Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[JLM]

Again you make the argument that if someone is taking your crufty old vcr that it's your life that is threatened and you should have the right to blow their head off.

No one has ever said you can't or should not be allowed to defend yourself if your life is threatened. That's written into the law as self defense.

You don't have the right to shoot someone for stealing something from you. That's insane. As in sane as thinking that if you feel threatened, that you have some right to shoot someone. You don't have that right at all. You have to actually be threatened and as a reasonable person, expect that your life is in danger.

This bull about everyone being armed makes for polite society is just that. When the West was being settled back in the early 19th century, everyone had guns and about the last thing it was, was polite.

You make some good points but you also miss one important point, in that a lot of deaths have occurred to people while being burglarized, the miscreant didn't plan it that way. So my advice is if you are being burglarized and want to guarantee that you come out of it alive, you shoot the bastard (hopefully just to maim)

 

[petros]

Burglarized? It's 2009 and you still have no alarm system with humans monitoring? And just so you know, it's impossible to cut the cel phone wires.

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven; Again you make the argument that if someone is taking your crufty old vcr that it's your life that is threatened and you should have the right to blow their head off.

No. Please read again. I said I have the right to prevent them stealing my crusty old VCR, my discarded shoes, or my dirty underwear. If they wish to resort to violence in an attempt to steal from me, then I have a right to defend myself. Whether that exactly fits the law would be determined by a judge and jury......but it is my right.


No one has ever said you can't or should not be allowed to defend yourself if your life is threatened. That's written into the law as self defense.

Lethal force can only be used "if you or someone else is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm" I taught this to armoured car guards when I was firearms trainer......

But until quite recently (I mean a couple of decades.....) the law was you could use any force necessary to prevent a crime being commited. Much more sensible.

You don't have the right to shoot someone for stealing something from you. That's insane. As in sane as thinking that if you feel threatened, that you have some right to shoot someone. You don't have that right at all. You have to actually be threatened and as a reasonable person, expect that your life is in danger.

It is not at all insane to allow one to use force to prevent criminal acts.....and if that act escalates to a point where you are in danger of "death or grievous bodily harm", then lethal force can be used.

This bull about everyone being armed makes for polite society is just that. When the West was being settled back in the early 19th century, everyone had guns and about the last thing it was, was polite

Wrong again. Just take a look at the stats at the beginning of this thread........the comparison between violence rates in the Canadian west, where our gov't has enforced a gun-fearing cultiure.......and rates in the American west, where everyone owns a .45, a lot of people carry them, and assault rifles are perfectly OK....well it is illuminating.

BTW, in the 19th century you were much more likely to be murdered in the "civilized" cities of the US eastern seaboard than on the western frontier. Historical fact.

 

[DaSleeper]

Question: What is the average response time when calling 911 in Toronto or any big center....and how long does the burglar have to get out of your house when you call...And ....what do you expect him to do if he thinks you can describe him to the police???

 

[Colpy]

I don't think I have missed the point at all. What seems to be at issue is that while attempting to knock down any and all attempts to prevent death by firearms, you fail to offer up any alternative provision to help do so.

There are very, very few preventable firearms deaths in Canada.....a few accidents, the very occassional murder, .....the vast majority are suicides.

While this might have been the case in 1776 it is not the case now. There are plenty of countries in Africa, the Mideast and Eastern Europe that are armed to the teeth and ripe with tyranny. Guns don't change that at all.

Different case....in most of those places it is NOT the people who are armed, it is the military and various militias or armed rebels.........supported and armed by outside national entities.

But didn't you just contradict yourself? It's a ridiculous to think you're in any way going to stop the police, as an extension of the government should they decide you are a danger to yourself or others. It doesn't matter how many guns you have.

WOW....please read again.....I said I would not try to stop the police with armed force...........not in a simple attempt to confiscate guns.

