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.
Your assertion that more having guns all over the place will result in more deaths is statistically wrong. Were you correct, we should observe a rise in homicides in the USA as states' began implementing concealed carry laws. However, the overall number of homicides slowly declined during that implementation (likely due to factors unrelated to firearms), despite the warnings of "blood in the streets" that came from opponents.
On an international level, this chart provides a nice look at the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and homicide.
It should be fairly clear that the number of guns present has little, if anything, to do with homicide numbers.
There seems to be a fairly clear correlation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths (not general homicide) rates,
Both in the US:
And on an international level:
You must be American if you don't know that the Conservatives would never open up the Pandora's Box of constitutional negociations. That, or you're just a Canadian who is somehow unaware of the period of Canadian history between 1979 and 1995.
I personally feel uncomfortable with the changes and only really see hunters and farmers as having a legitimate need for firearms. Handguns and automatic rifles, which are for killing people, belong in the hands of the military and law enforcement, we have no business letting our fear spread these killing machines all over the country as a criminal with a gun will almost always catch his victim off guard or without a weapon with them anyways. Having guns all over the place around will kill more people than it will save.
I am glad my American compadres can see the kind of bass ackwards thinking Canadians have and why I warn you all not to move here. His opinion sadly has been historically the way MOST Canadians think East of Manitoba. The concept of a corrupt government murdering its people or a national uprising or major invasion is seen to be as likely as a UFO landing. I am not joking, telling a Canadian there government might wipe them out like governments do in almost every other country is equivalent to telling the average American Rufus from planet neptune is going to land and rectally probe every american. People just assume you are crazy and belong south of the border and that is that.
Yes because only Law enforcement should be engaged in killing people. And there could be no negative consequence of giving a 17 year old a fully automatic as long as he signs a paper and joins the army, even when he marches down the street with a fully loaded automatic gun most Americans couldn't own, but once that 17 year old walks off the base and leaves his gun on the base as is the army policy IN uniform he become irresponsible and has no reason for that gun because terrorist are not going to attack a 17 year old in the army if he doesn't have his gun but is in uniform on. Private civilians should never engage in killing people because there is no possible scenario in which a rape, murder, homicide, animal attack, burgularized, police brutality, military dictatorship state, foreign invasion, or terrorist invasion victim could ever need a gun. It is just impossible the laws of physics make canadians bullet proof from bad guys until police arrive. Yeah we have no business letting our fears spread killing machines all over the country when we let the government arm 18 year old kids with fighter jets that can wipe out a small town and station them all over the country and when the bad guys all have guns hence why they are always shooting each other and why Canadians will give up a bunch of rights to be safer but letting someone take security and self defense into their own hand, that is just nuts. Despite murder, homicide, rape, burgulary and attempts of all these crime outnumbering terrorism victims by about 100 million to 1. It is compeltely rational the government blasting you with cancer causing radiation to stop terrorist at airports that is perfectly sane. But let one of those people defend themself, utterly psychotic.
I also agree, having more guns around will kill people more than it saves. Which is why the police and army should turn all their guns in to the soviets, chicoms and taliban so that they can take all our resources and have their way with us.
This is the logic of Canadians, seriously, people in Ontario and Quebec truly believe this I swear I am not lying. They really think they will be safe despite the high crime.
If they do not amend the constitution then my hope is that they instruct the courts to interpret the english bill of rights of 1689 I think it is, to interpret that as the right to bear arms. It is technically in there the courts have just declined to interpret it as such (it was argued but the guy lost). if not they could pass a statute and abolish the firearms act. I hope we get a stand your ground law, real self defense where you get to shoot thieves, murderers and rapist like in texas and elimination of all gun law. Criminals are going to get a gun if they want one so might as well let felon own guns too.
If they do not amend the constitution then my hope is that they instruct the courts to interpret the english bill of rights of 1689 I think it is, to interpret that as the right to bear arms. It is technically in there the courts have just declined to interpret it as such (it was argued but the guy lost). if not they could pass a statute and abolish the firearms act. I hope we get a stand your ground law, real self defense where you get to shoot thieves, murderers and rapist like in texas and elimination of all gun law. Criminals are going to get a gun if they want one so might as well let felon own guns too.
I agree with this, sort of. I don't think I should be able to shoot a prostitute for not having sex with me, or cause some punk is stealing my Jeep (cause it isn't worth a life). But if I'm in danger.....or someone else is, then...yeah.
