New Concealed Weapons Law Approved by Congress

[bluebyrd35]

m

You got no idea just how easy it is to purchase a hand gun in Canada do you? Basically it is like drugs. Being illegal just makes it more expensive not harder.

Perception is all. If the average fellow, when feeling angry, or put-out, cannot get a gun for instant retribution, hopefully the impulse to shoot the other guy, after filling in all the papers and going through the waiting period, has dissipated. I know sometimes, it doesn't and the twit goes home or to his car and comes back with one. Killing is a gun's function. I can wave a baseball bat & do a fair amount of damage . If I accidently kill a strange attacker in my home with one, no harm, no foul. A gun killing is something else. I need to prove, I felt my life was in danger and answering and opening the door to to them doesn't count as proof.

Yesterday, I watched two car loads of young men roaring through a shopping mall parking lot, screaming at each other. What caused the fracus I have no idea. If they had had guns they would have shot at each other for sure; they were half way out the car windows hollering "you're dead men", " You're f.cking finished" etc.

Last I saw of them, they were entering a residential area at the side of the parking area on two wheels. What was quite astounding, is, there was a cop in his cruiser sitting in one of the parking slots. Perhaps he didn't notice all the screaming & tire screeching? or perhaps, he was afraid for his life?? He was only one, albeit, legally armed against at least eight young hotheads gun owning status unknown.

I am in Florida now and the first thing I learned, do not make eye contact with irate drivers. The second thing I learned,even the free, small local papers advertise all sorts of hand-guns, pistols cheap. I have no idea what the law is here, but everyday there are shootings listed in the paper.

So, can anyone tell me, what the average person could do to stop people who own guns, from killing others of their species with them?? It is certainly not an honourable way to dispatch an enemy.

So, yes, I do know how easy it is to obtain a gun, anywhere. Just about as easy as it is to buy cigarettes, drugs or anything else that is deemed dangerous or unhealthy. What I do see, is, an attempt to instill the idea that arming oneself to the teeth, is a not just a right but a necessity. Why?? Take a wild guess where the greatest benefits of that attempt will end up?? Coffers of the gun industry?? Guess the worst outcome of it is?? A more violent and deadly society.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

You might be comparing apples and oranges here. The key to firearm control is not simply the passing of a law restricting firearms, but actually enforcing that law. Somehow I suspect that a developing country like Jamaica probably does not enforce any of its laws very effectively. Interestingly, however, if you compare the murder rate in Jamaica with that of New Orleans, they are about the same.

Laws that are reasonably enforcible apply only to the otherwise law abiding citizen. Criminals, by nature don't obey laws, therefore they will already have committed the crime before the law can be enforced, usually too late for the victim. As for Jamaica, a country
that was colonized and populated by the Europeans before this country was, why is it still a developing nation?

You, along with many others, are looking for simple answers to complex issues. New Orleans has its own set of problems that I won't get into, but doesn't it seem strange that it has, as you say, the same murder rate as Jamaica? In Jamaica the firearms laws are draconian and strictly enforced, you can be imprisoned without trial for possessing a single live round of ammunition.

Look at a map once in a while, look at Texas's proximity to Mexico, think of where the money is to be made in the drug trade. Port cities also invite crime, as do marginalized inner cities.The examples I gave, i.e. New York, Washington, Chicago, are cities with prohibitive firearms laws which had no positive effect on violent crime. Our union head office is next door to Washington, in Virginia, we are warned not to go into DC at night except in large groups, or better yet, in a bus. Why so much different that next door in Herndon or Reston?

One thing that criminologists seem to agree on too is that climate affects violent crime, as temperatures rise so does crime. There is also a difference between random violent crime and targeted violent crime, but those differences aren't entered into statistics. There are too many factors affecting crime rates, taking away guns is like trying to stop workplace accidents by taking away hammers. Its not that simple.

As for paraphrasing my statment, (do you even know what the word means), I am under no illusion about the US and never said I was. The US doesn't necessarily have weak gun laws either, some are stricter than ours, and they vary from city to city, and state to state. But there are people, organizations, and politicians there that also believe that being disarmed and leaving yourself open to the good intentions of criminals somehow makes you safer.