Of course it's relevant to this discussion. Explain how? There is no connection between my firearms and the guns smuggled in from the USA. No law you pass restricting my access to legally-imported firearms can possible have any effect on smuggling.

No one gives a damn if you're out having fun with your guns. It's the guns that are used in crime that is the concern. For no other fact than a gun turns a 140 weakling into a killing machine that can bring down anyone regardless of the circumstances.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are smuggled. See above.

That what is preventable and the focus of all gun laws. Not some distorted straw man argument that the government just wants to disarm the law abiding gun owners so it can boot down the door and go SS on the public.

The US is the source of the gun problem in Canada. You can buy a gun legally in the US as you know very easily. What's more, you can buy a gun in the US illegally even easier. All you need is a little money. Like that's a big deal in North America.
So if you can buy a gun and smuggle it across an unsecured border, who's problem is it? As a gun owner and enthusiast I would say that problem rests on your shoulders rather than those of someone who doesn't own a gun, doesn't want to own a gun and has no need of guns at all.

THAT is not even logical. I have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with smuggled weapons. I have no way of preventing smuggling, and moreover, no law passed to limit my possession and use of firearms can have any effect on the smuggling of weapons or their use in Canada.


Exactly the attitude most gun owners have. "Not my problem" yet when someone comes along who isn't a gun owner that doesn't understand the issues clearly and invokes law that fails to address the problem, you, the gun owner, jump in with both feet. If you were to take matters into your hands to begin with and provide some reasonable regulation to help keep hand guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place, no one would have to step up and do that job for you.

It's a simple thing, have all the guns you want just make sure that some kook can't get ahold of one. This is some sort of outrageous thing to ask of you and just because you leave guns guns guns laying around every where a gun can possibly be left, shouldn't mean that it's your problem in any way. It's everyone's problem but yours. Yet you're the only one bothered if they come and take your guns away.

Gun owners by and large are the biggest enablers of gun crime in North America if you ask me

It becomes very clear that you are incapable of treating this issue rationally. Your emotional response is simply not sensible. There is no corelation between vetted, harassed. licensed, background-checked Canadian gun owners and the use of smuggled guns by criminals. To repeatedly insist there is shows a bit of an illogical obsession with the idea that anyone is armed. Please, calm down and try to deal with the issue logically.

 

[missile]

If one of the weaker members of our society is attacked by someone much stronger,shouldn't they be able to use any form of self defense they have to defend themselves? Even a firearm? I think so.

 

[Unforgiven]

No. Please read again. I said I have the right to prevent them stealing my crusty old VCR, my discarded shoes, or my dirty underwear. If they wish to resort to violence in an attempt to steal from me, then I have a right to defend myself. Whether that exactly fits the law would be determined by a judge and jury......but it is my right.

No you don't have the right to prevent them from stealing anything if it involves putting your hands on them. It doesn't fit the law and you would be found guilty of a number of crimes the worst of which is manslaughter and so should spend a damn good portion of your life in jail, and never be allowed near a gun again.

Lethal force can only be used "if you or someone else is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm" I taught this to armoured car guards when I was firearms trainer......

And you dettermine this to mean should some steal your dirty underwear, from your laundry you are in danger? I think it's pretty why you're not interested in participating in the regulation of firearms in Canada.

But until quite recently (I mean a couple of decades.....) the law was you could use any force necessary to prevent a crime being commited. Much more sensible.

I expect it was changed to prevent gun nuts from shooting people over dirty $2 walmart underwear. Sensible? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It is not at all insane to allow one to use force to prevent criminal acts.....and if that act escalates to a point where you are in danger of "death or grievous bodily harm", then lethal force can be used.

Yeah it is. You can't shoot people on the 401 for passing you and you can't shoot people crossing the street in the middle of the block, even if you have to slow your truck down. Sorry Colpy, it's just not allowed.

