Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Unforgiven]

It just not done on a federal level, each state controls it their own way. For example if a registered gun is sold in New York and it turns up in Florida at a crime scene they will go after the original owner. Responsibility for securing a weapon is put upon the licensed owner. If a child finds a gun around the house and accidentally shoots someone, the owner of the gun will face charges even though he/she may have been out of the house at the time.

It is against State laws to sell a firearm to a unlicensed individual. so no one is getting a free ride on this issue. Just some thing's the federal Goverment should stay out of, let the states handle it. They usually provide heavier fines and punishment anyway.

Yeah each State makes their own laws. New York is an odd example to use as they have some stict gun laws, where are some other States, have no laws what so ever regarding the private sale of a gun from one person to another. So an investigation that traces a gun back to the original owner in Vermont will reveal that the owner sold it to some dude he met in a bar. The sale is perfectly legal and any liability of the original owner ends there. There is no requirment of proof that this sale occured nor any paper trail to show who has owned the gun since it was sold by the original owner.

A gun or hundreds of guns make no difference as no one knows anyway.

 

[Colpy]

Yeah each State makes their own laws. New York is an odd example to use as they have some stict gun laws, where are some other States, have no laws what so ever regarding the private sale of a gun from one person to another. So an investigation that traces a gun back to the original owner in Vermont will reveal that the owner sold it to some dude he met in a bar. The sale is perfectly legal and any liability of the original owner ends there. There is no requirment of proof that this sale occured nor any paper trail to show who has owned the gun since it was sold by the original owner.

A gun or hundreds of guns make no difference as no one knows anyway.

And where, in the USA, are the lowest murder rates?????? The lowest crime rates??????

You are operating from a false premise, as clearly demonstrated by the first posts in this discussion......that premise being "access to guns causes murder".

Not true.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for calling me a liar over those stats.....if you would be bothered to check them out, you would find they are accurate.....of course, that blows your arguments completely out of the water.....so I must be lying. :roll:

As well, it takes only a tiny number of guns to supply the needs of criminals.....and those weapons are available to criminals on every society on earth. Controling the ability of the civilian population to access guns does not impact the criminal use in any significant way..........handguns in Canada have been tightly controled and registered since 1934.......but the use of handguns in crime continues to increase........despite increasing severity of the laws.

 

[CDNBear]

Unf doesn't see the similarities between his campaign for MaryJane, and that of the gun lobbyists, lol...

 

[Colpy]

Crime Rate by State, 2006 — Infoplease.com

States with murder rates lower than that in Canada:

New Hampshire 1.0
South Dakota 1.2
North Dakota 1.3
Hawaii 1.6
Maine 1.7
Wyoming 1.7
Montana 1.8
Iowa 1.8
Utah 1.8
Vermont 1.9

Canada 2.0 The Daily, Wednesday, November 8, 2006. Homicides

I must be lying again!

Note the list of states includes only two with any real gun control at all....Hawaii and New Hampshire......and in neither does the gun control regimen even faintly approach that of Canada!!!!!

MOST of the states are in the wild wild west, where everyone has a Colt 1911 .45 and an AR 15 assault rifle.....and a lot of people carry 'em....legally, as most of these states issue concealed carry permits....those that require anything at all.

 

[Unforgiven]

I didn't really want to get into this with you, but since you make it an issue, here is the problem with your selective statistics that you seem to think are a good representation of demographic crime rates to gun owners.

And where, in the USA, are the lowest murder rates?????? The lowest crime rates??????

In States with a low population of people but more significantly a very low Black population.

You are operating from a false premise, as clearly demonstrated by the first posts in this discussion......that premise being "access to guns causes murder".

No I am not. There have been exactly none when it comes to innocent bystanders killed or injured by fist fights, knife fights or fights with bats or clubs. In large cities where the crime rate is much higher, there is a much higher rate of this. This isn't reflected in your stats at all. Access to guns doesn't cause murder. For someone who is going to commit a murder, access to guns makes that much easier to do and extends the ability to murder or injure more than one person at a time from an expert to a non-expert. That you can get a gun in the US means that most gun laws in Canada are useless. Changing the Gun Show loophole will enhance the effect of Canadian gun laws to something that does work to some degree.

