Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Colpy]

And of course you know why that makes news??? It is rarer than hens teeth!! Most killings by guns are by nutbars allowed guns because of loose gun laws. A psychiatrist killing a patient with a gun he feels obliged to carry because of those laws loose laws not exactly what a physician signs up for!! "The oath reads, "first do no harm". What is the world coming to when even doctors need to carry guns!!

"rarer than hens' teeth"???

Firearms are only used at LEAST 108,000 times a year for self-defense in the USA, according to BILL CLINTON'S Dep't of Justice. According to Kleck, they may be used as many as 2.5 million times a year. The truth probably falls somewhere in between.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Oh, and I think the psychiatrist is very very happy he could legally carry a gun.

BTW, in Canada, we loosened our gun laws in 2012.

In 2013 our murder rate dropped to 1.44 per 100,000.............the lowest level level since 1966.

 

[bluebyrd35]

"rarer than hens' teeth"???

Firearms are only used at LEAST 108,000 times a year for self-defense in the USA, according to BILL CLINTON'S Dep't of Justice. According to Kleck, they may be used as many as 2.5 million times a year. The truth probably falls somewhere in between.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Oh, and I think the psychiatrist is very very happy he could legally carry a gun.

BTW, in Canada, we loosened our gun laws in 2012.

In 2013 our murder rate dropped to 1.44 per 100,000.............the lowest level level since 1966.

LOL Not really a logical come back How much loosening of gun laws did we do?? We were already way below the US in deaths by fire arms before loosing our gun laws. First, our economy is not dependent on producing firearms, second, because of so many years of sensible laws, we in Canada, do not NEED to protect ourselves while preforming our daily duties.


Can you imagine any doctor in Canada NEEDING to go to work with a hand gun??

 

[JamesBondo]

LOL Not really a logical come back How much loosening of gun laws did we do?? We were already way below the US in deaths by fire arms before loosing our gun laws. First, our economy is not dependent on producing firearms, second, because of so many years of sensible laws, we in Canada, do not NEED to protect ourselves while preforming our daily duties.


Can you imagine any doctor in Canada NEEDING to go to work with a hand gun??

So what you are saying is Canada has proven that gun laws good or bad are not a significant driving factor in our crime rates. If so, I have always felt this way. Especially when the Liberals were trying to pin toronto murders on duck hunters and ranchers.

 

[JLM]

"rarer than hens' teeth"???

.

I think "scarcer than hen's teeth" was the original expression! -

 

[Colpy]

I think "scarcer than hen's teeth" was the original expression! -

....and you would be correct.

LOL Not really a logical come back How much loosening of gun laws did we do?? We were already way below the US in deaths by fire arms before loosing our gun laws. First, our economy is not dependent on producing firearms, second, because of so many years of sensible laws, we in Canada, do not NEED to protect ourselves while preforming our daily duties.


Can you imagine any doctor in Canada NEEDING to go to work with a hand gun??

I'm glad you recognize that the long gun registry was insignificant.

 

[JamesBondo]

Additionally, the national firearms safety course has not had any affect on murder rates. Although, I am an advocate for safety training and i feel there is good value in safety training, my point is that there is a very distant association - at best - between the demographic that takes safety training and the demographic that murders.

 

[Ludlow]

We live in a violent world. It has been said by someone many years ago that the best way to destroy your enemies, is to make them your friend. But, they cannot be my friend unless they agree with my view of things. When they agree with me, then they can be my friend. I hate guns. I hate all weapons which were designed to conquer, subdue and dominate others. I don't have the answer to gun violence considering the circumstances that we have created for ourselves as a society. But maybe the one of the answers to those circumstances, is to try and figure out why we view our neighbors as objects rather than fellow human beings.

 

[Grievous]

Didn't a doctor just stop some nut from shooting up a hospital.


He took a gun to work for years, good thing he didn't forget it that day.

 

[Colpy]

[Video] Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Accidentally Made a Pro-Gun Commercial

Even these people!!!!

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/128518.html

 

[bluebyrd35]

So what you are saying is Canada has proven that gun laws good or bad are not a significant driving factor in our crime rates. If so, I have always felt this way. Especially when the Liberals were trying to pin toronto murders on duck hunters and ranchers.

No that is NOT what I am saying. I am merely pointing out that our laws seem to be working whereas those of the US are a total failure. The very rare occasion where by chance one nutball in thousands is stopped by that one person who is paranoid & fearful enough to routinely walk around armed is not the kind of society I care for.

Didn't a doctor just stop some nut from shooting up a hospital.


He took a gun to work for years, good thing he didn't forget it that day.

