Why you have no right to bear arms

[freebuddy]

[Nuxfanabroad]

All just practice, as he wound up a well trained monkey for the nasty, right-wing PTB...

[freebuddy]

https://mobile.twitter.com/undeadmolly/status/549002344500035584/photo/1

[freebuddy]

All just practice, as he wound up a well trained monkey for the nasty, right-wing PTB...

Yes, I don't know whether it caused his Alzheimer's, or his Alzheimer's was something that caused him to support the NRA.

[freebuddy]

Basically everyone in Switzerland keeps a gun in the home and are pretty safe. There's also countless responsible gun owners in the US who never are endangered.

Also, you have to account for the countless people assaulted in events where no gun was involved. If a woman is being raped her best chance of protecting herself would be with a gun (even though there is a greater chance she would be shot).

Another thing is how in a society where more people have guns they may act as a deterrent for someone who could otherwise cause trouble.

How come when rapid fire weapons of the type used in mass shootings in America were banned in Australia, they didn't have anymore mass shootings there?

[RUPERTKBD]

Anybody who has a steak knife can easily do the damage that a gun could, and worse.

Ridiculous assertion.

If that kid had showed up at Sandy Hook armed with only a steak knife, a lot of children would still be alive. (Maybe all of them, since he had to shoot his way into the school)

Ditto Columbine and Aurora.

[patrickd73]

Ridiculous assertion.

If that kid had showed up at Sandy Hook armed with only a steak knife, a lot of children would still be alive. (Maybe all of them, since he had to shoot his way into the school)

Ditto Columbine and Aurora.

I thought we were talking about the differences between Canada and the US with regards to firearm availability and how they have the right to bear arms, while it remains a privilege for us. If you read my second post, you'd see where I mention about how much more difficult it is to purchase a gun in Canada.

The average Canadian gun owner certainly doesn't keep a loaded 9mm under their pillow, because it's a felony. Down south, it's not. We have to keep our guns and ammo in separate locked cabinets. Nobody is going to break into my house and steal a gun and shoot up a school.

[Guest Dasein]

Nice article.

I didn't like his "stone-throwing" analogy. Throwing stones at children and barely missing is equivalent to shooting at children and barely missing - not owning a gun. Having the ability to throw stones and barely miss is equivalent to owning a gun - not actually throwing stones at children and barely missing.

How about...gun laws are obsolete.

That was very interesting. I'm gonna have to do more research on the topic now.

[RUPERTKBD]

I thought we were talking about the differences between Canada and the US with regards to firearm availability and how they have the right to bear arms, while it remains a privilege for us.

We were. But then you made the erroneous claim that someone could do as much (or more) damage with a steak knife as they could with a firearm.

[Sir Lord Baltimore]

I stopped reading when he started whining about being afraid of guns. The only reason people fear things is becaus they don't understand them. Guns, gays, drugs, spiders, even a human with a diffirent skin colour, all these things are feared by people who don't know any better.

That's enough of this place for today, as if my head didn't hurt enough as it is...

[VanGnome]

I want to go in a different direction, and point out a more obvious fact, which is that a lot people are afraid of guns. You may not be, but I am. Guns scare the crap out of me. (I’m reminded of a story that an American friend of mine told me, the first time he held a Desert Eagle in his hand. “I was seized by a powerful feeling that nobody should own one of these,” he said.)

So that is the harm of gun ownership – it creates fear in others. And limiting the ability of some to cause fear in others is a perfectly legitimate basis for legal regulation.

This is where you lost me, and quite frankly didn't see the need to continue reading your long winded diatribe.

Ok, so if Joe Blow moved in on the other side of you, and was obscenely proud about his composite long bow collection, and every weekend morning spends 3 hours practicing his shot... would that also not scare the bejesus out of you?

Lots of people have legitimate fear of many things, it's called a phobia. However I do not believe that phobias should be grounds to base legislation upon. People own dogs, which regardless of the breed can be a million times scarier than an inanimate object because they are sentient.

