Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Niflmir]

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.

The evidence says otherwise. It is a measureable effect. In countries where it is harder to acquire guns, violent crimes are committed less often.

It is easily understandable. Sure, it is not hard to make a gun. But making money legitimately is easier than putting in the effort to make one in order to commit a successful robbery. After all the time learning how to make it shoot straight and silently, probably you are not so angry for revenge either.

My reasoning notwithstanding, it is an empirical question which has been measured: when it is more difficult to acquire guns, violent crimes are not committed as often.

 

[ironsides]

What most of you do not seem to understand is that total restriction of guns is forbidden by our Constitution. If you never had it, you have no idea what it is to lose it. First thing dictators and monarchs in Europe was to disarm the population after a war so they could maintain control. A dictator would disarm the population before taking absolute power. All perfectly legitimate. We have our Second Amendment to protect us from that. People on most States do go thru a complete background check before being allowed to own or carry a weapon.

 

[Unforgiven]

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.

I'm not racist, those are the facts. But the problem isn't just a cultural one, there are a number of other factors. Poverty also has a hand in it. The culture is slowly changing though. The point we're going to have a problem with here is access to guns.

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.

Not with the current set of laws. I think I've covered where that problem originates from. That you don't like it changes nothing.

It is sooooo....disingenuous......to believe that you can stop people that regularly import pounds of cocaine from importing guns....from wherever...

Not using the current massively expensive and ineffective method called the War On Drugs you can't. But that's the only method we've tried so far. But most agree that method should be replaced by another method. This too is highly resisted by mainly the same people who feel that Guns need to be sold over the counter no questions asked.

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......

This has nothing to do with the point but I accept that gangsters would have no problem busting into a police arsenal and stealing all the weapons after suffering the trenches of WWI.

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.

Women weren't allowed to vote either but some how that changed. Why those damn abolitionist went and freed the slaves before that. What's the world coming too?

The constitution argument is nothing more than a red herring.

Thank you for the apology.

You're welcome.

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 demographically , in other words, their populations were almost exactly the same.......culturally, racially, etc.

I expect you will want to check these facts. Almost 1/3 of Saskatchewan is aboriginal. Not even close in the American States you posted. Again poverty and neglect from government has a part in the root cause of this group compared to Whites which is demonstrated in a much higher crime and murder rate among them. Saskatchewan has the highest crime rate in Canada and the majority of the prison population is Aboriginal.

The point being that comparing three mostly White States with low crime rates to three Canadian provinces with a much higher Aboriginal population is not at all accurate.

There is a reason Blacks and Aboriginals have a higher representation in prison.
This is where Whites have made a mark on the culture of others in North America. It's not a reflection of the culture that was, but rather the one that is.

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.

As I said your stats are messed up.

Baloney.

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

:roll:

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.

For the most part we do live in a peaceful society. But we have problems like everyone else and the gun issue needs to be addressed. Guns are made for killing and nothing else. They can't be allowed to fall into the hands of those who fail to abide the laws and safety regulation needed to keep people safe. The idea that they can't be made safe so there is no use trying is ridiculous and defeatist.

I see a major difference between thinking there is nothing that can be done and proper regulation that fits all people who have a stake in the issue. It has nothing to do with liberty. Again a red herring inserted into the discussion.

 

[Unforgiven]

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.

Start at Alabama and finish up at Wyoming.

 

[Unforgiven]

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.

And yet the guns recovered in crime were name brand rather than the home made special you seem to think are all the rage. :roll:

 

[Niflmir]

What most of you do not seem to understand is that total restriction of guns is forbidden by our Constitution. If you never had it, you have no idea what it is to lose it. First thing dictators and monarchs in Europe was to disarm the population after a war so they could maintain control. A dictator would disarm the population before taking absolute power. All perfectly legitimate. We have our Second Amendment to protect us from that. People on most States do go thru a complete background check before being allowed to own or carry a weapon.

Thas is a strawman argument; we aren't arguing for complete restriction.

 

[Unforgiven]

People on most States do go thru a complete background check before being allowed to own or carry a weapon.

Sure but only a few of the criminals do and they are difficult to spot as they look exactly like upstanding law abiding gun owners.

 

[Zzarchov]

The evidence says otherwise. It is a measureable effect. In countries where it is harder to acquire guns, violent crimes are committed less often.

It is easily understandable. Sure, it is not hard to make a gun. But making money legitimately is easier than putting in the effort to make one in order to commit a successful robbery. After all the time learning how to make it shoot straight and silently, probably you are not so angry for revenge either.

My reasoning notwithstanding, it is an empirical question which has been measured: when it is more difficult to acquire guns, violent crimes are not committed as often.