Ahhhh and why do you supposed he did that?? I can think of several reasons. He routinely deals with insane people he is afraid of, like some rare people he had a strong premonition, or it perhaps his biggest wish was to become a hero. As a psychiatrist shouldn't he
have known how close to total meltdown his patient was? It really doesn't matter, does it?? If seat belts save lives, as do antismoking laws, why are stricter laws tracking and governing into who's hands guns end up in, so offensive to some??t


Oh and how funny, that description of the chicken species lack of teeth is so important to some. Now if the same importance could be transferred, into safer methods of tracking machines produced specifically for killing our species, what a grand world this would be.

 

[JamesBondo]

No that is NOT what I am saying. I am merely pointing out that our laws seem to be working whereas those of the US are a total failure.

Thank you for stating your position.


I agree that Canada's laws seem to be working, but I would have to guess that we differ in the meaning. For me, Canada's laws seemed to be working quite well before all of the various gun laws in the past 30 years and, thankfully, they have continued to work well regardless of the various gun laws. Additionally, I believe that the US's problems support my position quite well because the US's various pro-gun and anti-gun laws haven't significantly affected their problems.


Micheal Moore might have been onto something when he suggested that other societal properties other than gun ownership/gun laws are what makes Canada a 'gun toting country that works'

 

[bluebyrd35]

And of course, the murder rate in Canada skyrocketed in 2012, the first full year after the elimination of the long gun registry.....the streets of our largest cities were choked with the bodies of the dead and dying, as Wendy Cukier predicted....

Oh.

Just kidding.



The Daily — Police-reported crime statistics, 2013

We had VERY little gun control in 1966.

It has been suggested that........Canadians. except for a small number, prefer reason and good sense rather than force in daily life due to how our country came into being.. Our country was born more from passive resistance than violence and this beginning worked for us. The US on the other hand was formed out of violence and war and this worked for them.


It does not mean Canadians are weak or cowardly, because we are NOT. We are secure enough in who we are and the country we brought into being that we can negotiate in most situations rather than resort to violence and force.


Both countries (US and Canada), are ongoing creations and when and how we use negotiation or violence to solve our problems will determine the kind of society we end up with.


There is a difference between allowing producers of an item the only purpose of which is to kill or main, with no restrictions and making it a privilege to own and use such an item. Rules, to make sure they do not end up in the hands,of children, the mentally unstable, or ,criminals, many of which are in force already, need to remain. Courses on the use of firearms, licenses etc.for those who enjoy hunting,(other than the human species) or sharp-shooting, can continue to enjoy such pass times. .

 

[JamesBondo]

.....g producers of an item the only purpose of which is to kill or main...

OMG! Do you mean every time a police officer prevents a crime or captures a criminal - without getting off a couple of shots - that is a defacto OFF LABEL use of a deadly device?!?!?!

Do you think it is wise for police to operate outside the manufacturer's design and application? What is really attrocious is when a sportman uses it to shot paper donuts, don't they know they are supposed to be killing or maiming everything in sight?

It has countries (US and Canada)...Rules, to make sure they do not end up in the hands,of children....

At age 6, I was shooting pellet guns, 8 .22lr, 10 12gauge shotgun, and 12 .308 winchester. There is absolutely no problem with children learning to handle firearms safely and responsibly with their family. Your idea of hiding firearms and locking them away is best implimented by a parent that gives a damn about their child in the first place. If someone is not up to the task, then don't bring the firearm into the house, but the problem is not the firearm it is bad parenting.

 

[bluebyrd35]

OMG! Do you mean every time a police officer prevents a crime or captures a criminal - without getting off a couple of shots - that is a defacto OFF LABEL use of a deadly device?!?!?!

Do you think it is wise for police to operate outside the manufacturer's design and application? What is really attrocious is when a sportman uses it to shot paper donuts, don't they know they are supposed to be killing or maiming everything in sight?



At age 6, I was shooting pellet guns, 8 .22lr, 10 12gauge shotgun, and 12 .308 winchester. There is absolutely no problem with children learning to handle firearms safely and responsibly with their family. Your idea of hiding firearms and locking them away is best implimented by a parent that gives a damn about their child in the first place. If someone is not up to the task, then don't bring the firearm into the house, but the problem is not the firearm it is bad parenting.

Excuse me .....but are you implying that arresting someone or stopping a crime without firearms is impossible??? Do you say that without a gun a crime could neither be stopped nor prevented?? Geez all this time, has my alarm system been useless as a deterrent to being robbed or broken into while away?? I live alone in the country and can still answer my door at night without worry. However, that does not mean I don't check who is there before opening the door or that there is not a can of wasp spray close to hand.


