Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Cobalt_Kid]

No, owning a gun is just a basic 2nd Amendment right. I does prevent or make the goverment think twice about imposing laws upon us without first getting the approval of the people. (notice I said people, not politicians or despots who may come into power) not to mention other countries who have thought twice about invading us. We are potentially 330 million law biding armed citizens.

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

It's always been about state security and I'm not aware of many people with guns belonging to well regulated militias these days. A lot of gun owners just seem to see the right and not the responsibility of having weapons.

Now, I have no idea where you came up with this statement. totally ridiculous.

Are you even aware of how many Americans are killed each year by other Americans with guns? It's mostly handguns that are the problem, people tend to notice somebody toting around a rifle or shotgun. I trust some people to behave responsibly, I know I feel safe around my step-dad who does have a concealed weapons permit, but I know one idiot who is supposedly a responsible gun owner who likes waving his .38 in other peoples face at the bar like it was just some game.

 

[ironsides]

What this idiot is doing is totally illegal here, you cannot carry your concealed weapon if you bar hopping, taking it out and waving it around will get you arrested or even shot. Every American citizen is considered to be part of a well regulated militias trained or not. Congress will not touch the Second Amendment any time soon, maybe when people stop caring.

Americans are killed each year by other Americans with guns? Just about everyone, but with illegal guns.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

What this idiot is doing is totally illegal here, you cannot carry your concealed weapon if you bar hopping, taking it out and waving it around will get you arrested or even shot. Every American citizen is considered to be part of a well regulated militias trained or not. Congress will not touch the Second Amendment any time soon, maybe when people stop caring.

Americans are killed each year by other Americans with guns? Just about everyone, but with illegal guns.

It's a small town, his family has been there for years and he's a former mayor. When he's not drunk it's not a problem.

I'm not opposed to the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, I also think having a well armed and trained citizenry puts limits on the power of the state. But in the case of handguns, it's big business and a lot of the illegal weapons that end up on the street come from a small percentage of gun dealers that the industry knows about but does nothing to control.

 

[ironsides]

It's a small town, his family has been there for years and he's a former mayor. When he's not drunk it's not a problem.

I'm not opposed to the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, I also think having a well armed and trained citizenry puts limits on the power of the state. But in the case of handguns, it's big business and a lot of the illegal weapons that end up on the street come from a small percentage of gun dealers that the industry knows about but does nothing to control.

I cannot argue with that, they are closing down and raiding gun shops all the time for selling arms illegally. If I remember right Florida is one of the largest states involved in weapons smuggling, especially to places like Mexico. As a law biding citizen there is virtually no firearm I cannot purchase here. Just need the permits.

 

[Colpy]

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

It's always been about state security and I'm not aware of many people with guns belonging to well regulated militias these days. A lot of gun owners just seem to see the right and not the responsibility of having weapons.





Are you even aware of how many Americans are killed each year by other Americans with guns? It's mostly handguns that are the problem, people tend to notice somebody toting around a rifle or shotgun. I trust some people to behave responsibly, I know I feel safe around my step-dad who does have a concealed weapons permit, but I know one idiot who is supposedly a responsible gun owner who likes waving his .38 in other peoples face at the bar like it was just some game.

Think 18th century language...."well regulated" means trained, not organized.....also notice the phrase "security of a free state'. meaning to keep their freedom safe........as well, any English teacher worth their salt will tell you the initial phrase has absolutely NO bearing on the declarative phrase..."......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the one that counts......

Anyone waving guns in someone's face for no reason could be, and should be arrested for assault.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Think 18th century language...."well regulated" means trained, not organized.....also notice the phrase "security of a free state'. meaning to keep their freedom safe........as well, any English teacher worth their salt will tell you the initial phrase has absolutely NO bearing on the declarative phrase..."......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the one that counts......

Anyone waving guns in someone's face for no reason could be, and should be arrested for assault.

Times change, most Americans no longer live on farms and handguns now put out more volume of fire than a squad of minutemen.

There's always going to be violence in a society but it's pretty hard to do a drive-by with a knife or tire-iron, at the very least I think the US should re-think controlling handguns.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Well they would have to arm themselves wouldn't they? So then we have nervous people with guns going to houses owned by nervous people with guns. Do you feel there is any chance of this situation going wrong?

My question is, "why would a nervous person with a gun go to someone else's house anyway, whether the homeowner is a nervous gun owner or not?" If you go looking for trouble, you're sure to find it. If trouble comes looking for me, it is my right to defend against it.