You want proof that weak gun laws make for a safer society? That is backward, (or worse) thinking, in days past, proof was needed to enact laws, not repeal them. No proof was ever given that disarming law abiding citizens would make society safer, it was political expediency, the illusion of doing something about crime while actually doing nothing.

 

[Tonington]

Since the first states in the USA began allow widespread concealed carry of handguns in 1989, the murder rate has dropped by almost 50%.

Correlation does not mean causation...that familiar adage. Here's some data I gathered on crime statistics by state, I choose Florida, California, and Illinois. The time series is of murder rate per 100,000 by state. Florida and California both have conceal carry permits, with Florida having the more liberal regulations for granting permits. Illinois does not issue any conceal permits at all. All three states murder rates went down by ~50% since that period.

Obviously there is something besides conceal carry permits that is confounding the correlation cited by whomever it was you quoted Colpy.

 

[Colpy]

Correlation does not mean causation...that familiar adage. Here's some data I gathered on crime statistics by state, I choose Florida, California, and Illinois. The time series is of murder rate per 100,000 by state. Florida and California both have conceal carry permits, with Florida having the more liberal regulations for granting permits. Illinois does not issue any conceal permits at all. All three states murder rates went down by ~50% since that period.

Obviously there is something besides conceal carry permits that is confounding the correlation cited by whomever it was you quoted Colpy.
[/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

ABSOLUTELY!

You misjudge my thesis.....which is that gun control has little, if any benefit to society, that murder rates are driven by demographics, economics, and social factors........

Thus gun control is a useless infringement on liberty.

 

[Tonington]

ABSOLUTELY!

You misjudge my thesis.....which is that gun control has little, if any benefit to society, that murder rates are driven by demographics, economics, and social factors........

Thus gun control is a useless infringement on liberty.

This simple analysis can't say that gun control has no effect or benefit to society. That's almost certainly wrong. All it can say is that concealed permits appear to have little impact on murder rates, which is what your quote was implying.

Some people gave up their guns when the gun control was introduced, and having guns in the house is a risk factor. Kids die every year while playing with guns. There are more suicides in homes with guns. Greater risks. Fewer guns leads to reduced risk for the population as a whole, and with reduced risk comes fewer deaths. That's a benefit...

 

[Mowich]

This simple analysis can't say that gun control has no effect or benefit to society. That's almost certainly wrong. All it can say is that concealed permits appear to have little impact on murder rates, which is what your quote was implying.

Some people gave up their guns when the gun control was introduced, and having guns in the house is a risk factor. Kids die every year while playing with guns. There are more suicides in homes with guns. Greater risks. Fewer guns leads to reduced risk for the population as a whole, and with reduced risk comes fewer deaths. That's a benefit...

Three things bother me about this bill, Ton. Firstly, that it supersedes the right of individual states who very obviously wish for tighter gun control. Secondly, that the permitting process for the purchase of weapons is laughable in many states. And thirdly, because of this - " There’s no national database cops can check if they stop someone who’s carrying a gun with an out-of-state permit. Some state records aren’t available at all."

I have nothing against guns or people who wish to carry them. What bothers me is exactly what I stated above most especially the permitting of weapons in the US. With cash in my hand and no questions asked I could turn up at any one of the thousands of open market gun fairs held across the States and purchase a gun. Am I the only one that thinks that is pretty scary?

 

[ironsides]

Once again, someone that does NOT understand how the US Governmental system works, is commenting on something that means exactly NOTHING.

CONGRESS DID NOT PASS THIS BILL! THIS BILL DID NOT, AND WILL NOT, BECOME LAW!

The Congress of the United States of America consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In order for Congress to pass a bill, BOTH houses of the Congress must pass it.

In order to become law, after Congress passes a bill, the President has to sign it, or if the President has vetoed the bill, Congress must override that veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

This is not a stand alone bill, and President Obama does not have line item veto authority. If it gets through the Senate it will become the law of the land unless the President vetoes the whole bill. It is part of unrelated things.