Young children are not capable of envisioning all the results of their actions. That is the reason insurance companies charge young drivers rates they do. And it appears that many people never develop such an ability.


There is and always have been hunting rifles in this area and until the law of locking up guns and keeping them out of the way of children, there were children who lost their sight and were injured or killed by such carelessness.. Oh, I must ask, do use you your guns for anything other than shooting at things/animals?? you know, like hammer in nails or cleaning your ears??

 

[DaSleeper]

Think of the children........

 

[JamesBondo]

Excuse me .....but are you implying that arresting someone or stopping a crime without firearms is impossible???

Nope, there is no need to imply that because you haven't implyed that the police stop using firearms, so for you it is about preventing crime with firearms unless an armed innocent civilian is part of a story where the police are minutes away.

 

[B00Mer]

-- In 1979 it was discovered that more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a women is known to carry a concealed weapon (gun) less than 4% of the attempted rapes were actually successful, proving that women carrying a guns or other weapons are less likely to face the threat of rape. This, to me sounds like a great reason why fellow citizens should be able to carry weapons in their house-hold, especially women.

-- Without them, people are left vulnerable and defenceless. The people who are commiting the crimes, could get them from the black market. Putting a law on guns would just reduce the amount of good people with guns. If guns didnt exist, what would you do to protect your family?How would you scare someone off?

 

[Colpy]

 

[bluebyrd35]

Nope, there is no need to imply that because you haven't implyed that the police stop using firearms, so for you it is about preventing crime with firearms unless an armed innocent civilian is part of a story where the police are minutes away.

I never ever suggested that police should not be armed, only that Canada's laws in comparison with the US's are superior. When gun ownership is higher that the population that is an open invitation to increased violence of all kinds. The type of guns allowed into the hands of non-military personal or police, should be very severely monitored and restricted. Laws governing weapons of all kinds are an absolute necessity to a reasonably peaceful society.


Now as to Mr. Bondo's reply....Stats show that 1 in 4 women have experienced violence by a spouse or boyfriend and that 7 MILLION children live in families in which severe partner violence occurs. 500 women are raped or sexually assaulted each day in the US. Now, we both know that boys and young men are also raped daily, done in jail, or by those close to them. So do we arm youngsters and the incarcerated as well as all those women??. Not the best solution in my opinion but then I see the difference between men and women regarding violence.


Using rape as your argument for allowing concealed guns or having everyone armed to the teeth is beyond silly. Rape is violence and is generally perpetrated by men. And please don't even suggest women rapists equal those of men.


So, I guess that means, the incarcerated and all young children should be armed.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I never ever suggested that police should not be armed, only that Canada's laws in comparison with the US's are superior. When gun ownership is higher that the population that is an open invitation to increased violence of all kinds. The type of guns allowed into the hands of non-military personal or police, should be very severely monitored and restricted. Laws governing weapons of all kinds are an absolute necessity to a reasonably peaceful society.

That's a great theory, but it turns out there are lots more factors than the mere presence or ownership of guns. Turns out there is no correlation between prevalence of gun ownership and violence, or even prevalence of gun ownership and gun violence, among the states. Some high-ownership states have a lot of violence, some have relatively little. Some low-ownership states, and those with the strictest laws, have high levels of violence and gun violence.

The only conclusion that can be drawn so far is that if there is any correlation between gun ownership and gun violence at all, it is only one factor among many in a very complex system. Or that there is no correlation.

Now as to Mr. Bondo's reply....Stats show that 1 in 4 women have experienced violence by a spouse or boyfriend and that 7 MILLION children live in families in which severe partner violence occurs. 500 women are raped or sexually assaulted each day in the US. Now, we both know that boys and young men are also raped daily, done in jail, or by those close to them. So do we arm youngsters and the incarcerated as well as all those women??. Not the best solution in my opinion but then I see the difference between men and women regarding violence.

It's probably not as great as you think. According to Dr. James Fox of Northeastern University, 40% of all partner abuse, 35% of all severe partner abuse, defined as partner abuse requiring medical attention, and 33% of all partner homicide is committed by women on men in heterosexual couples. And it's generally known among those who pay attention that the majority of child abuse is committed by women (though that can be accounted for by the fact that women have far more interaction with children than men). The point is that, while it is true that men commit more violence than women, the popular perception that violence by women is rare isn't borne out by the facts.

Not that I'm presenting that as a reason to own guns, mind. Just correcting what may be some misperceptions. Can't do good reasoning without accurate facts.