U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2012, 03:28 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,217 posts, read 6,572,923 times
Reputation: 14148

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post

..... I think, then, we can conclude that these are generally not people who are out to kill or injure others, and they seem to carry that lack of aggression into practice.

..... The question then remains - how is a peace officer, whom we've deemed accountable for our protection, and someone who's deemed themselves accountable for their own protection (assuming they've met the same qualifications) really any different?
I could make some comments about some of the other things you said in your post but I just don't have the heart for it right now. However, as to the above quotes .....

To the first statement - if it can be concluded that these are generally not people who are out to kill or injure others then how do you explain and account for 1100 suicides out of 1400 firearms deaths?

To the second statement - Military and Peace Officers ARE different from ordinary citizens. That's why they are who they are and do the jobs that they do. They are of a different mind set. They get different education and training. They have to prove that they have qualifications that other citizens don't have. They are trained and drilled and deemed accountable for our protection by their superiors, not by you and me or themselves, and it's because they've met rigid qualifications and required stability of mind and sensibility and responsibility that are needed for the jobs they do. It's like trying to compare apples with oranges if you try to compare the accountability of military/peace officers with the self-accountability of other citizens.

Peace officers, and military people and even armed guards - sometimes they make mistakes with firearms but they don't make anywhere near as many stupid, ignorant, unthinking, panicy mistakes as are so often made by so many ordinary citizens.

If anyone doesn't think so .... if ordinary citizens are so qualified through their own self-accountability .... then how is that there are still so many accounts of children killing themselves or other people with handguns that were practically handed to them on a silver platter by their careless parents?

Just 2 recent incidents - 2 days ago, March 14th, a 3 y.o. child kills himself with his father's hand gun. Dad puts the gun under the front seat while he gets out of the car to put gas in the car while mom runs into the gas station for something. The 3 y.o. gets the gun out from under the seat and shoots himself in the head. Not only was the father careless about where he placed the gun - I question how did this father qualify to carry a gun and how did a little 3 y.o. child manage to shoot himself? Wasn't the safety on on that gun? Didn't that child have to press very, very hard on the trigger while he had the muzzle pointed at his head? How did that child learn to do that? Who did he learn it from?

Death of boy, 3, comes in spate of Wash. gun accidents that have killed 2 youth, injured 1 - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/3-year-old-boy-kills-self-with-gun-found-in-car-during-stop-at-washington-gas-station/2012/03/14/gIQAw2geBS_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop - broken link)

3 weeks ago, Feb. 22nd, a third-grader schoolboy takes his mother's gun to school in his backpack, the gun goes off from inside the backpack and shoots an 8 y.o. girl in the belly. I question how did that little boy get his hands on his mother's loaded hand gun?

Washington state third grader shoots classmate - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/washington-state-third-grader-shoots-classmate-005209816.html - broken link)

How can these careless, irresponsible parents be deemed self-accountable and be qualified to own and carry hand guns? Who deemed them responsible and how can they possibly be compared with the accountability of peace officers?

These 2 incidents happened in the USA, and there are countless other similar incidents such as this have happened and will continue to happen in the USA because of their lax firearms laws and availability of hand guns to irresponsible people and in spite of that certain Canadians STILL want to bring this same kind of irresponsibility and insanity home to Canada too.

I cannot begin to express how furious this whole ugly can of worms makes me. It just makes me want to scream!

Gun nuts make me nuts!

Good night.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 03-16-2012 at 04:04 AM..

 
Old 03-16-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,653,198 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
I could make some comments about some of the other things you said in your post but I just don't have the heart for it right now. However, as to the above quotes .....

To the first statement - if it can be concluded that these are generally not people who are out to kill or injure others then how do you explain and account for 1100 suicides out of 1400 firearms deaths?
I base my conclusion off the fact that licensed concealed carry practitioners have far lower violent crime rates than the average population and that homicide and violent crime rates in the US, while high, are falling, despite the proliferation of firearms and those carrying them.