You're not afraid of guns, you're afraid of what guns can do. I have friends who are firearm aficionados, and when I say they are incredibly responsible, and serious about their hobby is an understatement, it is because they are also extremely level headed and well adjusted.

There are however many people in society not as responsible, or nearly as level headed, yet they still manage to do terrible things without the use of guns.

Guns are a polarizing, and quite honestly magnetizing subject, it's very easy to say "Ban guns, that will solve the issue" when it clearly will not. The issue is people, not the things they use to commit heinous acts or even accidental mishaps. I can't recall the exact figure of accidents I've witnessed or have heard about first hand involving power tools, gardening shears or ride on lawn mowers, or acts of violence committed with those same instruments; should we ban them too?

I don't believe in blind rights to anything, nor do I believe in blindly banning things because people do idiotic things. What I do believe in, is developing a social infrastructure that catches these people before they fall through the cracks and something terrible happens. I'm sure you went into it in your speech above, but more often than not, the perpetrators in school shootings were not the registered or even unregistered owners of the firearms, but merely had access to them.

We need to fix people, not ban inanimate objects. Continuing to put band-aids on a festering wound will only advance the decay leading to amputation. Shoot that (yes, pun intended) sucker full of penicillin and avoid the infection all together, treat the disease, don't manage the symptoms.

[inane]

This is where you lost me, and quite frankly didn't see the need to continue reading your long winded diatribe.

Ok, so if Joe Blow moved in on the other side of you, and was obscenely proud about his composite long bow collection, and every weekend morning spends 3 hours practicing his shot... would that also not scare the bejesus out of you?

Lots of people have legitimate fear of many things, it's called a phobia. However I do not believe that phobias should be grounds to base legislation upon. People own dogs, which regardless of the breed can be a million times scarier than an inanimate object because they are sentient.

You're not afraid of guns, you're afraid of what guns can do. I have friends who are firearm aficionados, and when I say they are incredibly responsible, and serious about their hobby is an understatement, it is because they are also extremely level headed and well adjusted.

There are however many people in society not as responsible, or nearly as level headed, yet they still manage to do terrible things without the use of guns.

Guns are a polarizing, and quite honestly magnetizing subject, it's very easy to say "Ban guns, that will solve the issue" when it clearly will not. The issue is people, not the things they use to commit heinous acts or even accidental mishaps. I can't recall the exact figure of accidents I've witnessed or have heard about first hand involving power tools, gardening shears or ride on lawn mowers, or acts of violence committed with those same instruments; should we ban them too?

I don't believe in blind rights to anything, nor do I believe in blindly banning things because people do idiotic things. What I do believe in, is developing a social infrastructure that catches these people before they fall through the cracks and something terrible happens. I'm sure you went into it in your speech above, but more often than not, the perpetrators in school shootings were not the registered or even unregistered owners of the firearms, but merely had access to them.

We need to fix people, not ban inanimate objects. Continuing to put band-aids on a festering wound will only advance the decay leading to amputation. Shoot that (yes, pun intended) sucker full of penicillin and avoid the infection all together, treat the disease, don't manage the symptoms.

Being afraid of something doesn't mean it's a phobia...

But regardless, a lot of the reasons people give in favour of gun ownership is their fear of things. So.... we already base legislation on fear, what I don't get is why guns is such a big deal.

We ban or license or otherwise regulate thousands of things. You could make the argument that a rational, reasonable person could own any number of these things without incident but we still ban it. There's no outcry over that, I just don't know why guns are so special.

[Guest]

Being afraid of something doesn't mean it's a phobia...

But regardless, a lot of the reasons people give in favour of gun ownership is their fear of things. So.... we already base legislation on fear, what I don't get is why guns is such a big deal.

We ban or license or otherwise regulate thousands of things. You could make the argument that a rational, reasonable person could own any number of these things without incident but we still ban it. There's no outcry over that, I just don't know why guns are so special.