Not true.

I think I can stand on my above argument as truthful. Show me where it is that it is false.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for calling me a liar over those stats.....if you would be bothered to check them out, you would find they are accurate.....of course, that blows your arguments completely out of the water.....so I must be lying. :roll:

Well, then let's get that out of the way.

The stats you posted for Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota are misleading because crime stats show that crime rates for Blacks is 7 times higher than it is for Whites. The population determined by race in the three states you provided in your stats are 90% White and 0% Black, 89% White and 1% Black, 86% White and 4% Black respectively. When compared with District Of Columbia at 31% White and 56% Black,
and a crime rate of 1508.4 per capita and other states with a closer mix of White and Black people show a similar indication.

This was probably unintentionally left out of your stats and so without intent to deceive, you can't be a liar. So that being the case and if I called you a liar then I apologize. If you did in fact have the intent, then you know what you are without my opinion on the matter making any difference.

As well, it takes only a tiny number of guns to supply the needs of criminals.....and those weapons are available to criminals on every society on earth. Controlling the ability of the civilian population to access guns does not impact the criminal use in any significant way..........handguns in Canada have been tightly controlled and registered since 1934.......but the use of handguns in crime continues to increase........despite increasing severity of the laws.

Yet in the US where guns can be bought by anyone that wants them the murder rates are far higher than anywhere else. As I mentioned above, we can have all the regulation we want on guns, but for the fact that they can be bought in quantity without question in the US and brought across the border with relative ease they are rendered useless. Allowing a huge loophole that ensures anyone with money and some nerve can go out and get a handgun anytime they want, makes all regulation nearly useless. It's in closing that loophole and making the transfer of any gun at any time require the same checks and paperwork that is required of professional retail gun stores, that will allow all those Canadian regulations to have a much greater effect.

It's been argued many times that punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime, especially murder.

 

[Unforgiven]

Unf doesn't see the similarities between his campaign for MaryJane, and that of the gun lobbyists, lol...

I do Bear, but the two aren't the same subject at all. No one has ever died from a smoking joint. Seriously how many people have died because guns got in the wrong hands? The only way I could murder you with Pot is to drop a bail of it on you. And brother, chances are you in particular would grunt and then get up and do the happy dance because hey, free bail of Pot! :lol:

Honestly anyone who can be a responsible gun owner should have them and enjoy them freely without a huge issue of ownership. But I find gun owners above all others work hard to make sure there is easy access for criminals to get guns while allowing only the laws that make life harder for gun owners are implemented.

That is the biggest problem of all in this issue.

 

[CDNBear]

I do Bear, but the two aren't the same subject at all. No one has ever died from a smoking joint.

BS, smoking pot inhibits nausia, that being the bodies internal defense against identified poisoning, it has killed youngsters that have consumed to much alcohol and pot. Via alcohol poisoning.

Seriously how many people have died because guns got in the wrong hands? The only way I could murder you with Pot is to drop a bail of it on you. And brother, chances are you in particular would grunt and then get up and do the happy dance because hey, free bail of Pot! :lol:

:lol:

Honestly anyone who can be a responsible gun owner should have them and enjoy them freely without a huge issue of ownership. But I find gun owners above all others work hard to make sure there is easy access for criminals to get guns while allowing only the laws that make life harder for gun owners are implemented.

Ummm, I disagree.

 

[Unforgiven]

BS, smoking pot inhibits nausia, that being the bodies internal defense against identified poisoning, it has killed youngsters that have consumed to much alcohol and pot. Via alcohol poisoning.

Yeah and Pot and gunshots in the mouth are deadly too but not Pot. No one has ever died from smoking Pot. Plenty of people have died from abusing alcohol. Blame their shirt or the food they ate or the friends they were with. It has as much correlation.