Because that's never shown to be the case? In fact where guns are difficult to legally acquire violent crime increases.

This because guns do not make someone a violent criminal, trying to ban guns is trying to cure a symptom and its pointless. The issue isn't that someone has a gun, its that they want to steal, kill or rape someone. You do not need a gun to cause any of those actions and they all occurred (in greater numbers) before guns were brought in.

Now Australia and Britain have shown very conclusively that guns do not impact violent crime, many will try and say the removal of guns has increased violent crime but that's just as farcical.

The truth is that crime rates are increasing because of underlying social issues and whether or not guns exist have no impact on violent crime other than the resolution.

But the logical conclusion is simple, EVERYONE who you trust with a vote should be entrusted with a gun. If you can't trust someone with a firearm you can't trust them with voting for how to control the police and military and the use of lethal force. Now how you choose to organize such a society (most people are unarmed and can't vote or most are unarmed and can vote) but I have yet to hear a logical reason why you could ever trust someone with a vote but not a gun. Especially as a country that occasionally holds referendums.

 

[Zzarchov]

Sure but only a few of the criminals do and they are difficult to spot as they look exactly like upstanding law abiding gun owners.

And this is a problem how? How is this different than a car and someone driving without a license or owning stolen cars?

Or someone with a bottle of prescription morphine in their coat pocket versus someone with illegal morphine in their pocket? Someone with a pill bottle full of morphine to sell to kids on the corner looks just like an upstanding law abiding citizen with a medical prescription.

These are criminals who by this definition are going to be carrying an illegal gun either way. And unless the police officer is arresting and searching them for another cause (whether or not guns are illegal) they are never going to have any clue the gun exists.

You aren't advocating a ban on guns you are advocating random search and seizure.

 

[Unforgiven]

And this is a problem how? How is this different than a car and someone driving without a license or owning stolen cars?

Or someone with a bottle of prescription morphine in their coat pocket versus someone with illegal morphine in their pocket? Someone with a pill bottle full of morphine to sell to kids on the corner looks just like an upstanding law abiding citizen with a medical prescription.

These are criminals who by this definition are going to be carrying an illegal gun either way. And unless the police officer is arresting and searching them for another cause (whether or not guns are illegal) they are never going to have any clue the gun exists.

You aren't advocating a ban on guns you are advocating random search and seizure.

It's different in that people are being shot by criminals and killed.
I am advocating neither, I am advocating the closing of a loophole that allows anyone with a little money to buy a gun and more to the point, someone to sell a gun without any record of the sale or a requirement of one.

 

[Niflmir]

Because that's never shown to be the case? In fact where guns are difficult to legally acquire violent crime increases.

This because guns do not make someone a violent criminal, trying to ban guns is trying to cure a symptom and its pointless. The issue isn't that someone has a gun, its that they want to steal, kill or rape someone. You do not need a gun to cause any of those actions and they all occurred (in greater numbers) before guns were brought in.

Now Australia and Britain have shown very conclusively that guns do not impact violent crime, many will try and say the removal of guns has increased violent crime but that's just as farcical.

The truth is that crime rates are increasing because of underlying social issues and whether or not guns exist have no impact on violent crime other than the resolution.

But the logical conclusion is simple, EVERYONE who you trust with a vote should be entrusted with a gun. If you can't trust someone with a firearm you can't trust them with voting for how to control the police and military and the use of lethal force. Now how you choose to organize such a society (most people are unarmed and can't vote or most are unarmed and can vote) but I have yet to hear a logical reason why you could ever trust someone with a vote but not a gun. Especially as a country that occasionally holds referendums.

Those are some nice smoke rings you blow there. Go back a few posts and follow the links that I posted. It has been shown to be the case: access to guns, strongly correlated with violent crime.

In spite of your two hand picked countries. You want to make an empirical claim, you will need better evidence than statistical fallacies.

As to your conclusion, that is another question entirely: for a different thread. I have nowhere said that I disagree with you on that point.

 

[DaSleeper]

It's different in that people are being shot by criminals and killed.
I am advocating neither, I am advocating the closing of a loophole that allows anyone with a little money to buy a gun and more to the point, someone to sell a gun without any record of the sale or a requirement of one.

Then you will have to become an American Citizen to vote there....because that law for handguns has been in effect in Canada since 1934 and registering long guns will not affect crimes committed with handguns......
And the laws can be debated State by State and will never change because their constitution is different than Canada.......
BTW ....I'll be hitting Toronto at the end of September.....and I'm looking for an unregistered clean nine mil........:lol:

 

[Unforgiven]

Then you will have to become an American Citizen to vote there....because that law for handguns has been in effect in Canada since 1934 and registering long guns will not affect crimes committed with handguns......
And the laws can be debated State by State and will never change because their constitution is different than Canada.......