It's funny how some people seem to think that making it easier for criminals to get guns is not a problem if you make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get guns as well. Because of course, the fact that you have a gun means that you'll be able to draw it quicker and shoot than the bad guy, because you're the good guy, right? And good guys always win!
Having a handgun in your drawer is pointless if you get shot the moment you open the front door. Hell, even having a handgun on you is pointless if someone shoots you from behind.
What a naive and simplistic logic.
You don't always have to win 98% of time a gun is brandished the criminal backs down. And that is why I am for open and conceal carry, you carry your gun everywhere, a criminal isn't going to rob your car when he is staking you out and sees that you carry a gun on you. While you want to think of movie like scenarios where a criminal magically sneeks up on someone and kills them, well how is banning non criminals from having guns going to stop ninja criminals?
The gun is the great equalizer. A woman can be just as good as a shot of a man but more importantly criminals are LAZY they do not bother to learn how to shoot or aim there gun.
I could be terribly wrong here, but I thought the Swiss had no standing army, requiring every male over the age of 18 to be obligated to defend the country. That's why they have so many weapons.
You are quite right. Unless laws have drastically changed, using Switzerland as an example either for or against is a non-starter as they are very strictly controlled as to the ownership, use and transportation of that issued firearm.
Basically they have some of the same rules for that weapon as now in place in Canada for the ownership of handguns.
The Swiss are responsible for the maintenance of their issued Assault weapon. They WERE issued a fixed amount of ammunition, but then the rule changed to have the ammunition issued to locally assigned repositories, then the rule changed again so that ammunition was only a ailable for that weapon at designated ranges used for periodically required "requallification shooting". You got handed 20 rounds, for example, to perform your requallification shooting AND you turn in any unspent rounds or 20 brass casings BEFORE you are allowed to leave the range with your issued rifle.
The Swiss are not allowed to drive around their countryside with that issued firearm hanging in the back window of their Beemer. If stopped in a routine traffic stop with rifle in car, they must show that 1/ they have received their "requalification notice", 2/ They are on their way to the range. 3/ they must be on a direct route, either to or from that range. No driving to girlfriends house to visit before going to the range. No "forgot the thing was in my car" excuses.
They are NOT allowed to use the newer weapons for hunting and must relinquish that weapon when no longer of eligible age for militia service. The older issued, bolt action, rifles that were grandfathered and allowed to be kept (if approved by ministry) are allowed for hunting use.
Ammunition for the assigned assault weapon is NOT LEGALLY obtainable from ANY private source.
You can see that HAVING a weapon in every home is one thing, while being able to use that weapon for either home (personal domicle) defence or any type of crime prevention without ready access to ammunition for it, is however, quite another.
The United States and Canada share 5,000 miles of open border. As long as guns can be purchased with no questions at U.S. gun shows, Canadian statutory prohibitions will be largely ineffective. The big issue in my mind is probable cause to stop individuals. Now that anyone with a pulse can get a Concealed Pistol License in most U.S. states, seeing that someone is carrying a firearm does not give the officer cause to investigate.
The U.S. Supreme Court has constitutionalized the right to gun ownership in the U.S. which means that this won't change easily. If President Obama could get the treaty ratified by the Senate, he could sign a treaty with Canada opening the border a little bit more in exchange for banning gun ownership. There is a case from the 1930s which immunizes treaties from constitutional challenges and that would be the ticket down here. When I went to U.S. law school in the 1990s, the argument that the U.S. Second Amendment invalidated anything was a crackpot argument relegated to the same status as tax protestor arguments. A conservative U.S. Supreme Court has obviously done a 180 degree, but this solution would help Canada, keep the issue out of the U.S. Courts, and bypass our House of Representatives. It sounds like a win-win.
I am glad my American compadres can see the kind of bass ackwards thinking Canadians have and why I warn you all not to move here. His opinion sadly has been historically the way MOST Canadians think East of Manitoba. The concept of a corrupt government murdering its people or a national uprising or major invasion is seen to be as likely as a UFO landing. I am not joking, telling a Canadian there government might wipe them out like governments do in almost every other country is equivalent to telling the average American Rufus from planet neptune is going to land and rectally probe every american. People just assume you are crazy and belong south of the border and that is that.