I'm really not sure where you were going with this, anyway. Suicide, by definition doesn't harm others (physically, at least).

Moreover, suicide rates have remained fairly static over the past quarter century or so, despite widely changing firearms laws. I think that would suggest, that suicide and firearm ownership aren't linked.


Quote:
To the second statement - Military and Peace Officers ARE different from ordinary citizens. That's why they are who they are and do the jobs that they do. They are of a different mind set. They get different education and training. They have to prove that they have qualifications that other citizens don't have. They are trained and drilled and deemed accountable for our protection by their superiors, not by you and me or themselves, and it's because they've met rigid qualifications and required stability of mind and sensibility and responsibility that are needed for the jobs they do. It's like trying to compare apples with oranges if you try to compare the accountability of military/peace officers with the self-accountability of other citizens.
If you re-read what I wrote, I asked how someone with equivalent training is different. Your tirade addresses something that was never asked.

I'll ask again - if a civilian were to undergo the same testing to establish stability of mind, sensibility and responsibility and the same training and drilling, as well as being officially authorized (which as the OP mentioned, is technically legal in Canada), how are they different?

How, for example, would a recently retired police officer be different than he was, say, a year prior? Is there some sort of switch that shuts off all his training when he retires? Does his mind degenerate so quickly that his stability and sense of responsibility are gone?

Quote:
Peace officers, and military people and even armed guards - sometimes they make mistakes with firearms but they don't make anywhere near as many stupid, ignorant, unthinking, panicy mistakes as are so often made by so many ordinary citizens.

If anyone doesn't think so .... if ordinary citizens are so qualified through their own self-accountability .... then how is that there are still so many accounts of children killing themselves or other people with handguns that were practically handed to them on a silver platter by their careless parents?
Again, you're tilting at windmills. I never suggested that ordinary citizens are qualified by their sense of accountability, and, frankly, I'm not sure how that was misunderstood.
 
Old 03-16-2012, 09:56 AM
 
18,264 posts, read 10,366,114 times
Reputation: 13320
All of this discussion has evolved from what? The NEED to have handguns and carry them in Canada? Nope. It's come about after a century or more of not needing them due to one irrefutable fact, they are readily available in the U.S. and hence are coming across the border into Canada.

This problem as I alluded to in a previous post isn't thought of in the same way as something as innocuus as the usage of tobacco for an instance. Here you have governments and populace all working together to erradicate tobacco products altogether in BOTH countries while handgun manufacturer's whose product is of the same or worse category are free to carry on with abandon.

Why?

No thoughts of creating a multi billion judgement fund to re-imburse those who've suffered a handgun related loss.

No thoughts of taxing them up the ying yang to supposedly re-coup those costs associated with the related health or death issues, only to then use that money in general revenues which belies the purpose entirely.

Why do you suppose that is: opinion here only but it's due to the childish ego driven desire to possess something to imbue yourself with a false sense of power AND it's been so irrevocably linked to the definition of personal freeedoms south of Canada. All nonsense stuff as where were those rights accorded to smokers or folks travelling in cars not wearing seatbelts or helmets on bikes mortorcycles.

One freedom should not assume import over any other.

Last edited by BruSan; 03-16-2012 at 10:37 AM..
 
Old 03-16-2012, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,653,198 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
All of this discussion has evolved from what? The NEED to have handguns and carry them in Canada? Nope. It's come about after a century or more of not needing them due to one irrefutable fact, they are readily available in the U.S. and hence are coming across the border into Canada.

This problem as I alluded to in a previous post isn't thought of in the same way as something as innocuus as the usage of tobacco for an instance. Here you have governments and populace all working together to erradicate tobacco products altogether in BOTH countries while handgun manufacturer's whose product is of the same or worse category are free to carry on with abandon.

Why?

No thoughts of creating a multi billion judgement fund to re-imburse those who've suffered a handgun related loss.

No thoughts of taxing them up the ying yang to supposedly re-coup those costs associated with the related health or death issues, only to then use that money in general revenues which belies the purpose entirely.