Wrong again. Just take a look at the stats at the beginning of this thread........the comparison between violence rates in the Canadian west, where our gov't has enforced a gun-fearing cultiure.......and rates in the American west, where everyone owns a .45, a lot of people carry them, and assault rifles are perfectly OK....well it is illuminating.

Yeah illuminating that you had to go manufacture your own stats. Not like there are no stats available on this subject. Just that they don't support what you say.

BTW, in the 19th century you were much more likely to be murdered in the "civilized" cities of the US eastern seaboard than on the western frontier. Historical fact.

Not according to the Indians. Places like Aurora and Bodie were hands down, far more violent than back in the East. Historical Fact.

 

[petros]

Something I'd like to try as a "let's see what happens".

Arm everyone in PEI, broadcast false TV and radio that says China has invaded from the West coast giving the PEIons hour by hour updates of when they will set foot on the red mud and then let God sort em' all out.

 

[Colpy]

No you don't have the right to prevent them from stealing anything if it involves putting your hands on them. It doesn't fit the law and you would be found guilty of a number of crimes the worst of which is manslaughter and so should spend a damn good portion of your life in jail, and never be allowed near a gun again.

Wrong. You forget, I used to teach this stuff. You are legally allowed to use force to prevent the commission of a crime.....but that force can only be the minimum necessary to prevent the crime being committed.....and lethal force can only be used if someone is in danger of death or serious harm.



And you dettermine this to mean should some steal your dirty underwear, from your laundry you are in danger? I think it's pretty why you're not interested in participating in the regulation of firearms in Canada.

Why thank you. I think I'm pretty too.

Read what I said. I can use equal force to prevent theft from me...I can put hands on them, in fact, if I am executing a citizen's arrest I must put hands on them for it to be legally in effect.....they have a choice, escalate the situation, or not. My use of force can legally match theirs....up until the use of lethal force becomes necessary.




I expect it was changed to prevent gun nuts from shooting people over dirty $2 walmart underwear. Sensible? I don't think that word means what you think it means.



Yeah it is. You can't shoot people on the 401 for passing you and you can't shoot people crossing the street in the middle of the block, even if you have to slow your truck down. Sorry Colpy, it's just not allowed.

Yeah illuminating that you had to go manufacture your own stats. Not like there are no stats available on this subject. Just that they don't support what you say.


I didn't manufacture the stats, I used, in fact, the most anti-gun sources possible in the USA as sources.....and stats Canada in Canada.......If you bothered to check, I quoted my sources.

And I don't appreciate being called a liar.

An apology is expected.
Not according to the Indians. Places like Aurora and Bodie were hands down, far more violent than back in the East. Historical Fact.

Sigh. We're talking about conventional criminal behaviour here....not intercine warfare. Gimme a break

 

[ironsides]

A mans home is his castle and he can and should be able to do anything defending it from intruders. Somebody breaks in assume they are going to hurt or kill you and or your family. If possible kill them, worry about consequences later.

 

[petros]

A mans home is his castle

So build a moat and stock it with alligators.

 

[JLM]

[/color]

No you don't have the right to prevent them from stealing anything if it involves putting your hands on them. It doesn't fit the law and you would be found guilty of a number of crimes the worst of which is manslaughter and so should spend a damn good portion of your life in jail, and never be allowed near a gun again.



And you dettermine this to mean should some steal your dirty underwear, from your laundry you are in danger? I think it's pretty why you're not interested in participating in the regulation of firearms in Canada.




I expect it was changed to prevent gun nuts from shooting people over dirty $2 walmart underwear. Sensible? I don't think that word means what you think it means.



Yeah it is. You can't shoot people on the 401 for passing you and you can't shoot people crossing the street in the middle of the block, even if you have to slow your truck down. Sorry Colpy, it's just not allowed.



Yeah illuminating that you had to go manufacture your own stats. Not like there are no stats available on this subject. Just that they don't support what you say.




Not according to the Indians. Places like Aurora and Bodie were hands down, far more violent than back in the East. Historical Fact.