Yes because only Law enforcement should be engaged in killing people. And there could be no negative consequence of giving a 17 year old a fully automatic as long as he signs a paper and joins the army, even when he marches down the street with a fully loaded automatic gun most Americans couldn't own, but once that 17 year old walks off the base and leaves his gun on the base as is the army policy IN uniform he become irresponsible and has no reason for that gun because terrorist are not going to attack a 17 year old in the army if he doesn't have his gun but is in uniform on. Private civilians should never engage in killing people because there is no possible scenario in which a rape, murder, homicide, animal attack, burgularized, police brutality, military dictatorship state, foreign invasion, or terrorist invasion victim could ever need a gun. It is just impossible the laws of physics make canadians bullet proof from bad guys until police arrive. Yeah we have no business letting our fears spread killing machines all over the country when we let the government arm 18 year old kids with fighter jets that can wipe out a small town and station them all over the country and when the bad guys all have guns hence why they are always shooting each other and why Canadians will give up a bunch of rights to be safer but letting someone take security and self defense into their own hand, that is just nuts. Despite murder, homicide, rape, burgulary and attempts of all these crime outnumbering terrorism victims by about 100 million to 1. It is compeltely rational the government blasting you with cancer causing radiation to stop terrorist at airports that is perfectly sane. But let one of those people defend themself, utterly psychotic.
I also agree, having more guns around will kill people more than it saves. Which is why the police and army should turn all their guns in to the soviets, chicoms and taliban so that they can take all our resources and have their way with us.
This is the logic of Canadians, seriously, people in Ontario and Quebec truly believe this I swear I am not lying. They really think they will be safe despite the high crime.
What an absolute load of crap! Nice characterization of your fellow Canadians there friend.
I particularly liked the way you drew that Wild Rose line in the sand, mentioning Ontario and Quebec while leaving out all eastern provinces altogether. Whasssup? The Aberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba centrist bunker coalition only issue maps showing five provinces? Did you forget B.C. altogether in that western redneck bastion of yours? Oh that's right, I forgot, they're still libbies with a stranglehold on your oil shipping so you gotta make nice for now.
There are more privately owned long guns in Ontario than the rest of Canada combined. We still use them for hunting and occasionally for handles for our car jacks if the Autoclub doesn't respond in a timely manner.
Fear of the government? Give me a freak'n break. The time you or anyone else spouting such nonsense picks a weapon up to put paid to the gov't raising your taxes will be long after the earth has become a frozen lump in the galaxy and that applies to either of the two countries you've used as a frame of reference.
Sheesh; do yourself a favour and resist the impulse to parrot the talking points of some retarded bar denizen seeking favour while chatting with Texas oil riggers on temporary work permits will ya?
You don't speak for me bub and I've lived in all provinces west of Quebec and served in the military. You forgot to mention the Navy in your diatribe. They're still the senior service and I take umbrage.
Put your PS3 back in the box and inhabit a lifestyle of some rational plane of reference for just one weekend. It'll do you the world of good.
"There seems to be a fairly clear correlation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths (not general homicide) rates,
Both in the US:
And on an international level:
Note that this includes suicides and accidents."
Thank you for posting these statistics. Looks like it got mostly ignored by other posters, so far.
I can't believe, Canadians want their country to become like the US in this regard.
Ficking why?
"Freedom"? Fighting your own democratically elected government?
How a ficking gun in your pocket can make you feel free? Do you feel inferior or less significant without a gun?
What is it exactly you're missing? Do you really need to have this gun under your pillow at night to feel safer?
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.
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.
Private civilians should never engage in killing people because there is no possible scenario in which a rape, murder, homicide, animal attack, burgularized, police brutality, military dictatorship state, foreign invasion, or terrorist invasion victim could ever need a gun. It is just impossible the laws of physics make canadians bullet proof from bad guys until police arrive. Yeah we have no business letting our fears spread killing machines all over the country when we let the government arm 18 year old kids with fighter jets that can wipe out a small town and station them all over the country and when the bad guys all have guns hence why they are always shooting each other and why Canadians will give up a bunch of rights to be safer but letting someone take security and self defense into their own hand, that is just nuts. Despite murder, homicide, rape, burgulary and attempts of all these crime outnumbering terrorism victims by about 100 million to 1. It is compeltely rational the government blasting you with cancer causing radiation to stop terrorist at airports that is perfectly sane. But let one of those people defend themself, utterly psychotic.
