Gun Control is Completely Useless.


Colpy
Conservative
#1
Okay folks, I went crazy.

I got thinking about the insistence of the anti-gun folks that we don't want to be like the AMERICANS, with no gun control, and blood running in the streets! I had read that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (obviously) there could be social causes for murder in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO

I went looking to isolate two populations, as close as possible in population make-up, culture, etc, with the ONLY difference being gun control laws. I settled on the west, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in Canada, and the three American states that border them, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. These seemed to be the best examples, as they are the two areas of Canada and the United States that are the most alike in population culture, etc., yet most different in gun legislation.

Let me lay it out for you.

In Canada, before you buy a long gun, you must pass a safety course, undergo an investigation, get references including your spouse, obtain a license, and register the firearm. Most military semi-autos are prohibited. Semi-auto rifles can only have magazines with 5 rounds

In these states, if you want the semi-auto version of the American military M-16, you walk into the gun store, put down your cash, buy the piece and as many 30 round magazines as you like. You wait a federally-mandated 7 days, and go get your rifle. No license, no registration, no course, any rifle is OK.

In Canada, the vast majority of handguns are prohibited. If you want a handgun, you must either be a collector, or a target shooter. Self-defense is NOT allowed. You must have a long gun license (see above), pass ANOTHER course, and register your pistol. You must belong to a gun club, and you are ONLY allowed to transfer the weapon back and forth from the club to home, it must be trigger locked, and in a locked case.

If you want a handgun in any of these states, it is exactly the same as the process for buying a military "assault" rifle in the Sates, as laid out above. No license, no registration, no course, no NOTHING. NO handguns are prohibited.

In Canada, getting a license to carry a handgun is practically impossible.

In these states, the gov't MUST give you a license to carry a handgun for self-defense if you don't have a criminal record.

Just to make it clear, here are the ratings for the states given by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Montana (F), North Dakota (D), Minnesota ( C-)

Believe me, Canada would get an A+++ from Sarah Brady.

So, Canada is a wonderful, peaceful place where everyone is safe and happy, but step across the border and you trip over bodies and fall into the mess of blood, guts and expended shell casings, right?

Well, maybe not.

MURDER RATES
------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Manitoba------------ 2.61...2.95...3.12...3.70... 4.27 (per 100,000)
(2002 - 1,151,000)-----30.....34......36.....43..... 49 (murders)

Saskatchewan------2.58...2.70... 2.71...4.12...3.92
(2002 - 1,000,000).... 26.... 27..... 27.....41.....39

Alberta---------------1.96...2.29... 2.25...2.03...2.69
(2002 - 3,056,000).... 60.....70......69.....62 .... 82

Montana.............1.80...3.80....1.80...3.30...3 .20
(2003 - 917,000).......17.....35......17......30.....29

North Dakota.......0.60...1.10... 0.80....1.90...1.40
(2003 - 633,000)........4.......7.......5......12.......9

Minnesota..........3.10... 2.40... 2.20... 2.50...2.20
(2003 - 5,059,000)..157.....121.....111....126....111

HERE'S THE SHOCKER!


MURDER RATES PER 100,000
----------------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Canada West-----------------2.22----2.52----2.54---2.80----3.26 (per 100,000)
Population 5,207,000........116.... 131.....132....146....170 (murders)

USA Northwest---------------2.69----2.47----2.01---2.54----2.25
Population 6,609,000........178.... 163......133....168.....149

GUN CONTROL IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!
BTW Figuring this out took me HOURS.............Canadian stats are from Stats Canada, American Stats on population are from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

American Stats on murder rates are from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=169

Facts on state gun laws are from http://www.stategunlaws.org/

Math concerned is by ME.

Edited to say: DAMN, I had those all set out in coherent tables, but all spacing disappeared when I submitted it........so (being computer illiterate) I've used spacers......sorry about that)
 
BitWhys
-1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, and everyone who is concerned by this situation that we are going to maintain the registry system. A police officer will be able to check whether a person owns a gun. As well, this information will remain available in the information system, for use by police. People who want to keep and buy guns will still have to register them. We are going to keep the system's strengths.

so let it be written...
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, and everyone who is concerned by this situation that we are going to maintain the registry system. A police officer will be able to check whether a person owns a gun. As well, this information will remain available in the information system, for use by police. People who want to keep and buy guns will still have to register them. We are going to keep the system's strengths.

so let it be written...

Yes, BitWhys, and if you are trying to piss me off you (and Mr. Day) are succeeding ROYALLY!

That the Liberals have the ARROGANCE to whip their members over this damned thing that has cost TWO THOUSAND times what they promised, and has been used to feed money to their gangster buddies in Quebec is bad enough...........that the NDP and Bloc, being socialist idiots, will do the same is to be expected.