It doesn't matter what laws are in effect in Canada if you can simply sell a gun to a criminal for a profit and have no one know where the gun came from or who sold it to the criminal. We don't secure out border even remotely as tightly as the Americans do and they still have pot coming in Canada along with other drugs, and harder drugs coming in from the Mexico.

Or just legalize Pot and tell the Americans it's their problem not ours and should the retaliate using trade sanctions, we can cut off the oil, gas and electricity until they crumble and do our bidding.

BTW ....I'll be hitting Toronto at the end of September.....and I'm looking for an unregistered clean nine mil........:lol:

I'll hook you up but you know there is an old geezer tax on that. :lol:

 

[Colpy]

Colpy : Quote: 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.
​

​

Unforgiven : Women weren't allowed to vote either but some how that changed. Why those damn abolitionist went and freed the slaves before that. What's the world coming too?

The constitution argument is nothing more than a red herring.

This makes me doubt your rationality....

First you compare one of our oldest libertys to slavery and the disenfranchisement of women.....simply ludicrous.....

Then you call the Bill of Rights of the United States a "red herring".8O The first revolutionary constitution, one of the most important parts of the very foundation of western democractic civilization.

Uh huh.

Well, the Second Amendment is much much more than a red herring....as the US Supreme Court recently showed by overturning the Washington DC ban on handguns.......

 

[Unforgiven]

Unforgiven : Women weren't allowed to vote either but some how that changed. Why those damn abolitionist went and freed the slaves before that. What's the world coming too?

The constitution argument is nothing more than a red herring.

That's why the Constitution has amendments.
I can't in my wildest dreams that the authors of that document felt that having guns available to anyone and everyone was a good idea.

Further, interpretation of the court does not include the right to keep any weapon what so ever. So regulation is accepted and has stood the test of trial to the highest degree. Allowing the sale of any firearms without consideration of restriction of weapons and felons is not protected under the second amendment right.

 

[Unforgiven]

[/left]

This makes me doubt your rationality....

As I do yours. ;-)

First you compare one of our oldest libertys to slavery and the disenfranchisement of women.....simply ludicrous.....

Well not yours, as you're Canadian in Canada correct? :smile:

Then you call the Bill of Rights of the United States a "red herring".8O The first revolutionary constitution, one of the most important parts of the very foundation of western democractic civilization.

Introduced into this thread as some blanket right it is.

Well, the Second Amendment is much much more than a red herring....as the US Supreme Court recently showed by overturning the Washington DC ban on handguns.......

It did in fact find that a ban on handguns in the home to be a violation of the Second Amendment. Of course the opinion goes on:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Thus it is the obligation of the State or in this case the D.C. to ensure that Heller or anyone making application for a license is not disqualified from excersizing his Second Amendment Rights.

As I mentioned having a handgun at home, being a legally licensed owner and selling a gun privately without any permit, license, or transfer papers remains perfectly legal in many States. The Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with that.

It remains that the only people who are in support of the current situation are criminals and apparently the law abiding gun lobby.

 

[pegger]

Come on Colpy - the US Constitution was written 250 years ago. You don't think there has been some substantial changes in EVERYTHING since then?

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven;1136467]That's why the Constitution has amendments.
I can't in my wildest dreams that the authors of that document felt that having guns available to anyone and everyone was a good idea.

If you read the writings of those involved, especially Thomas jefferson and james Madison, it would become obvious that that is exactly what they had in mind.......everybody armed. indeed, read John Locke, or more importantly, William Blackstone (the definitive writings on English common law) .

Further, interpretation of the court does not include the right to keep any weapon what so ever. So regulation is accepted and has stood the test of trial to the highest degree. Allowing the sale of any firearms without consideration of restriction of weapons and felons is not protected under the second amendment right.

Well, it is unfortunate that the Justices cannot read "........the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" But they have done reasonably well, their interpretation struck down as far too restrictive a law that was pretty much the same as current Canadian law.

As for Amendments.....good luck with that. The vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment......and the amendment process is terrifically hard to carry out, requiring large majorities across the nation. this is as it should be.

So, the constitution becomes a "red herring" when those that do not understand Liberty emerge victorious and strike down the Bill of Rights.

Until then, it is anything but......

 

[Unforgiven]

Unforgiven;1136467]That's why the Constitution has amendments.
I can't in my wildest dreams that the authors of that document felt that having guns available to anyone and everyone was a good idea.

If you read the writings of those involved, especially Thomas jefferson and james Madison, it would become obvious that that is exactly what they had in mind.......everybody armed. indeed, read John Locke, or more importantly, William Blackstone (the definitive writings on English common law) .