Pot by itself has not killed a single person. Look it up, it's a fact. ;-)

:lol:
Ummm, I disagree.

Life is more interesting that way bro!

 

[CDNBear]

Yeah and Pot and gunshots in the mouth are deadly too but not Pot. No one has ever died from smoking Pot. Plenty of people have died from abusing alcohol. Blame their shirt or the food they ate or the friends they were with. It has as much correlation.

Pot by itself has not killed a single person. Look it up, it's a fact. ;-)



Life is more interesting that way bro!

I will concede that you are correct about pot fatalities.

But the fight is the same thing. I can not say I will defend all the points Colpy has made over the years pertaining to over regulated gun controls. But I will steadfastly stand by him on long guns.

And I completely see both our (yours and mine, and Colpy's) fight to be very much the same.

 

[Niflmir]

What's with all the herring swimming 'round this thread?

Anyways, as with most things, finding the correct regressors is difficult business, and nobody should ever base policy on a few, hand-picked outliers. But high amounts of gun ownership is found by various interested groups to be correlated with homicide rates. The first study cannot be duplicated inside of the USA without using the methods of the second group, which account for illegitimate access to guns.

Note that these studies report that other forms of weapons are not negatively correlated with gun ownership, implying no compensatory nature.

Conclusion: there is no reason why guns cannot be enjoyed peacefully but easy access to guns correlates strongly with increased homicide rates. Guns needs to be out of the hands of criminally inclined individuals. It makes no sense to try to take guns out of the hands of criminals without having a national gun control strategy: it will simply be too easy for them to acquire them if it is up to a parole officer to make sure they cannot get it.

It shouldn't be easy to get a gun. It shouldn't be impossible either.

I've said it elsewhere as well, as long as we have a weakly enforced border and uncooperative neighbours, any national gun control policy is doomed to failure but is a necessary first step in order to disarm criminals.

 

[Ron in Regina]

....but is a necessary first step in order to disarm criminals....

....and not criminals....even if they have to be made into criminals first. :-|

 

[L Gilbert]

Why it's mostly innocent bystanders that get shot when gangs start shooting...

That's definitely an idiotic way to hold a sidearm for shooting, alright.

 

[L Gilbert]

What's with all the herring swimming 'round this thread?

Anyways, as with most things, finding the correct regressors is difficult business, and nobody should ever base policy on a few, hand-picked outliers. But high amounts of gun ownership is found by various interested groups to be correlated with homicide rates. The first study cannot be duplicated inside of the USA without using the methods of the second group, which account for illegitimate access to guns.

Note that these studies report that other forms of weapons are not negatively correlated with gun ownership, implying no compensatory nature.

Conclusion: there is no reason why guns cannot be enjoyed peacefully but easy access to guns correlates strongly with increased homicide rates. Guns needs to be out of the hands of criminally inclined individuals. It makes no sense to try to take guns out of the hands of criminals without having a national gun control strategy: it will simply be too easy for them to acquire them if it is up to a parole officer to make sure they cannot get it.

It shouldn't be easy to get a gun. It shouldn't be impossible either.

I've said it elsewhere as well, as long as we have a weakly enforced border and uncooperative neighbours, any national gun control policy is doomed to failure but is a necessary first step in order to disarm criminals.

It has rarely worked. Criminals are damned insistent on acquiring firearms. Gov'ts simply can't keep up with them because they are reactionary. The only one I can think of that is pretty safe from firearms instances in the parts of the developed world not ruled over by tyrants and despots is Japan. But, the Japanese give up an awful lot of freedom in order to have few firearms incidents.
Japanese Gun Control
You also have to consider that Japan is an island and doesn't have a lot of open border for people to smuggle stuff across easily. Ships' cargoes can be searched randomly and frequently as well as people in Japan.
So, anyway, even if firearms are completely banned and Canada is completely free of them, what do we go after next? Knives and clubs? Automobiles? Fat-laden foods?

