out. To take the guns off the street, you have to take them away from the people who are allowing their guns to be taken. I say either take all the handguns away, or significantly raise the bar on gun ownership. Take the “reckless drivers” off the road. (Yes I’m changing my tune a bit, but this just another solution to the same problem, IMO.) So what you’re saying is that the risks aren’t that great, and that pleasure of owning a gun out weights them. We can agree to disagree on that point. It’s not about the constitution (no right to own handguns exists there), or some bizarre interpretation of tort law, or self-defence for citizens (because I still maintain that that statistics show that the gun culture makes America less safe overall), it’s a cost benefit type thing. You’d rather have your gun and say that the problems caused by handguns are exaggerated and acceptable. This is my take on what you’re saying anyway. What we have here is a difference of opinion, and that’s fine. I can understand that people like guns. In Canada you can own certain handguns if you belong to a gun club, or are a collector. The restrictions are very strict. IIRC, the guns, while in the home have to be disabled and stored in a separate place from the ammo. You may even have to have to store them in a safe. There is no way the gun could legally be used for “defence,” and it’s also very difficult for them to be stolen. That’s sounds fair enough to me. The last thing I want is some wannabe gunslinger leaving a loaded gun in his bedside table, where some punk kid could steel in while doing some two-bit B&E, and then proceed to get stoned out of his head and do a drive by which ends up killing an innocent 2 year old child. I don’t want any of that crap in my country, ever. Not having to live with that is what I call freedom. Being on the street at night without fear, feeling my kids would be safe at school, etc. etc. etc. You might be surprised how free a gunless society really is. Lastly, please give my apologies to your wife. CC.net is a baaaaad drug. I know that all too well. ;-)
Apples and oranges. We have a second amendment RIGHT to own guns. There is nothing in the Constitution protecting the right to spark up a doobie. Additionally, there is thought amongst the medical community that the prolonged use of mar1juana can cause THIRD generation birth defects. Haven't seen a gun do that. I personally wouldn't care if they legalized mar1juana tomorrow...but there is some rational reason for its ban. Don't give me that guns kill people crap...it's old, tired and disingenuous. It is the individual that becomes violent and they will cause grievous bodily injury, gun or no gun. If they don't have a gun they will use something else...for instance, box cutters. The largest mass murder in US history (9/11) was committed without the use of a single gun. But more to your point, there are laws on the books that impose penalties on persons who do not store their guns in a responsible manner. Not likely. Gun control only shackles those who obey the law. I personally like to have the playing field a little more level. As it stands right now a carjacker has no idea whether or not I have a gun. Maybe they'll think twice.
Refman! How are ya! Good to have a lawyer in on the discussion. Unless I’m mistaken, it doesn’t say an American has the right to own “any and all types of guns.” Am I wrong? In fact, it’s my understanding that certain types of guns are already prohibited! (i.e. – assault riffles) The legal precedent, therefore, is already set. All this talk about “constitutional right to own guns,” therefore, is greatly overstated, smoke meant to cloud the issues. I suspect, although I haven’t read it, that the judgement (or law if this was enacted by statute) stated something like, “therefore I find that assault riffles pose too great a threat to society.” All that would be required to ban handguns then, is the recognition that they also “pose too great a threat to society,” right? That is exactly how precedent based law works, isn’t it? The preceding example shows that far from being “old and tired,” the rationale and precedent are currently being used by your legal system. I’m sure someone also claimed, “the tires on that Ford Explorer didn’t cause it to roll over, the driver did,” and, “the coffee didn’t burn that woman, she did when she spilt it on herself,” and “the tobacco company didn’t force that person to smoke that cigarette, he chose to on his own.” These, as well as your statement, are contrary to the basic principles of American jurisprudence. Perhaps they could even be construed as an “attack on the basic rights and freedoms of Americans.” Spin can go both ways, you see, but I’ll choose to stay away from it because it doesn’t move us any further towards an understanding of the issue. Unless you are suggesting that Americans are for some other reason many times more prone to violent crime than Canadians, the statistics simply don’t bear out what you are saying. So to your statement I say, “I object, assumes facts not in evidence.” Clearly, given the number of guns on the streets of America, those laws would seem not to be working. This gets close to the heart of this issue. It would seem that these laws are soft on offenders. They don’t hold offenders, the legal gun owners, accountable enough for the consequences of their actions, losing control of their weapons. Certainly in this area I will agree that being soft on crime endangers all law abiding citizens. These offenders need to be punished much more severely, and if this doesn’t result in actual deterrence, the bar needs to be raised so these people aren’t given the legal right to own arms in the first place. You need to do a little more research. (See above crime statistics.) I am arguing for a level playing field, one where neither side has guns. You have a level playing field where both sides have guns. I prefer the former. Here’s one reason. I do not recall there ever being a single carjacking in Calgary. There may have been one sometime that I don’t remember, but this kind of crime very very rarely happens here. If someone ran up to my car and pointed a knife at my window and demanded my car, I’d say “no.” That seems to me a better solution than risking a shootout with some punk who’s packing a piece.