The registry is USELESS.

It does NOTHING but cost BILLIONS to harass honest citizens.....THAT'S IT!!!!!!

Look at the (somewhat fixed) post above..........the comparison amazed me, and it has confirmed every belief I have in the responsibility of the average citizen, and confirmed the uselessness of practically ALL gun control. A waste of time and money.

Notice if you will, as our gun laws took effect, murder rates here went UP, and while the Americans loosened their laws, murder rates went DOWN, until we kill MUCH more than they do.......

Support this crap if you will, but understand it is money that could be spent putting cops on the street, or improving health care.

As for us shooters, we'll keeping ignoring what laws we can, and obeying those we absolutely must to carry on our sport.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
-1
#4
Somehow gun control became insanely expensive and I don't know how that happened but I don't think it is useless.

link

link

One thing that was interesting was that the worst place for murders in the whole of the civilized world was the Northwest Territories.

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States
 
BitWhys
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Somehow gun control became insanely expensive and I don't know how that happened but I don't think it is useless.

I've always assumed it was runaway computerization costs.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Somehow gun control became insanely expensive and I don't know how that happened but I don't think it is useless.

link

link

One thing that was interesting was that the worst place for murders in the whole of the civilized world was the Northwest Territories.

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

I don't doubt your figures, Juan, but I have to take issue with a couple of points:

Handguns murdered NO ONE. The first time I ever hear of a gun of any type loading itself and waiting in ambush for some unsuspecting innocent, and then firing itself to smite them fatally, I will melt all my guns down into a statue of Wendy Cukier. PEOPLE murdered those victims.

Also, murder rates by firearm are misleading. If I want to kill someone, and I have a choice of a machete, a baseball bat, and a .357 magnum, I'll use the pistol. That does not mean I won't kill without the pistol, nor does it even mean I'll have greater success with the pistol, it just means that's what you use if it is there.

As I demonstrated in the leading post, it seems murder rates in impoverished, drug-ridden ghetto areas where kids grow up without hope and especially without fathers seriously skew national rates. These murders would continue, with or without gun control, and there is a serious need to address the other social causes of violence.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Somehow gun control became insanely expensive and I don't know how that happened but I don't think it is useless.

I've always assumed it was runaway computerization costs.

Partly, and their $250 million dollar system STILL doesn't work well, and is accessible by hackers (according to the agency's own computer guy). Nice of the gov't to provide criminals with a nice list of addresses where they can find guns, isn't it?

Especially at the low, low price of a quarter of a billion (taxpayer)dollars.

As well, the Auditor-General blamed the fact that the administration of the registry distrusted anyone that owned guns, and viewed that as a questionable activity. This attitude ballooned costs as the bureaucrats wasted time and resources harassing honest gun owners. That's the A-G's opinion, mind you. And I don't think she secretly packs a 9mm.

In the old system it cost about 100 bucks to register a gun......when they set up this system, folks from the firearms community went before the Justice Committee and warned them the system could cost as much as ONE HALF BILLION DOLLARS!! They were ridiculed by the Liberal controled committee.

The system has now cost four times that much.
 
Researcher87
-1
#8
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to kill someone you will kill someone, using a gun is just efficent. You don't have to get your hands as bloody.

However, there should be some controls.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#9
FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.

30,136. or very close, to a tenth of the total population of Canada
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to kill someone you will kill someone, using a gun is just efficent. You don't have to get your hands as bloody.

However, there should be some controls.

I was willing to compromise..............but the other side is never satisfied.

Licensing, with mandatory safety courses (which I used to teach, BTW), background checks, and safe storage regulation is a reasonable regime of gun control. Registration and an ever-increasing categorization of certain guns as bad is simply stupid, and may be counter productive.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.

30,136. or very close, to a tenth of the total population of Canada

HUH?

Canada's a lot emptier than I thought........
 
Researcher87
-1
#12
The system you seem to suggest is good but if a weapon doesn't have any potential use in canada, for example the weapon that Gill had, you didn't need to defend your family with that or go hunting with that, why have such a weapon in canada, unless being used by police and military people. It will only cause grief in the future.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13
How so?

In this case, Gill used a firearm chambered for a pistol cartridge, and shot 20 people, one of whom died.

He also had with him a 12 gauge shotgun, used by every bird hunter around, and the deadliest short range weapon in existence. If loaded with 00Buckshot shells, shooting a person ONCE with it would be roughly the same as shooting them 9 times with the Storm.

You'd have had 14 or 15 dead, anyway.

Thank God for "sexy" pistol calibre carbines.

A gun, is a gun, is a gun.
 