 

[Unforgiven]

I've said it elsewhere as well, as long as we have a weakly enforced border and uncooperative neighbours, any national gun control policy is doomed to failure but is a necessary first step in order to disarm criminals.

This has been my argument from the start. While there are measures in place in Canada to prevent violent people or those who are mentally unstable from getting their hands on firearms, the fact that a gun can be bought and sold in the US without any identity check or paperwork, the laws are meaningless in Canada and for the most part only go toward frustrating legitimate gun owners and placing an unreasonable financial demand on legal ownership.

Maybe if legal gun owners weren't so adamant about keeping the ability to buy and sell a gun in the US without any regulation, some of these ridiculous burdens would be lifted.

 

[ironsides]

This has been my argument from the start. While there are measures in place in Canada to prevent violent people or those who are mentally unstable from getting their hands on firearms, the fact that a gun can be bought and sold in the US without any identity check or paperwork, the laws are meaningless in Canada and for the most part only go toward frustrating legitimate gun owners and placing an unreasonable financial demand on legal ownership.

Maybe if legal gun owners weren't so adamant about keeping the ability to buy and sell a gun in the US without any regulation, some of these ridiculous burdens would be lifted.

Just concentrate on changing the gun laws in Vermont. They are the only State that requires no checks of any kind, just be a resident. There you might have a chance.

 

[Unforgiven]

Just concentrate on changing the gun laws in Vermont. They are the only State that requires no checks of any kind, just be a resident. There you might have a chance.

You keep saying that but it doesn't look that way in the information available on state gun laws.

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven;1135471]I didn't really want to get into this with you, but since you make it an issue, here is the problem with your selective statistics that you seem to think are a good representation of demographic crime rates to gun owners.


In States with a low population of people but more significantly a very low Black population.

Either you are an outrageous racist (which I do NOT believe) or you are agreeing with me.....it is not the colour of the skin than encourages a high murder rate, it is culture........but thereafter your logic fails. In the inner city ghettoes, gun control would not prevent any murders.....when the culture demands killing, means are always found. The culture needs changing....gun control will not do it.

No I am not. There have been exactly none when it comes to innocent bystanders killed or injured by fist fights, knife fights or fights with bats or clubs. In large cities where the crime rate is much higher, there is a much higher rate of this. This isn't reflected in your stats at all. Access to guns doesn't cause murder. For someone who is going to commit a murder, access to guns makes that much easier to do and extends the ability to murder or injure more than one person at a time from an expert to a non-expert. That you can get a gun in the US means that most gun laws in Canada are useless. Changing the Gun Show loophole will enhance the effect of Canadian gun laws to something that does work to some degree.

This is just so much crap. Drive-by shootings, uptown gun battles in which bystanders are hit are the result of gang wars, often over drug turf..... You CAN NOT stop the criminal element from getting firearms. Full stop. It is sooooo....disingenuous......to believe that you can stop people that regularly import pounds of cocaine from importing guns....from wherever... I was just reading how gangsters in the 20s and 30s in the USA got their weapons....the Kelleys repeatedly raided POLICE arsenals ....this at a time when you could buy a Thompson submachinegun over the counter....

Not all guns come from the USA....in fact, it is not even the largest producer of firearms......

BTW, read the US Constitution....the possession and carrying of arms in the USA is a constitutional RIGHT, therefore you can not legally restrict access to arms there....in the way you would like. So, you have to deal with reality.


Well, then let's get that out of the way.

The stats you posted for Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota are misleading because crime stats show that crime rates for Blacks is 7 times higher than it is for Whites. The population determined by race in the three states you provided in your stats are 90% White and 0% Black, 89% White and 1% Black, 86% White and 4% Black respectively. When compared with District Of Columbia at 31% White and 56% Black,
and a crime rate of 1508.4 per capita and other states with a closer mix of White and Black people show a similar indication.