Why do you suppose that is: opinion here only but it's due to the childish ego driven desire to possess something to imbue yourself with a false sense of power AND it's been so irrevocably linked to the definition of personal freeedoms south of Canada. All nonsense stuff as where were those rights accorded to smokers or folks travelling in cars not wearing seatbelts or helmets on bikes mortorcycles.

One freedom should not assume import over any other.
No, not NEED, want. Some people want to carry a pistol. So long as they're certifiably competent with it and of sound mind, I don't feel I'd be in any great danger from them - and I think what we can observe in the US, in regards to licensed carriers bears that out.

It's certainly possible that you're correct in your analysis of why people want to carry a gun. However, there are lots of things that people buy or do to make up for feelings of inadequacy. I don't think it's right to force justification of a need in order to have or do something. Rather, I think the onus needs to be on why they shouldn't be allowed to.

My point throughout this debate has been basically this: since US statistics seem to demonstrate that those carrying legal, licensed concealed weapons pose little danger to the general public, and I think it's fair to assume we're at least as sane and balanced up here, what is the justification for banning this practice?
 
Old 03-17-2012, 01:20 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,217 posts, read 6,572,923 times
Reputation: 14148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post

No, not NEED, want. Some people want to carry a pistol.....
SJ, I'm not trying to put you on the spot so don't answer if you don't want to.

But I have to ask your opinion on this, and the opinion of anyone else who cares to answer .....

Why? Why do some people in Canada WANT to carry pistols?

Protection against violence from other people seems to be the main excuse that people come up with for wanting to carry pistols but it's clearly a lame excuse in Canada. Historical statistics have shown it's not a needful thing in Canada. It never has been a needful thing in the history of this country. Never.

So what is the REAL underlying reason for why some people in Canada want to carry pistols?

.
 
Old 03-17-2012, 03:53 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,217 posts, read 6,572,923 times
Reputation: 14148
You Can't Always Get What You Want - But if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need





Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want - Live '06 Saitama - YouTube


I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was footloose man

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find
You get what you need

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"
I said to him

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

You get what you need--yeah, oh baby

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

.
 
Old 03-17-2012, 04:19 AM
 
34,365 posts, read 41,446,089 times
Reputation: 29847
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshineleith View Post
USA had 9,369 murders by firearms.
Canada has 144.

.
I like the present status quo in Canada.I dont buy the argument that if every one were armed in Canada there'd be fewer deaths by fire arms i think there would be many more.
USA=9369
Can=144
its a no brainer for my preferance.Leave the guns and the gun mentality south of the border we're doing ok here in Canada.
 
Old 03-17-2012, 05:09 AM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,653,198 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
SJ, I'm not trying to put you on the spot so don't answer if you don't want to.

But I have to ask your opinion on this, and the opinion of anyone else who cares to answer .....

Why? Why do some people in Canada WANT to carry pistols?

Protection against violence from other people seems to be the main excuse that people come up with for wanting to carry pistols but it's clearly a lame excuse in Canada. Historical statistics have shown it's not a needful thing in Canada. It never has been a needful thing in the history of this country. Never.

So what is the REAL underlying reason for why some people in Canada want to carry pistols?

.
I can't speak definitively, as I likely wouldn't carry one myself. I'm not much of a pistol shooter, nor do I spend much time in urban or other areas where a pistol may be more useful than a long gun.

I'd venture a guess that for many it provides a feeling of having control. Though the likelihood of a violent incident is very slight, I think that the idea of not being a victim, nor standing idly by waiting for help plays strongly to the concept.

I know a lot of people who dislike driving unless they themselves are at the wheel. I think it's the same sort of mentality.

I think too, that's where the OP's assertion that concealed carry would have stopped the murders at Polytechnique and Dawson comes from. Whether or not it would have actually been effective, the idea of not having to surrender complete control of those situations to the gunman is where the appeal lies.