Researcher87
#14
It doesn't matter if he had a pistol and shotgun he didn't use those weapons. He used the C-4 storm.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#15
Colpy

Have some of the guns you own, or aspire to own become "bad"? An aquaintence of mine in Winnipeg has three Stens and a couple Uzis. I believe the only way you can own those guns is to have the barrels welded closed. I've always thought this was a bit silly because about two hours with a milling machine would get a new barrel. A good machinist could build a Sten in about a day.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Colpy

Have some of the guns you own, or aspire to own become "bad"? An aquaintence of mine in Winnipeg has three Stens and a couple Uzis. I believe the only way you can own those guns is to have the barrels welded closed. I've always thought this was a bit silly because about two hours with a milling machine would get a new barrel. A good machinist could build a Sten in about a day.

Yeah.

I have an FN FAL (a C1 to you) rifle that is a paperweight, I am not even allowed to take it to the range, it has to stay in the house.

And, even though I carry a 4" barreled S&W revolver every day, and I am the training officer at work, I am not allowed to own one, as they are prohibited weapons. I can own a Browning hi-Power, because it has a barrel longer than 105mm.

It doesn't have to make sense, it is gov't policy.

Which is my point. Sorta.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

It doesn't matter if he had a pistol and shotgun he didn't use those weapons. He used the C-4 storm.

And if the CX-4 Storm had not been available?

Which was my point.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#18
Colpy

In your job, do you supply your own weapons, or does the company?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Colpy

In your job, do you supply your own weapons, or does the company?

The company assigns us a firearm, which we keep until we quit or it breaks down, or we change weapons.

they stay at work, locked up.

Edited to say:

My boss in the training dep't was once on a tour of our LA branch, which is situated right in the barrio. He said he opened this gun locker, and it was full of fancy Glocks, a Kimber .45, all sorts of expensive handguns.

"What's this?" he asked.

"Oh, that's were our employees keep their personal guns they carry on the street on the way to work......"

So they take off their .45 ACP Glock or Kimber, strap on their .38 S&W, and go to work.......



The world is a strange place.
 
sanch
#20
Code:
As for us shooters, we'll keeping ignoring what laws we can, and obeying those we absolutely must to carry on our sport. [quote]

Colpy Canada is not Dodge City.  These threats to ignore or break laws if your "sport" is interrupted really undermines the argument that you should be trusted with guns.  [/quote]
 
Colpy
Conservative
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by sanch

Code:
As for us shooters, we'll keeping ignoring what laws we can, and obeying those we absolutely must to carry on our sport. [quote]

Colpy Canada is not Dodge City.  These threats to ignore or break laws if your "sport" is interrupted really undermines the argument that you should be trusted with guns.  [/quote]

Funny. I didn't hear me threaten any violence, I didn't express a desire to harm anyone. Or so I thought.

So Sanch, I guess you don't like the entire concept of civil disobedience?

Or is it only for anti-poverty activists that aren't getting enough of my tax dollars for sitting around with their thumb stuck up their ****?

Or is it only for native peoples, who haven't yet been handed the whole damn country on a silver platter?

Or is it only for guys with seven inch spiked purple mohawks and enough steel in their face to rebuild the Bonaventure? (for Juan, who is probably the only soul here who knows what the Bonaventure was)

Or is it only for folks you agree with?

God forbid a working, middle aged, conservative white guy start talking civil disobedience! Call out the SWAT team!

BTW, doesn't anyone want to talk about the opening post I put so much work into? (sniff)
 
wallyj
#22
Yes,well done. You can never win over the anti-gun folks with facts. Don't try.it will only want to make you grab those guns.Also being a very paranoid (government.police,not layton in the closet) type of fellow, I would be very wary of telling anyone of what I owned. Someone right now thinks that you should not have that right to own what gives you pleasure.My last post on your previous gun control thread sums up my feelings. The post below that puts it into perspective even better.Take care,your original post says a lot to anyone that is listening.
 
I think not
+1
#23
I don't think the pro gun control people believe guns walk around and shoot people by themselves. What they do believe is that guns make killing physically easier, and allows a person to kill many people at once from a distance.

Personally I cannot argue with that assessment. A gun was invented not for the purpose of hunting, but for the purpose of killing in war, more efficiently than something else, say a spear or dagger.

However someone who is hell bent on committing a crime is not going to abide by any gun control laws. He can do the same job with a cross-bow, safely from a distance. So why aren't there any cross-bow control laws?

It's simple, governments don't want an armed population. That is the very basis of the argument, everything else is a meaningless debate.
 
Curiosity
#24
Colpy

I see you are getting it in the shorts again for your knowledge and ability to share that knowledge with people who would rather put down your
common sense regarding firearms of all kinds than to understand what you are saying.

Experts and teachers know their topic from direct hands on use and learning and study over time.