Three things bother me about this bill, Ton. Firstly, that it supersedes the right of individual states who very obviously wish for tighter gun control. Secondly, that the permitting process for the purchase of weapons is laughable in many states. And thirdly, because of this - " There’s no national database cops can check if they stop someone who’s carrying a gun with an out-of-state permit. Some state records aren’t available at all."

I have nothing against guns or people who wish to carry them. What bothers me is exactly what I stated above most especially the permitting of weapons in the US. With cash in my hand and no questions asked I could turn up at any one of the thousands of open market gun fairs held across the States and purchase a gun. Am I the only one that thinks that is pretty scary?

I don't think you understand the law. I does not infringe on the rights of other states to have tighter or looser gun control laws. It just allows anyone with a state carry permit to carry in another state. They have to abide by the host states gun laws. No you cannot show up at a gun show and purchase a gun, you have to be a licensed resident of the state the show is in.

 

[Colpy]

This simple analysis can't say that gun control has no effect or benefit to society. That's almost certainly wrong. All it can say is that concealed permits appear to have little impact on murder rates, which is what your quote was implying.

Some people gave up their guns when the gun control was introduced, and having guns in the house is a risk factor. Kids die every year while playing with guns. There are more suicides in homes with guns. Greater risks. Fewer guns leads to reduced risk for the population as a whole, and with reduced risk comes fewer deaths. That's a benefit...

The onus to show the benefit of restrictions on liberty lies with those that would enact such restrictions.

The fact is, the radical easing of gun control regulations in the United States over the past 20 plus years have not led to an increase in murder rates.....Indeed, murder rates have steadily fallen, and continue to fall, despite the implementation of right-to-carry laws. Even the application of the idiotic and unconstitutional assault weapons bill, and its subsequent demise can not be shown to have had any effect.

As always, one should err on the side of liberty, and continue to lighten the burden of restrictive gun control.

that is how it works in a free country.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Laws that are reasonably enforcible apply only to the otherwise law abiding citizen. Criminals, by nature don't obey laws, therefore they will already have committed the crime before the law can be enforced, usually too late for the victim. As for Jamaica, a country
that was colonized and populated by the Europeans before this country was, why is it still a developing nation?

You, along with many others, are looking for simple answers to complex issues. New Orleans has its own set of problems that I won't get into, but doesn't it seem strange that it has, as you say, the same murder rate as Jamaica? In Jamaica the firearms laws are draconian and strictly enforced, you can be imprisoned without trial for possessing a single live round of ammunition.

Look at a map once in a while, look at Texas's proximity to Mexico, think of where the money is to be made in the drug trade. Port cities also invite crime, as do marginalized inner cities.The examples I gave, i.e. New York, Washington, Chicago, are cities with prohibitive firearms laws which had no positive effect on violent crime. Our union head office is next door to Washington, in Virginia, we are warned not to go into DC at night except in large groups, or better yet, in a bus. Why so much different that next door in Herndon or Reston?

One thing that criminologists seem to agree on too is that climate affects violent crime, as temperatures rise so does crime. There is also a difference between random violent crime and targeted violent crime, but those differences aren't entered into statistics. There are too many factors affecting crime rates, taking away guns is like trying to stop workplace accidents by taking away hammers. Its not that simple.

As for paraphrasing my statment, (do you even know what the word means), I am under no illusion about the US and never said I was. The US doesn't necessarily have weak gun laws either, some are stricter than ours, and they vary from city to city, and state to state. But there are people, organizations, and politicians there that also believe that being disarmed and leaving yourself open to the good intentions of criminals somehow makes you safer.

You want proof that weak gun laws make for a safer society? That is backward, (or worse) thinking, in days past, proof was needed to enact laws, not repeal them. No proof was ever given that disarming law abiding citizens would make society safer, it was political expediency, the illusion of doing something about crime while actually doing nothing.

You really seems to be clutching at straws in your reply. Let's deal with a few of you points one at a time.