Because of legislation written over a hundred years ago in a context that gave it an entirely different meaning. It's not dissimilar to the Bible when you think about it. Probably why this debate comes off as so messed up and archaic: in short, because it is.

[bigbadbob]

First problem with the OP is the statement that Canadians don't have the right to keep and bear arms. We do! It is in English common law through the English Bill of Rights which was passed through the British North America Act.

The issue becomes as a constitutional monarchy, the Crown can essentially tell us to go to hell.

Oh and btw, earlier talk about storage laws in Canada. If your firearms are stored in a safe, the don't require a trigger lock and can be stored with the ammo in the same container.

[William_Clarkson]

1-In Switzerland, the higher than average gun ownership is due to mandatory service, at the end of which one is allowed to keep his weapon. So they're all trained, their guns are rifles, securely stored, and they aren't treated as toys, a la US.

The real issue in the US is the lax laws surrounding guns. As the OP states (and I agree), it's not out to ban guns outright, but to control them so only those qualified have access.

2-And what if said woman being raped is attacked from behind, doesn't have time to reach into her purse to get the gun, and the perp gets a loaded gun as a bonus?

3-How about an alarm system as a deterrent? A criminal must be aware of the gun before it can deter him. What if he stakes out the place, breaks in when no one's home and steals it (again, their storage laws are not like ours)? What if the criminal is not deterred, comes in and shoots the occupant right away to avoid the trouble?

1-Since we're referring to innocent owners who just own a gun for their house, I'll simply say that I believe they should have the right to purchase a gun for protection even without training, even though they probably should train themselves with it before they purchase one (for their own sake). It's just a tool like anything else at the end of the day. Everyday tools can cause chaos as well if used in a certain way.

2-Trade-off of risks. With a gun there is a chance everything turns out fine for the woman, a better chance that everything will turn out fine than without a gun (pretty much a guaranteed rape). Yes, it can end up even worse if she does have a gun and the rapist gets it, but again I think it's her decision to choose. Also, if she does have a gun in her purse if it's in an area known with a lot of people carrying a gun a rapist might think twice. I'll post some stats in the next point that may suggest this.

3-Certain household crimes will happen too quickly for an alarm system to work. Also, I know some people who only use their alarm system when they're not at home (which is their problem, but still). Also, yes that is a scenario that could happen, but http://gunowners.org/fs9712.htm

This link has some sources, one of which from the National Institute of Justice is that: "74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.""

So in a place with high gun ownership a lot of potential burglars could simply be turned off by the odds that the owner may own a gun. http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense The Cato Institute also stated that many criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun. Also, if someone is shot right away that could happen anyways, like I've stated earlier criminals can get access to guns regardless of the law.

From an article i posted in post #27 in this thread.

The John Hopkins centre for gun policy research has some sobering facts on this; women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun.

Nor did guns make the women safer; women who purchased guns were 50% more likely to be killed by an intimate partner. So LaPierre's "good woman with a gun" is actually, it seems, putting herself in danger.

You should read the whole article/ post , more people with guns does not equate to a safer society , this is a fact.

I'm not going to read the whole post since I have to respond to these other posts, but from what you've quoted.

The studies shown only account for the worse case scenarios. It doesn't account for the women who one may not even attempt to rape (sources posted above of how it can be a deterrent). Also, from the website posted above: "1. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful."

1. The statistical data is in line with the rest of the nations where gun control is strict. There's little reason to think Britain would be any different. What reason would the government have to mislead on this statistic? I hope it's not an implication common in the US, you know the one about a tyrannical government. As for US comparison, I really don't want to bother right, but I would first look at methods of collecting the data. Rarely do nations have identical anything.

2. I agree, living conditions in inner cities are terrible. Environment has a lot to do with crime, introduce guns into the mix, and you have the US.