.Now we can and will argue about the need/reason to restrict things like semi-auto hunting firearms or handguns but most non-registry people are not believers in free and unmitigated access to firearms to any Joe or Jane Blow who walks off the street into a sporting goods store. Responsible gun owners believe in proper storage and safe handling, and most don't have issues with background checks to look for mental instability (as tough as that may be to finger) or criminal histories.

The restricting of certain classes of firearms is purely arbitrary. The ones used during criminal activity are just weapons of convenience, in Canada at least. Once, and only once has a fully automatic firearm ever been used during a criminal act, and it was a state issued SMG used by a disgruntled soldier to commandeer the Quebec Legislatutre, but yet they are now prohibited to all excpt law enforcement and military. This even though the QPP, (now the SDQ) sprayed a motel room with submachinegun fire killing two carpet layers hired by the motel in a botched raid, they got the wrong room. Who are the criminals?

Tell those people who have had their children and loved ones murdered how lucky they are not to have a dull life.

Or tell them that they were denied the tools to defend themselves or those under their care, but it was for their own good as well as the greater good.

What's more I feel that the law abiding gun owner is a myth.

People always rebel against bad law, that doesn't necessarily make them criminals. However, none of us can claim to be totally law abiding. In a police officer's lecture to a 1st year law class he stated that he can follow someone for no longer than 30 minutes before he can catch them doing something illegal. Most of us break at least five laws from the time we wake up to the time we get to work.

Just about all my relatives, including my sister and parents own firearms and the only criminal records they have are speeding/parking tickets and the like. Of my friends, the most serious criminal offender is one old friend with a couple DUIs (and yes we did rag hard on

Many folks have a similar misconception. Speeding/parking tickets are not criminal acts, not do they lead to a record, except under the MVA. Colloquially termed DUI's are criminal convitions because they are contained in the Criminal Code. It serves people well if they fullly understand the differences, many don't. Comparing a Firearms Act infraction to and MVA infraction is much like comparing illegal parking to a DUI. One costs you money, the other risks a custodial penalty, and a real world of hurt for many, many years, don't even think of travelling through a border crossing.

 

[ironsides]

Times change, most Americans no longer live on farms and handguns now put out more volume of fire than a squad of minutemen.

There's always going to be violence in a society but it's pretty hard to do a drive-by with a knife or tire-iron, at the very least I think the US should re-think controlling handguns.

Most drive-by shootings are done with auto/semi automatic rifles which are regulated. It is not the farm animals one worries about these days, it is those who flaunt the law with those automatic weapons, even a little .380 semi auto offers a individual some protection. We cannot have a personal policeman to protect us.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Most drive-by shootings are done with auto/semi automatic rifles which are regulated. It is not the farm animals one worries about these days, it is those who flaunt the law with those automatic weapons, even a little .380 semi auto offers a individual some protection. We cannot have a personal policeman to protect us.

Having a weapon might offer some comfort, but the only real safety from gun violence is to remove the guns.

This is a tough one, no doubt about it.

 

[wulfie68]

Many folks have a similar misconception. Speeding/parking tickets are not criminal acts, not do they lead to a record, except under the MVA. Colloquially termed DUI's are criminal convitions because they are contained in the Criminal Code. It serves people well if they fullly understand the differences, many don't. Comparing a Firearms Act infraction to and MVA infraction is much like comparing illegal parking to a DUI. One costs you money, the other risks a custodial penalty, and a real world of hurt for many, many years, don't even think of travelling through a border crossing.

I know and agree. I only put that in to illustrate to the originator of the statement about all gunowners being criminals, that in my experience that wasn't exactly the case, unless he considered Highway Traffic Act violations to be criminal activity.

Having a weapon might offer some comfort, but the only real safety from gun violence is to remove the guns.

This is a tough one, no doubt about it.

Thats true in the strictest sense but when you add some context and compare gun violence in Canada to other violence (from blunt objects, knives, etc) by constantly focusing on guns, we are essentially ignoring the vast majority of violent crimes to go after a small percentage. We further compound this by focusing measures on firearms are among the least likely to be used in those crimes.

Canada obsesses about gun violence and gun control almost as much as we do about healthcare... and our debate is framed in much the same manner by our political left: in healthcare its either our current system or the US one and with gun control you either agree with all the measures (including things like the registry) or none.