Grizzled: You seem to be under the impression that all illegally obtained firearms are stolen. You may be right, I don't know, but my intuition leads me to believe that this isn't true. Do they not make guns in other countries? I've always assumed that guns were snuck in across the border and sold on the black market. If you can prove that this doesn't happen, I may have to re-think my position on gun control. However, even if guns aren't smuggled into the US now, this doesn't mean that strict gun control laws wouldn't cause this to happen. If there is a demand for guns from the criminal element, I suspect they (guns) will always make their way into the country one way or another. It happens with drugs, afterall. You will probably say then that the demand doesn't exist in Canada as a result of gun control laws, so it would therefore be the same in the US. That would seem to ignore cultural differences b/t the US and Canada, among other things.
Grizzled - Look at these numbers. These are unbiased numbers, not over inflated propaganda... According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. <b>Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. </b> Add to that the Homicides & accidental deaths involving firearms. 824 accidental, 10,828 homicide (1999 statistics but close enough for this comparison) That is a total of 545,122 crimes and accidents involving the use of a firearm out of 6.3+ violent crimes. <b>If, in a perfect world and guns no longer existed, and assuming the criminals who used guns in the commission of their crimes would opt not to commit their crimes with out their guns, you are at best effecting 8.6% of all violent crime. </b> For this you are suggesting we deny the right to private firearm ownership to the 60-65 million legal Gun owners in the U.S.? 45% of all US homes. No thanks. (This also does not take into account "the as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S." ) PS Have you posted an opinion in the "canada may legalize pot" type thread? I'd like to see/hear you opinion since it concerns you and your country.
Found this: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf but don’t have time to look at if very closely right now. It appears to have some of these stats. VooDooGuy: I'll get back to you later today.
I found these things from that link: Since over 80% of the guns available in the United States are manufactured here, gun production is a reasonable indicator of the guns made available. Police agencies do not request traces on all firearms used in crimes. Not all firearms used in crimes are recovered so that a trace could be done and, in some States and localities, the police agencies may be able to establish ownership locally without going to the ATF. Most trace requests concern handguns What are the countries of origin of the guns that are traced? Traced guns come from many countries across the globe. However, 78% of the guns that were traced in 1994 originated in the United States and most of the rest were from Brazil (5%) Germany (3%) China (3%) Austria (3%) Italy (2%) Spain (2%). So Grizzled, what would you do about the other 20 or so percent of guns that don't come from the US, and how would you ensure that number didn't rise?
This is where we disagree. Reducing the number of guns on the streets would reduce the level and severity of the crime. I think the Canadian comparison suggests that pretty strongly. (It is true that the US and Canadian contexts are not identical, as TheFreak pointed out, but I think that the strong similarities and the extreme difference of the number make the comparison very valuable. We could dig into this more if you like, but I’m short on time right now.) You point out that compared to other crimes the percentages are not high, and the added “cost” is acceptable in exchange for the keeping gun laws the way they are now. This is a matter of opinion and we simply disagree. The next step would be for each of us to rally support and protest in the streets. But since I’m not an American, I won’t be doing that. Americans need to make their own decisions. (Incidentally, I’m not suggesting that you simply adopt the Canadian model. Your context is different, as is every nation’s, and the solutions need to ultimately be tailored for the nation in question. On the path to devising the made in America solution, however, it’s useful to see how these problems are handled in other countries and identify ideas and elements that can be incorporated and/or adapted to fit your context. I just happen to like ours, and I’m telling you why. Just food for thought.)