3. Always a possibility. Harm reduction, not elimination?

1) A government that supports a policy will obviously want the people to agree. Make the policy look good, more people agree with the government, those in the government keep their jobs. I don't think they are or are becoming a tyrannical government. However, that point isn't completely absurd. Throughout history many governments have confiscated guns and then committed genocide with little resistance. It's easy to think that, that could never happen nowadays, but all that is really needed is a really charismatic leader "rising up" in times of trouble who could gain the people's full support no matter what he/she does.

2) Meh, I don't think banning guns will do anything in that regards. I'm pretty sure you can't carry guns in California yet LA is the home of the Crips and Bloods as well as many other violent gangs.

3) Perhaps, but someone who is that close to the edge and that spontaneous will probably be triggered regardless, unless they get help.

Are you condoning millions of innocent people killing themselves?

How come when rapid fire weapons of the type used in mass shootings in America were banned in Australia, they didn't have anymore mass shootings there?

Because it's a lot harder to get access to rapid fire weapons in Australia, they have a lot less people, and less messed up people per capita (this isn't going off statistics, but I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me). We're looking at the big picture though.

[freebuddy]

1-Since we're referring to innocent owners who just own a gun for their house, I'll simply say that I believe they should have the right to purchase a gun for protection even without training, even though they probably should train themselves with it before they purchase one (for their own sake). It's just a tool like anything else at the end of the day. Everyday tools can cause chaos as well if used in a certain way.

2-Trade-off of risks. With a gun there is a chance everything turns out fine for the woman, a better chance that everything will turn out fine than without a gun (pretty much a guaranteed rape). Yes, it can end up even worse if she does have a gun and the rapist gets it, but again I think it's her decision to choose. Also, if she does have a gun in her purse if it's in an area known with a lot of people carrying a gun a rapist might think twice. I'll post some stats in the next point that may suggest this.

3-Certain household crimes will happen too quickly for an alarm system to work. Also, I know some people who only use their alarm system when they're not at home (which is their problem, but still). Also, yes that is a scenario that could happen, but http://gunowners.org/fs9712.htm

This link has some sources, one of which from the National Institute of Justice is that: "74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.""

So in a place with high gun ownership a lot of potential burglars could simply be turned off by the odds that the owner may own a gun. http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense The Cato Institute also stated that many criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun. Also, if someone is shot right away that could happen anyways, like I've stated earlier criminals can get access to guns regardless of the law.

I'm not going to read the whole post since I have to respond to these other posts, but from what you've quoted.

The studies shown only account for the worse case scenarios. It doesn't account for the women who one may not even attempt to rape (sources posted above of how it can be a deterrent). Also, from the website posted above: "1. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful."

1) A government that supports a policy will obviously want the people to agree. Make the policy look good, more people agree with the government, those in the government keep their jobs. I don't think they are or are becoming a tyrannical government. However, that point isn't completely absurd. Throughout history many governments have confiscated guns and then committed genocide with little resistance. It's easy to think that, that could never happen nowadays, but all that is really needed is a really charismatic leader "rising up" in times of trouble who could gain the people's full support no matter what he/she does.

2) Meh, I don't think banning guns will do anything in that regards. I'm pretty sure you can't carry guns in California yet LA is the home of the Crips and Bloods as well as many other violent gangs.

3) Perhaps, but someone who is that close to the edge and that spontaneous will probably be triggered regardless, unless they get help.

Are you condoning millions of innocent people killing themselves?

Because it's a lot harder to get access to rapid fire weapons in Australia, they have a lot less people, and less messed up people per capita (this isn't going off statistics, but I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me). We're looking at the big picture though.

They should try permanently banning them in the USA

[Lockout Casualty]

1-Since we're referring to innocent owners who just own a gun for their house, I'll simply say that I believe they should have the right to purchase a gun for protection even without training, even though they probably should train themselves with it before they purchase one (for their own sake). It's just a tool like anything else at the end of the day. Everyday tools can cause chaos as well if used in a certain way.