 

[petros]

The next King of England could very well be threat........Ya never know,,,,

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Thats true in the strictest sense but when you add some context and compare gun violence in Canada to other violence (from blunt objects, knives, etc) by constantly focusing on guns, we are essentially ignoring the vast majority of violent crimes to go after a small percentage. We further compound this by focusing measures on firearms are among the least likely to be used in those crimes.

Canada obsesses about gun violence and gun control almost as much as we do about healthcare... and our debate is framed in much the same manner by our political left: in healthcare its either our current system or the US one and with gun control you either agree with all the measures (including things like the registry) or none.

There's a much higher potential of serious damage from guns, especially the new high capacity handguns that can be concealed and used to massacre multiple victims with little or no training.

We regulate vehicle use for safety reasons, guns shouldn't be exempt from the same kind of control.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Having a weapon might offer some comfort, but the only real safety from gun violence is to remove the guns.

This is a tough one, no doubt about it.

Removing guns, if that were possible, only eliminates "gun" violence. Knives are still a favoured weapon of miscreants. Availability of knives, sabres, or any weapon that requires close contact as well as strength puts the smaller or weaker at the mercy of the stronger and bigger. The samurai had the disarmed peasants of Japan under their control for centuries. As the shogun would command so would the samurai do, with no mercy. Violence is violence. A firearm requires little strength, but a lot of skill, but still a 90 year old grandmother with that skill has a fighting chance against a crackhead gangbanger busting into her home, no matter what he or she is armed with.

Removing gun violence will not remove violence, never has, never will.

 

[JLM]

Removing guns, if that were possible, only eliminates "gun" violence. Knives are still a favoured weapon of miscreants. Availability of knives, sabres, or any weapon that requires close contact as well as strength puts the smaller or weaker at the mercy of the stronger and bigger. The samurai had the disarmed peasants of Japan under their control for centuries. As the shogun would command so would the samurai do, with no mercy. Violence is violence. A firearm requires little strength, but a lot of skill, but still a 90 year old grandmother with that skill has a fighting chance against a crackhead gangbanger busting into her home, no matter what he or she is armed with.

Removing gun violence will not remove violence, never has, never will.

You got that right, there's one ethnicity that prefers machetes. :smile:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

There's a much higher potential of serious damage from guns, especially the new high capacity handguns that can be concealed and used to massacre multiple victims with little or no training.

Have you ever shot a handgun? A new high capacity handgun? What, a 9mm with a 17 shot mag, they're not new, sure they're high capacity, but they aren't that powerful, that and because in a firefight most shots don't hit the intended target is why they have a high capacity. Most old vets still like the .45, (you only need to hit once, might not kill them, but it'll stop them). A neighbour of mine has been shot 5 times on at least two different occasions with a 9mm, his most serious injury has been a stab wound suffered while in the clink. (You can pick your friends, but not your relatives or neighbours).

Handguns can be as accurate as a rifle, but they require a great deal of skill. Even still, they are designed as a reactive weapon, or defense weapon, as a freind of mine who is a former SAS operative and sniper instructor, among other things says, "If you're looking for action, bring a bunch of friends, and a tank". Handguns aren't the bad guys, they are meant to get you out of a situation, or as I have heard, "to fight my way back to my gun".

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Have you ever shot a handgun? A new high capacity handgun? What, a 9mm with a 17 shot mag, they're not new, sure they're high capacity, but they aren't that powerful, that and because in a firefight most shots don't hit the intended target is why they have a high capacity. Most old vets still like the .45, (you only need to hit once, might not kill them, but it'll stop them). A neighbour of mine has been shot 5 times on at least two different occasions with a 9mm, his most serious injury has been a stab wound suffered while in the clink. (You can pick your friends, but not your relatives or neighbours).

Handguns can be as accurate as a rifle, but they require a great deal of skill. Even still, they are designed as a reactive weapon, or defense weapon, as a freind of mine who is a former SAS operative and sniper instructor, among other things says, "If you're looking for action, bring a bunch of friends, and a tank". Handguns aren't the bad guys, they are meant to get you out of a situation, or as I have heard, "to fight my way back to my gun".

Yes I've fired a handgun and no a handgun can't be as accurate as rifle. At anything over 10 yards they're almost useless, what you see on TV and in the movies is bull****. Handguns are big business in the US and producing the high capacity rapid fire weapons prefered by gangbangers(30 round clips or more) is about profit not self protection for customers.