I think in court a lot would depend on the perpetrator. If he breaks in and he's unarmed, I think you could be in hot water if you shot him. However if he is armed with a gun, a knife or a crowbar, I don't think any self respecting judge would have much sympathy for him. On the other hand if he were to come into your bedroom and you shot him while you were startled and still half asleep, I don't think much would happen to you.

 

[ironsides]

So build a moat and stock it with alligators.

Nah, Then if the gators bite someone, they can sue you. Animal rights groups will be on your back. Shooting best answer.

 

[petros]

Animals get two bites before being put down. Ever fired a weapon while ****ting yourself with fear? Do you think you'd hit your target?

 

[taxslave]

Question: What is the average response time when calling 911 in Toronto or any big center....and how long does the burglar have to get out of your house when you call...And ....what do you expect him to do if he thinks you can describe him to the police???

Good question. Don't know about Toronto but I do know that when you live in a rural area response time is at least twenty minutes. Better to just call an ambulance for the looser.

 

[Colpy]

Animals get two bites before being put down. Ever fired a weapon while ****ting yourself with fear? Do you think you'd hit your target?

When I worked training, the company bought a targeted training device.....you stand on the range, hot (fully loaded) in front of a sheet screen, on which a filmed scenario is shown....you are expected to respond to attack as you would on the street....issuing warnings, taking cover, firing live rounds....the whole scene then is reviewed for proper reaction and hit scoring.....

Unfortunately, my branch closed and I was out of work, so I never got to try it.......but my boss (a GOOD shot) did. He fired 7 rounds at an attacker at 7 yards. Hit him once. Said his hands were sweaty and shaking like hell, he could hardly yell his warnings, and couldn't shoot straight.

That's at a simulated attacker.....

 

[petros]

When I worked training, the company bought a targeted training device.....you stand on the range, hot (fully loaded) in front of a sheet screen, on which a filmed scenario is shown....you are expected to respond to attack as you would on the street....issuing warnings, taking cover, firing live rounds....the whole scene then is reviewed for proper reaction and hit scoring.....

Unfortunately, my branch closed and I was out of work, so I never got to try it.......but my boss (a GOOD shot) did. He fired 7 rounds at an attacker at 7 yards. Hit him once. Said his hands were sweaty and shaking like hell, he could hardly yell his warnings, and couldn't shoot straight.

That's at a simulated attacker.....

Exactly. You can have all the weapons you want but if aren't cool, calm, collected they are pretty much useless.

So what happens after you've emptied the chamber missing the intruder but pumped all 6 shots through the bedroom wall right into your kids room through flimsy drywall?

 

[Unforgiven]

There are very, very few preventable firearms deaths in Canada.....a few accidents, the very occasional murder, .....the vast majority are suicides.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
Without very easy access to guns these numbers would not even be close to what they are now.

In 33 States you can simply walk into a Gun Show and buy a gun or many guns off private vendors without as much as a handshake. That you can cross from the US into Canada with little more than a wave or declaring a couple of bottles of booze, I would have to say that a lot of the gun crime in Canada, especially the killing of bystanders but more so murder can be prevented.

Of course the biggest hurdle to stopping the gun show loophole are those law abiding peaceful gun owners. Ain't that an odd coincidence?

Different case....in most of those places it is NOT the people who are armed, it is the military and various militias or armed rebels.........supported and armed by outside national entities.

Militia, armed rebel, peaceful gun owner, gun nut, A gun club is a gun club. That the NRA supports it and the American gun industry provides it is no different that your outside national interest.

WOW....please read again.....I said I would not try to stop the police with armed force...........not in a simple attempt to confiscate guns.