2-Trade-off of risks. With a gun there is a chance everything turns out fine for the woman, a better chance that everything will turn out fine than without a gun (pretty much a guaranteed rape). Yes, it can end up even worse if she does have a gun and the rapist gets it, but again I think it's her decision to choose. Also, if she does have a gun in her purse if it's in an area known with a lot of people carrying a gun a rapist might think twice. I'll post some stats in the next point that may suggest this.

3-Certain household crimes will happen too quickly for an alarm system to work. Also, I know some people who only use their alarm system when they're not at home (which is their problem, but still). Also, yes that is a scenario that could happen, but http://gunowners.org/fs9712.htm

This link has some sources, one of which from the National Institute of Justice is that: "74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.""

So in a place with high gun ownership a lot of potential burglars could simply be turned off by the odds that the owner may own a gun. http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense The Cato Institute also stated that many criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun. Also, if someone is shot right away that could happen anyways, like I've stated earlier criminals can get access to guns regardless of the law.

I'm not going to read the whole post since I have to respond to these other posts, but from what you've quoted.

The studies shown only account for the worse case scenarios. It doesn't account for the women who one may not even attempt to rape (sources posted above of how it can be a deterrent). Also, from the website posted above: "1. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful."

1) A government that supports a policy will obviously want the people to agree. Make the policy look good, more people agree with the government, those in the government keep their jobs. I don't think they are or are becoming a tyrannical government. However, that point isn't completely absurd. Throughout history many governments have confiscated guns and then committed genocide with little resistance. It's easy to think that, that could never happen nowadays, but all that is really needed is a really charismatic leader "rising up" in times of trouble who could gain the people's full support no matter what he/she does.

2) Meh, I don't think banning guns will do anything in that regards. I'm pretty sure you can't carry guns in California yet LA is the home of the Crips and Bloods as well as many other violent gangs.

3) Perhaps, but someone who is that close to the edge and that spontaneous will probably be triggered regardless, unless they get help.

Are you condoning millions of innocent people killing themselves?

Because it's a lot harder to get access to rapid fire weapons in Australia, they have a lot less people, and less messed up people per capita (this isn't going off statistics, but I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me). We're looking at the big picture though.

Hey man, unfortunately I don't have time to break down posts like I did recently so I hope someone else will challenge your points. I will say that you should really, really stop posting gun propaganda sites. Gunowners.org? I opened the link, read the first point and saw it's crap. It uses the same source, Prof. Kleck, as Bocivus posted in the Texas open carry thread (then he flipped after I pointed out it's wrong, still waiting for a rebuttal though lol). Anyway, see here: http://forum.canucks.com/topic/365949-texas-closer-to-open-carry-of-handguns/page-4

Not to say everything posted by biased right wing sources is wrong or lies, but the probability is way too high to bother addressing them (and broken clocks are twice a day, I (and I expect others) would rather not spend hours figuring out which position the clock broke in). Anyway, have fun, I'm out.

[thema]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-shot-killed-year-walmart/story?id=27907997

Feeling safe...

[kyledude]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-shot-killed-year-walmart/story?id=27907997

Feeling safe...

At least the right person got shot, and not some innocent bystander.

That type of carelessness is outrageous.

[patrickd73]

We were. But then you made the erroneous claim that someone could do as much (or more) damage with a steak knife as they could with a firearm.

What went on at Sandy Hook and Aurora has no bearing on this particular conversation. But that said, I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Period. I was shot in a minor hunting accident once, obviously didn't die.... Say you didn't die from being shot....Any idea how much easier it is to treat a gunshot would as opposed to a knife wound? If someone wants to do another person harm, the possession or lack of possession of a firearm isn't going to be the difference maker. Anyway, that wasn't my point. What I should have said is based on availability and the criteria that needs to be met to acquire a firearm, a knife is by far more dangerous, IN THIS COUNTRY, which is what I thought the topic was anyway.

I supposed it all depends on the situation in question. A gun in the wrong hands is bad news, but Canada does a far better job of keeping them out of the wrong hands.