 

[Colpy]

Yes I've fired a handgun and no a handgun can't be as accurate as rifle. At anything over 10 yards they're almost useless, what you see on TV and in the movies is bull****. Handguns are big business in the US and producing the high capacity rapid fire weapons prefered by gangbangers(30 round clips or more) is about profit not self protection for customers.

Wow.

Hard to address that many mistakes in a single post....but I'll try......

At 15 yards I could regularly shot grapefruit sized groups freehand with my old service revolver.....a fixed sighted, double action only S&W Model 64 in .38 Special with a 4 inch barrel.

It was not designed for exceptionally fine accuracy.

I know shooters that can shoot 10 rounds into a 3 inch circle easily with their .22 target pistols....at 25 meters, freehand.

Hunting revolvers are set up to kill deer sized game at 50 plus meters. Single shot pistols can take game at 200 meters.

The problem with pistols is not their inherent accuracy....they are capable of being as acxcurate as a rifle. The problem is sighting over short barrels (solved by scopes) and the unsteady shooting platform of a man with arms extended....(solved by using a rest)

Very few pistols have 30 round mags........most have between 7 and 15 rounds.

Tell THIS guy handguns are only good at 10 yards....

YouTube - Bob Munden -- Impossible 200 Yard Shot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tied-t1fFsk&feature=mfu_in_order&playnext=1&videos=wh7sV1vwIhE

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Wow.

Hard to address that many mistakes in a single post....but I'll try......

At 15 yards I could regularly shot grapefruit sized groups freehand with my old service revolver.....a fixed sighted, double action only S&W Model 64 in .38 Special with a 4 inch barrel.

It was not designed for exceptionally fine accuracy.

I know shooters that can shoot 10 rounds into a 3 inch circle easily with their .22 target pistols....at 25 meters, freehand.

Hunting revolvers are set up to kill deer sized game at 50 plus meters. Single shot pistols can take game at 200 meters.

The problem with pistols is not their inherent accuracy....they are capable of being as acxcurate as a rifle. The problem is sighting over short barrels (solved by scopes) and the unsteady shooting platform of a man with arms extended....(solved by using a rest)

Very few pistols have 30 round mags........most have between 7 and 15 rounds.

Tell THIS guy handguns are only good at 10 yards....

YouTube - Bob Munden -- Impossible 200 Yard Shot

YouTube - Bob Munden -- Impossible 200 Yard Shot

I stand corrected, that's insane.

I knew a fellow who fed his family with his handgun in tough times in Montana, he could hit a jackrabbit from the back of a moving truck. He was a natural who would just point and shoot but not sight down the barrel, I thought he was just one in a million. I didn't know you could get this much accuracy from such a short barrel though.

you can get extended clips for hand guns, I think they go up to 50 shots.

I'm never going to be a supporter of handguns, if you want a weapon for home defence get a shotgun and I still think a rifle is more practical for hunting, I didn't need a stand with a .308 with scope. The problem is keeping weapons off the street and handguns are simply to easy to conceal and use in enclosed spaces where people tend to be.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Getting clocked in the head with a .44 as a teenager probably left a negative impression on me, I know it did on my forehead. Unlike the person who taught me longarm use and safety the handgun owner thought it was funny as hell when the pistol kicked back and hit me after giving almost no instruction.

 

[wulfie68]

Getting clocked in the head with a .44 as a teenager probably left a negative impression on me, I know it did on my forehead. Unlike the person who taught me longarm use and safety the handgun owner thought it was funny as hell when the pistol kicked back and hit me after giving almost no instruction.

OK the person who took you shooting the .44 was an idiot, but that really has nothing to do with addressing violent crime, save that it does taint your impression of handguns and those who use/own them. We all need to set aside our biases and look at the real issues around gun control.

- keeping track of a percentage of 30 million+ people is easier than keeping track of a higher number of weapons
- the results of our gun control efforts plateaued a decade or two ago and further attempts to police them have been subject to the law of diminishing returns
- the only measure most gunowners want repealed is the Alan Rock registry (and they'd like no further regulations introduced, which makes sense when one looks at the way firearms crimes have plateaued)
- firearms are not the most popular weapon used to commit violent crime (they rank as high as 5th or 6th in most studies), leading to a conclusion that other weapons or root causes need to be addressed
- the Alan Rock registry was conceived in response to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal but really does little to address that type of crime as demonstrated by the Dawson College incident