So you think they felt that everyone, more importantly the police, being out gunned to the nth degree was the idea behind the Second Amendment?

There are plenty of places that have guns everywhere but none of them are places where either of us would choose to live. Why does turning all of North America into something like that appeal or do you just no see that happening?

Further, interpretation of the court does not include the right to keep any weapon what so ever. So regulation is accepted and has stood the test of trial to the highest degree. Allowing the sale of any firearms without consideration of restriction of weapons and felons is not protected under the second amendment right.

Well, it is unfortunate that the Justices cannot read "........the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" But they have done reasonably well, their interpretation struck down as far too restrictive a law that was pretty much the same as current Canadian law.

Of course now all guns in D.C. have to be registered and licensed which allows for a trace back of each gun the police recover. So in a round about way, they make closing the gun show loophole.

As for Amendments.....good luck with that. The vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment......and the amendment process is terrifically hard to carry out, requiring large majorities across the nation. this is as it should be.

So, the constitution becomes a "red herring" when those that do not understand Liberty emerge victorious and strike down the Bill of Rights.

Until then, it is anything but......

2/3 of both Houses. I would say the first thing that should happen is to remove the influence of the NRA and the gun lobby from the political system. Then politicians can vote what they think is right rather than what protects their job.

Further once it's established that it's not banning guns but rather closing a loophole in the current legislation while allowing some of the restrictions to drop off I am sure it will pass eventually. It's only a matter of time and attrition letting the backward ideas of gun ownership fade away.

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven: That's why the Constitution has amendments.
I can't in my wildest dreams that the authors of that document felt that having guns available to anyone and everyone was a good idea.

Colpy: If you read the writings of those involved, especially Thomas jefferson and james Madison, it would become obvious that that is exactly what they had in mind.......everybody armed. indeed, read John Locke, or more importantly, William Blackstone (the definitive writings on English common law) .


Unforgiven; So you think they felt that everyone, more importantly the police, being out gunned to the nth degree was the idea behind the Second Amendment?

Yes. Not out-gunned, but equally gunned. The people are the militia, the people are to be armed in such a way that they can defend themselves and resist tyranny. To that end the people have a right to keep and bear arms roughly the equivalent of what a US soldier carries as his personal weapons, ie and assault rifle and handgun.

You have to understand the reason for this: the first battle of the American Revolutionary War was fought when British troops went into the countryside to seize arms.......

You see, unlike today's lefties, the folks that penned the Bill of Rights (at the insistence of the Continental Congress) trusted the majority........

Unforgiven: There are plenty of places that have guns everywhere but none of them are places where either of us would choose to live. Why does turning all of North America into something like that appeal or do you just no see that happening?

You wouldn't like to live in Switzerland, or Finland? Or the parts of the USA that are most heavily armed.....but have lower murder rates than Canada????? For that matter, Newfoundland has the highest gun ownership rates of any province in Canada.....and the lowest murder rate.....I am not afraid of guns, or any other inanimate object.

Unforgiven: Further, interpretation of the court does not include the right to keep any weapon what so ever. So regulation is accepted and has stood the test of trial to the highest degree. Allowing the sale of any firearms without consideration of restriction of weapons and felons is not protected under the second amendment right.

True....but it can only be restricted to felons.......

Unforgiven: Of course now all guns in D.C. have to be registered and licensed which allows for a trace back of each gun the police recover. So in a round about way, they make closing the gun show loophole.

Geez, that is an obsession with you, isn't it??? Where is the highest rate of murder in the USA???? For years it was Washington, DC. Their gun bans worked wonders, didn't they?

Unforgiven: 2/3 of both Houses.

...After the approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures. :lol: Good luck with that. :lol: The Bill of Rights is (correctly) considered second only to the 10 Commandments as Holy Script in the USA.

Unforgiven: I would say the first thing that should happen is to remove the influence of the NRA and the gun lobby from the political system. Then politicians can vote what they think is right rather than what protects their job.

The politicians fear for their jobs because the 4 million members of the NRA VOTE to defend their rights, as do tens of millions of others who do not belong, but do pay attention. It is called Democracy, you should look it up.:roll:

Unforgiven: Further once it's established that it's not banning guns but rather closing a loophole in the current legislation while allowing some of the restrictions to drop off I am sure it will pass eventually. It's only a matter of time and attrition letting the backward ideas of gun ownership fade away

Yeah, along with all those other backward ideas we fought over for 1,000 years....like freedom of speech, of religion, the right to participate in our gov't etc.

Democracy and political freedom are parallel developments with firearms. Weapons in the hands of all the people won us freedom and a civilized society....and easy access to such is the "canary in the cage" of our political freeedoms........and this is what gun owners understand instinctively....when they start taking away your guns, your freedom is next.