I noticed that those stats are a little older, 1995, so trends may have changed slightly, but these are probably still fairly good rough numbers. The first thing to note perhaps is that the clear majority are made in the US. The 20% figure is significant, however, and surprising. What they don’t explicitly say, at lest not that I found quickly, was whether these guns were legally brought into the country. That seems too obvious, but they do seem to be talking about “original country of purchase” rather than “illegally imported.” In any case, there are a couple of ways illegally imported guns could be controlled, to some extent anyway. Clearly security after 9/11 has increased, particularly w.r.t searching for weapons, so hopefully that will catch a greater percentage of them. Handguns are small, however, and I have no doubt that the sophisticated smuggler could find a way to get them in, albeit at added expense and risk. The second control measure would be to increase the penalties for being in possession of an illegal gun. If the crime of possessing the gun is high, two benefits are realised. First, the risk to the criminal for just carrying a gun may be high enough to persuade him or her to leave the gun at home. In Canada there is a minimum 1 year sentence for being in possession of a stolen gun. If you get stopped for spitting on the street, and they find you with a gun, you’re gone, so it becomes not worth it to take that risk. Secondly, those who insist on carrying guns have a greater probability of being caught and taken off the streets before they have committed a serious crime. So there is a deterrence component, as well ad an increased probability of getting potential offenders off the street before they have committed a serious crime. It would be interesting to know, however, how those other guns come into the country. Perhaps some of those paths could be traced and severed, too. I am under no illusion that this would remove all guns from the street, but if Canada can be drawn on as an example, it will keep them to a minimum. One big difference between our countries, however, is that you have millions of guns on the street at this time. We have not considered how a transition between your situation and ours could be managed, and that would be a significant issue in determining the long term success of the measures.
lastpagenumberswordsnumberswordssubstancenumberswordswordswordswords.charltonheston.wordsnumbersdeath
I had my people protesting and marching all morning but it started raining so we suspended our manuvers for the day.
Well this thread was hi-jacked once, I'll see if I can re-hi-jack it, or at least provide some diversion. I don't own a gun, but if I did. I think I would get something cool with a lot of style, like colt .45 peacemaker. The kind used in the old west. It would just look cool. Then I would probably get a flintlock or a wheel lock pistol like the one's used in the 1600's. I would wear an eye patch and pretend to be a pirate. I'd also get musket. I just think those weapons are cool, or represent cool time periods or characters in which they were used. On a side note let's all go back to wearing swords and dueling. Most duels weren't actually to the death, and most deaths that occurred were from infection. With todays medicine we could prevent those, and people could settle their differences with a fair fight using swords. Come on guys... Who's with me?
Again, I have to go back to drugs. Security has not stopped illegal drugs from making their way into the country. I'm sure a lot of posters on this board would agree that the penalties for drug posession are stiff. A lot would say they are far too stiff. In fact one of the main reasons cited to legalize drugs is that prisons are unecessarily filled with non-violent drug offenders. Point being, stiff penalties aren't stopping people from carrying drugs, because they want to anyway. How would it be different with guns? The problem I have is even if you have ONE illegal gun out there in the hands of a criminal, then the rest of the population is at a disadvantage. You cannot have criminals armed, and not law-abiding citizens, IMO. Furthermore, even if there were ZERO guns on the streets, you still have the problem of the more vulnerable among us not able to defend themselves from violent criminals. How does a woman living by herself have any prayer of preventing a break-in and subsequent sexual assault, when there's no chance of her being armed, and the intruder knowing this? Why would you not allow her to protect herself?