Personally, I'd consider it while doing northern work. I know a couple of geologists who are authorized to carry pistols during work - they prefer it, as long guns can be cumbersome, heavy, and slower to bring to bear, especially as both hands are needed for work.
 
Old 03-17-2012, 09:32 AM
 
18,264 posts, read 10,366,114 times
Reputation: 13320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
I can't speak definitively, as I likely wouldn't carry one myself. I'm not much of a pistol shooter, nor do I spend much time in urban or other areas where a pistol may be more useful than a long gun.

I'd venture a guess that for many it provides a feeling of having control. Though the likelihood of a violent incident is very slight, I think that the idea of not being a victim, nor standing idly by waiting for help plays strongly to the concept.

I know a lot of people who dislike driving unless they themselves are at the wheel. I think it's the same sort of mentality.

I think too, that's where the OP's assertion that concealed carry would have stopped the murders at Polytechnique and Dawson comes from. Whether or not it would have actually been effective, the idea of not having to surrender complete control of those situations to the gunman is where the appeal lies.

Personally, I'd consider it while doing northern work. I know a couple of geologists who are authorized to carry pistols during work - they prefer it, as long guns can be cumbersome, heavy, and slower to bring to bear, especially as both hands are needed for work.
Your thoughtful and very reasoned responses are the stuff of quality debate and much appreciated.

I grew up in a rural ontario setting where I received my first .22 at the age of twelve and was allowed to shoot with it unattended by the age of 14 to then move on to a better rifle for the purpose of ridding the neighbouring farms of groundhogs that were anethma to their dairy cattle while grazing.

It was the accepted norm to observe myself and other teens walking the main street of our little town with rifle under arm and froundhogs hanging from our shoulders to later collect the bounty for them. I followed this early use with many years of every type of hunting all over Canada using long weapons to 308's in the mountain ranges of B.C. I do not hunt now as my age precludes it along with a 'time developed' appreciation for all living things in the wild.

Handguns for personal protection in the northern reaches make perfect sense for those areas where a genuine threat to you exists and the work or activity precludes the use of a rifle. In these examples though, a caliber of weapon with a barrel length to achieve certainty of disabling the threat of a Cougar, a Black, Brown or Grizzly would not be one you would want hanging off your hip in an urban setting.

We have so far been debating the merits of "desiring" to carry versus the "need" to carry and this brings many considerations to the discussion such as crime common in the U.S. versus crime that doesn't happen in Canada to as great as an extent so as to warrant concern over the odds of it happening to you.

Car jackings, home invasions, muggings, personal attacks, etc., these are all valid concerns in areas of the U.S. due to frequency but in Canada not so much.

We are all too often seduced into subliminally correlating our personal freedoms with those touted by the folks south of us and that is a great mistake. We need not explain or justify our disdain for the personal handgun to those who would float the premise that our freedoms are somehow less due to our government making it illegal to carry a firearm. We need instead, to glorify our personal freedoms with the admonishment to our neighbours that we are simply "more free" due to our not feeling the need to carry a weapon while we walk to work, go to the store or escort our kiddies to the soccar match.

If the need has not reached the proportions to warrant it, why else then, would one want to, unless it's a hypothetical ego boost or an attempt to respond to an inferiority attitude induced by chagrin from our neighbours.

The caveat to all of this is; were the guns not so readily available there would not be the need for them.
 
Old 03-18-2012, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
482 posts, read 2,158,672 times
Reputation: 330
I do think that if someone were to successfully navigate the red tape that it would be acceptable to have a shall-issue conceal carry law in Canada. By this, I mean a full battery of courses and tests including practical and theory. As well, a certified psych exam such as is already required in many European countries for these types of conceal carry permits could add another layer of accountability.

We have to ask ourselves as a society though, do we trust people with this type of responsibility? Remember, this is a country that doesn't even allow supermarkets to sell wine (outside Quebec). Does it trust folks to walk around town armed?

I will admit though, part of the appeal of Operation Sheepdog is giving a good swift kick to the prohibitionist left wing folks now that they are not in power in Canada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top