This was probably unintentionally left out of your stats and so without intent to deceive, you can't be a liar. So that being the case and if I called you a liar then I apologize. If you did in fact have the intent, then you know what you are without my opinion on the matter making any difference.

Thank you for the apology.

Now, in the initial post, I compared the states and provinces included for the stated reasons.........they were close in population numbers, they were close demograpically , in other words, their populations were almost exactly the same.......culturally, racially, etc. The only difference was one area (Canada) staggers along under a very tough regimen of gun control, the other has practically none....even by US standards.

Yet the Canadian rates are significantly higher.

Game Set Match, IMHO.

Yet in the US where guns can be bought by anyone that wants them the murder rates are far higher than anywhere else.

Baloney.

Murder Rate by Country - Intentional Homicide - 2007 Rank - Countries Rankings

As I mentioned above, we can have all the regulation we want on guns, but for the fact that they can be bought in quantity without question in the US and brought across the border with relative ease they are rendered useless. Allowing a huge loophole that ensures anyone with money and some nerve can go out and get a handgun anytime they want, makes all regulation nearly useless. It's in closing that loophole and making the transfer of any gun at any time require the same checks and paperwork that is required of professional retail gun stores, that will allow all those Canadian regulations to have a much greater effect.


Baloney. We live in a peaceful society, a very peaceful society........we do not need to harass and suspend the rights of a number of our citizens (or those of the USA) in some futile attempt to make life completely safe from any shock or bullet. It doesn't work, it is a waste of time and resources, and it is dangerous to our liberty. Give it up.

 

[ironsides]

You keep saying that but it doesn't look that way in the information available on state gun laws.

Give me a State, and I'll let you know what is needed to purchase a hand weapon there. As mentioned there are no Federal guidelines, just State licensing requirements. I just came back from a gun show and did purchase a handgun. Even though I am licensed to carry, they still ran a check on me.

 

[Zzarchov]

I'd like to point out something that people seem to be missing about with guns. They were invented by people with hammers, anvils and tongs. With the average machine shop you can spit out guns like nothing. They are not terribley complicated devices.

Banning guns is like trying to ban knives at this point. Anyone who wants one can have one.

You are just ensuring that if someone pulls a gun, they can be assured that there is no one around for miles (unless you get damn lucky and a COP happens to be there right now) can do anything to stop them.

 

[Niflmir]

So, anyway, even if firearms are completely banned and Canada is completely free of them, what do we go after next? Knives and clubs? Automobiles? Fat-laden foods?

The links I provided also showed that there was no negative correlation of knife related violence with increasing gun possession. Knives are not used to compensate when there is a lack of guns. You take away the guns and the crimes which would have been committed with guns are simply not committed. Furthermore, we are not talking about banning guns. At the very least, I am not.

....and not criminals....even if they have to be made into criminals first. :-|

You don't register your car, you are a criminal, you don't register your gun, you are a... hero? Something wrong with this state of affairs. I don't see many people clamoring to get rid of the registry of motor vehicles.

There isn't some god given right to own things which are designed to kill people. If I built a nuclear bomb in my backyard there would be very few people standing up for my right to own something designed to destroy whole cities. In fact there would be a lot of people calling for the authorities to stop me. Hand guns, those are designed to kill people. Assault rifles, those are designed to kill people. Machine guns, tanks, cannons, mortars, rockets, and the list goes on. These are things people should not be able to pick up at the local flea market.

People who say things like, "Gun control is completely useless," are either being hyperbolic or are just blind. Forbidding repeat offenders from ever owning a gun, that is gun control. Making people have FAC's before buying guns, that is gun control. Placing limitations on the guns which can be brought across the border and in what volumes, that is gun control. It is pretty obvious that most of these examples have uses.

Similarly, possessing a victim complex is a bad sign. If you honestly think the whole reason people want gun control is to harass law abiding citizens, then you need to see a psychiatrist. Having tons of guns floating around in the hands of people intent on using them against other people is a problem which needs to be dealt with, and any solution is going to fall under the umbrella of "gun control".