That is where you are ahead - and your opinion has much more weight than those who deride you for that knowledge.

You are not advocating violence of any kind - but common sense and to learn the dangers, proper use and care and intellligent dialogue of firearms...

Because someone "doesn't like the concept of guns" does not an expert make.

Only fools disengage from the learning process by allowing their limited opinion on a subject to prevent them from examining the other side.

I personally hate guns for what they represent - not because of why they are in our world but for the few who have misused them for personal advantage or anger.

My opinion cannot rest on the minority of violent people in our world, and I must respect the opinion of those who train in the use of weaponry for protection and cessation of aggression against the majority.

Until someone can guarantee peace and no violence in our future, I have to state only an expert such as yourself can offer the best path to society's wish to "control" firearms.
 
Sassylassie
#25
Colpy don't fret there are some people that will always rally around screaming "Innocents are dying', it's a tried and true rally song.

Holy Moly Juan is the stats for the US true? Wow!
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by sanch

Code:
As for us shooters, we'll keeping ignoring what laws we can, and obeying those we absolutely must to carry on our sport. [quote]

Colpy Canada is not Dodge City.  These threats to ignore or break laws if your "sport" is interrupted really undermines the argument that you should be trusted with guns.  [/quote]

Funny. I didn't hear me threaten any violence, I didn't express a desire to harm anyone. Or so I thought.

So Sanch, I guess you don't like the entire concept of civil disobedience?

Or is it only for anti-poverty activists that aren't getting enough of my tax dollars for sitting around with their thumb stuck up their ****?

Or is it only for native peoples, who haven't yet been handed the whole damn country on a silver platter?

Or is it only for guys with seven inch spiked purple mohawks and enough steel in their face to rebuild the Bonaventure? (for Juan, who is probably the only soul here who knows what the Bonaventure was)

Or is it only for folks you agree with?

God forbid a working, middle aged, conservative white guy start talking civil disobedience! Call out the SWAT team!

BTW, doesn't anyone want to talk about the opening post I put so much work into? (sniff)

Colpy

Often in these matters, it depends who's ox has been gored. I think we need some kind of gun control and I really think we have to try and weed out the likes of Mr. Gill.

I have no problem with recreational shooting as long as it is safe. I am an ex-hunter and I have shot deer, moose, and bear. I do not hunt any more but I probably wouldn't turn down a venison roast were one offered.

No gun control is not the answer. The anual firearm death toll in the U.S. is over thirty thousand while Canada's is a few hundred. The numbers cannot be satisfied by just stating the population difference.
 
ottawabill
#27
I for one think the long gun registry is a complete waste of time...most long guns are for hunting, protection of livestock etc... do we need billions of dollars to be spent so that we know hunters and farmer have guns..duh you could have given me the money and I could have told you that!!

One the other hand, I am happy that we don't have too many handguns in general, most of us don't need them since most of us don't have them. However when I hear politians talk about tough gun laws I roll my eyes. Since most handguns are illegal in Canada then what does tougher laws have to do with it? If you can go into a major city and buy a 100 dollar U.S. gun for 400 bucks there's going to be a market..laws or no laws.

What we need to do is put people in jail for a long time if they commit offences with a gun..period!! If he had a gun while robbing a store he intended to use it.
 
turubawebmaster
#28
I think mostly for the hunting rifles it's useless... I think it's more common for handguns and automatic rifles to be registered... Canada has a lot of hunters and why should we all pay for an FAC just to get a rifle... You know how much it costs for an FAC... It's completely bull....
 
turubawebmaster
#29
I think those committing offences involving firearms should face bigger sentences instead of wasting our time and money for this useless registry... There is also a lot of gun smuggling that involves our criminals so I don't think the registry really does good
 
RomSpaceKnight
#30
So we shoud only have gun contol in urban areas but predominately rural areas you can own whatever gun you choose to?
So only rich people should own guns but poor immigrants should not be allowed to own guns?
Is you life in so much danger you feel you need to own a handgun?
Do you feel there is a chance that our goverment may turn into a totalitarian system and that we need to bear arms to ensure a free democracy?
Have you tried to get a motorcycle license and seen the hops you have to jump through (actually pylons you gotta drive around)?
Bureaucratic bumbling and cost overuns are a fact of life in Canadian politics. Is the idea of a gun registry so abhorrent to you?
Picking and choosing what states to quote for stats is, In my opinion, incorrect. A simple look at the US and divide by 10 (population ratios) works for me. The 3 provinces and state you picked do not have large urban areas like Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. 3 cities have a huge proportion of the Canadian population. St. Johns NB is a peaceful backwater local in comparison. Not all of us live in idealic small towns. I grew up in a small town that had not had a murder in 50 years.
 
no new posts