Why is Jamaica a developing nation? Why is any colonial nation populated by ex-slaves a developing nation? I'm not sure where you got the idea Jamaica was populated by Europeans - I suggest you review your colonial history. Just to make that easier I have provided a link to the Wikipedia article on Jamaica. You might be particularly interested in the ethnic origins section. Jamaica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your argument about Texas cities being close to Mexico falls flat against your example of Detroit. It seems to me that Detroit is nowhere near the Mexican border. And in any case if gun ownership was even remotely effective in deterring crime anywhere it should certainly be effective in gun-crazy Texas. Can you explain why high levels of gun ownership in Texas seems to have had no effect on the crime rate? BTW Houston and Dallas are not exactly bordertowns.

And no - I am not looking for simple answers to complex issues, quite the reverse in fact. f you check though my posts regarding crime and firearms you will note that I am well aware of the many causes that lead to a high crime rate. In fact it is your assertion that arming citizens is the answer to the crime rate in the US that is a simple answer to a complex problem. The idea that allowing high levels of gun ownership leads to lower crime rates simply does not hold up under scrutiny. In fact there is no evidence that an armed population deters crime. If is did actually affect the crime rate then the US would be the safest nation in the world, and you have already admitted that there are some parts of the city where you live that you would not visit.

Climate affects crime? Give me a break. If that was true then Australia and New Zealand would have much higher crime rates than Canada - they don't by the way.

You are making my point for me when you comment on the high crime rate in the ghettoized regions of cities like Chicago and Washington. I pointed out that large urban centers have higher crime rates and they do. The fact that the mostly upper and middle class and predominantly white suburbs you use as examples simply reinforces my point that economic and social problems drive up the crime rate.

You last comment is little more than assertion. I asked for proof and you have not provided it. And like all others who have debated this topic with me you are still unable to answer the question of why Canada's crime rate is identical to that of the Us without Canada arming its citizens to the teeth. In fact it appears that the illusion you speak of is the almost religious belief that guns can make a society safer; a belief that is not born out in fact.

 

[DaSleeper]

You last comment is little more than assertion. I asked for proof and you have not provided it. And like all others who have debated this topic with me you are still unable to answer the question of why Canada's crime rate is identical to that of the Us without Canada arming its citizens to the teeth. In fact it appears that the illusion you speak of is the almost religious belief that guns can make a society safer; a belief that is not born out in fact.

Do you actualy read what you post??
Going by your statement in bold all the laws that we have in Canada are for naught if our crime rate is identical....
Edit:Your last post is bookmarked for further reference:smile:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

You really seems to be clutching at straws in your reply. Let's deal with a few of you points one at a time.

Why is Jamaica a developing nation? Why is any colonial nation populated by ex-slaves a developing nation? I'm not sure where you got the idea Jamaica was populated by Europeans - I suggest you review your colonial history. Just to make that easier I have provided a link to the Wikipedia article on Jamaica. You might be particularly interested in the ethnic origins section. Jamaica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your argument about Texas cities being close to Mexico falls flat against your example of Detroit. It seems to me that Detroit is nowhere near the Mexican border. And in any case if gun ownership was even remotely effective in deterring crime anywhere it should certainly be effective in gun-crazy Texas. Can you explain why high levels of gun ownership in Texas seems to have had no effect on the crime rate? BTW Houston and Dallas are not exactly bordertowns.

And no - I am not looking for simple answers to complex issues, quite the reverse in fact. f you check though my posts regarding crime and firearms you will note that I am well aware of the many causes that lead to a high crime rate. In fact it is your assertion that arming citizens is the answer to the crime rate in the US that is a simple answer to a complex problem. The idea that allowing high levels of gun ownership leads to lower crime rates simply does not hold up under scrutiny. In fact there is no evidence that an armed population deters crime. If is did actually affect the crime rate then the US would be the safest nation in the world, and you have already admitted that there are some parts of the city where you live that you would not visit.

Climate affects crime? Give me a break. If that was true then Australia and New Zealand would have much higher crime rates than Canada - they don't by the way.