Hmmm, you say that your guns are the only thing that prevent governmental tyranny, that should anyone come to steal your stuff, even if it's your dirty underwear, you would stop them. Should they escalate things to violence you would and feel you have the right to shoot them. But you wouldn't try to stop the police, a government agent, from coming in to your home uninvited, to take without any recompense all your guns that you seem to hold in high regard and dare I say cherish? Sorry if I am mistaken in thinking this a flip flop.

Explain how? There is no connection between my firearms and the guns smuggled in from the USA. No law you pass restricting my access to legally-imported firearms can possible have any effect on smuggling.

All guns come from the same place. All but Para as far as I know anyway.
You as a gun owner should be a leading advocate of keeping guns out of criminal hands. No one should know more about the best methods to prevent firearms from being used illegally. This cry of "what's it got to do with me" is exactly why people who don't know enough about the issues and more importantly, the little loop holes that allow a multiple felon to walk into a gun show of all places and walk out with a box full of guns, ammo and all the stuff necessary to outfit and arm a gang of criminals.

This all out war via political lobby on gun regulation tells a different tale.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are smuggled. See above

.

Yeah we're all aware of that. See above.

THAT is not even logical. I have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with smuggled weapons. I have no way of preventing smuggling, and moreover, no law passed to limit my possession and use of firearms can have any effect on the smuggling of weapons or their use in Canada.

So what you're trying to tell me here is that it's illogical to consider closing the gun show loophole which allows a gun owner in the US, like yourself, to sell guns to someone else without any back ground check, wait time or even knowing the persons name. More so, to make any attempt, knowing this is the case in 33 States in the US to prevent people and their guns from crossing the border into Canada with them, unless they walk up to Border guards with the guns in hand?

Didn't we just figure out that we have to give our border guards guns to keep them from running away should someone at the border brandish a weapon when entering Canada? Awesome!

It becomes very clear that you are incapable of treating this issue rationally. Your emotional response is simply not sensible. There is no correlation between vetted, harassed. licensed, background-checked Canadian gun owners and the use of smuggled guns by criminals. To repeatedly insist there is shows a bit of an illogical obsession with the idea that anyone is armed. Please, calm down and try to deal with the issue logically.

You can call me emotional all you like but it doesn't stand as a answer for the questions you obviously don't want to acknowledge. Claiming someone has to go through inspection, training, certification to hold even the most basic of firearms is a joke that borders on and out right lie. No one is worries someone might go through all the regulation, get a gun and start shooting. It's that anyone can get a gun because there are plenty of places to get a gun without any regulation at all that has become the source of criminals arming themselves and eventually killing or wounding innocent bystanders.

Criminals will always be able to get guns as long as law abiding gun owners are willing to sell them without questions.

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven:
So what you're trying to tell me here is that it's illogical to consider closing the gun show loophole which allows a gun owner in the US, like yourself, to sell guns to someone else without any back ground check, wait time or even knowing the persons name. More so, to make any attempt, knowing this is the case in 33 States in the US to prevent people and their guns from crossing the border into Canada with them, unless they walk up to Border guards with the guns in hand?

PAY ATTENTION

I was born, and still live, in Saint John, New Brunswick.

I am not an American.:roll:

Still waiting for that apology.

 

[petros]

Claiming someone has to go through inspection, training, certification to hold even the most basic of firearms is a joke that borders on and out right lie.

Exactly. You can have all the weapons you want but if aren't cool, calm, collected they are pretty much useless.

So what happens after you've emptied the chamber missing the intruder but pumped all 6 shots through the bedroom wall right into your kids room through flimsy drywall?

How many cases per year have innocent kids or adults been shot when somebody missed? Some even happen BLOCKS away from the incident.

Have you ever fired a weapon in fear? Yes or no? Why do crimes happen in broad daylight with hundreds op people around to help? Because those hundreds around are scared ****less. Your neighbour doesn't get out of bed or phone the cops when someone is stealing your car. Why? FEAR that's why.

There is no way in hell I'd ever let an amateur handle lethal weapons in my community, especially some jackass who think's he's John Wayne.