You are making my point for me when you comment on the high crime rate in the ghettoized regions of cities like Chicago and Washington. I pointed out that large urban centers have higher crime rates and they do. The fact that the mostly upper and middle class and predominantly white suburbs you use as examples simply reinforces my point that economic and social problems drive up the crime rate.

You last comment is little more than assertion. I asked for proof and you have not provided it. And like all others who have debated this topic with me you are still unable to answer the question of why Canada's crime rate is identical to that of the Us without Canada arming its citizens to the teeth. In fact it appears that the illusion you speak of is the almost religious belief that guns can make a society safer; a belief that is not born out in fact.

I got the idea that Jamaica was populated by Europeans from the fact that it was a Britisha colony, it was also populated by slaves, much like the southern US. Jamaica was emancipated in 1834, while Canada was still a colony. As for Texas, crime simply follows the money. Detroit is still considered a port city, it doesn't need to be near the Mexican border, it has been a high crime city since I was a kid there, before drugs were in vogue.

If you admit that population density affects crime then you'll know why Australia and New Zealand have low crime rates. However, since Australia banned most firearms, the crime rate hasn't really changed, (unless you talk to the people there, they'll tell you its gotten worse). BTW, Australia and NZ still get a winter though it's more like a Vancouver winter. Rates of random violent, (and property) crime still rise with temperature, I'll take the word of police and criminologists and the British Jounal of Criminology over yours.

So what is your point regarding urbanized ghettos having a higher crime rate? That's true anywhere, there's no simple fix that, and any comparisons of the US to other countries is difficult because of its history, geographic size, political climate, cultural diversity, to name a few things that make it rather unique.

As far as high levels of "legal" firearm ownership not deterring crime, no evidence that limits or bans on firearm ownership deterring crime stands up to scrutiny. In fact, the reason the NAZI's never invaded Switzerland was they believed that every citizen was armed, (France was quite accomodating by having a firearms registry). The same reason the Japanese used for never attempting a mainland invasion of the US. The fates of unarmed citizenry have been much worse. Criminals don't come with name tags, they can be the guy on the street or in your home looking for a score, or go by the name of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Personal security is a personal responsibility, and has been a right in the English world since before the English Bill of Rights. In a free society, the burden of proof lies with the lawmakers to demonstrate legislation is just and not arbitrary when it restricts liberty. Sadly, we are becoming less and less free.

 

[Niflmir]

The onus to show the benefit of restrictions on liberty lies with those that would enact such restrictions.

The fact is, the radical easing of gun control regulations in the United States over the past 20 plus years have not led to an increase in murder rates.....Indeed, murder rates have steadily fallen, and continue to fall, despite the implementation of right-to-carry laws. Even the application of the idiotic and unconstitutional assault weapons bill, and its subsequent demise can not be shown to have had any effect.

As always, one should err on the side of liberty, and continue to lighten the burden of restrictive gun control.

that is how it works in a free country.

I agree with your basic premise, but it more easily leads to the conclusion that the war on drugs should be terminated then the conclusion that guns should not be controlled. The relation of guns to crime being much more direct than any relation with drugs.

Murder rates in the USA are anomalously high compared to other industrialized countries. Then again, this is a country with 25% of the world's prison population, due largely to anomalously long mandatory minimum sentences. Since time spent in prison is highly correlated with likelihood to rescind, that could be the reason right there... which spells disaster for the country the conservatives are leading us into.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I got the idea that Jamaica was populated by Europeans from the fact that it was a Britisha colony, it was also populated by slaves, much like the southern US. Jamaica was emancipated in 1834, while Canada was still a colony. As for Texas, crime simply follows the money. Detroit is still considered a port city, it doesn't need to be near the Mexican border, it has been a high crime city since I was a kid there, before drugs were in vogue.

If you admit that population density affects crime then you'll know why Australia and New Zealand have low crime rates. However, since Australia banned most firearms, the crime rate hasn't really changed, (unless you talk to the people there, they'll tell you its gotten worse). BTW, Australia and NZ still get a winter though it's more like a Vancouver winter. Rates of random violent, (and property) crime still rise with temperature, I'll take the word of police and criminologists and the British Jounal of Criminology over yours.

So what is your point regarding urbanized ghettos having a higher crime rate? That's true anywhere, there's no simple fix that, and any comparisons of the US to other countries is difficult because of its history, geographic size, political climate, cultural diversity, to name a few things that make it rather unique.

As far as high levels of "legal" firearm ownership not deterring crime, no evidence that limits or bans on firearm ownership deterring crime stands up to scrutiny. In fact, the reason the NAZI's never invaded Switzerland was they believed that every citizen was armed, (France was quite accomodating by having a firearms registry). The same reason the Japanese used for never attempting a mainland invasion of the US. The fates of unarmed citizenry have been much worse. Criminals don't come with name tags, they can be the guy on the street or in your home looking for a score, or go by the name of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Personal security is a personal responsibility, and has been a right in the English world since before the English Bill of Rights. In a free society, the burden of proof lies with the lawmakers to demonstrate legislation is just and not arbitrary when it restricts liberty. Sadly, we are becoming less and less free.

I think that your geographical misconceptions are creating a bit of a problem. Over 90% of Jamaicans have at least a little African ancestry, something you should have realized if you had bothered to actually investigate the country. As for Australia, Sydney - the largest city - is bigger than most American cities. In fact if it was in the US the Sydney Metro area would rank in the top ten in the US. About 80% of Australians live in urban areas which is higher than in the US. I hope that is densely populated enough to satisfy you. The numbers are similar for New Zealand with most people concentrated in cities. As for Australia's crime rate going up I expect that if you investigate you will find that it is declining, just as it is in Canada and the US.

You still don't seem to understand Detroit. The high crime rate there is due to the fact that that Detroit, like several other US cities is rotten at the core. Unemployment rates are several times the national average and those people with money have conveniently fled to the suburbs, leaving the city centre to deteriorate. As a result not only is it difficult for people living there to get a job, but educational and social facilities are substandard or missing altogether. In other words Detroit and other large US urban centres are perfect breeding grounds for crime and the easy access to guns just makes it worse.

Your allusion to Switzerland is somewhat accurate, but Germany's decision not to invade was not due to high rates of gun ownership among ordinary Swiss citizens. Instead it was due the the fact that all Swiss citizens were required to be a part of the Swiss military reserve until age 40 and that all citizens served two years military training. In addition, Switzerland was very heavily fortified and its military was among the best equipped in the world. That, and its mountainous terrain were the reasons Hitler decided to leave Switzerland off his hit list. The US has nothing resembling Switzerland's tradition of military service or its high level of firearms training. In fact in the US training in the use of firearms is not required. It is easier to own a gun in most states than it is to drive a car, as all states have the strange notion that if you are going to operate something as potentially dangerous as a motor vehicle there should be proof that a person can operate it safely. If the same restriction was placed on firearms no doubt firearm ownership would drop, just as it has dropped in Canada.

Your comment about Japan not invading the mainland US because of its armed citizens is also in error. Read the history of World War II and you will find that first of all it was never Japan's intention to invade the mainland US. In fact Japan did not have the means to launch such an invasion. Conducting a war in China and invading SE Asia and numerous Pacific islands left Japan badly overextended. Invading a nation like the US with eight times Japan's GNP was simply out of the question. You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the rate of gun ownership in the US is 1940 was much lower than it is today.

And no - it is not the duty of every citizen to take the law into his or her own hands. It sounds to me like you have been watching too many Charles Bronson movies. In Canada and most other modern nations it is considered the duty of the state to protect law abiding citizens. The US is odd man out in this regard.

It appears to me that we may just have to agree to disagree on this point. You think that an armed citizenry is necessary in order to insure personal safety - I don't. And like all others I have discussed this topic with you still cannot explain why Canada, with its much stricter gun ownership laws and much lower rate of gun ownership, has the same crime rate as the US.