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.
A non argument IMHO...a criminal or someone that decided at some point to commit a crime will not care a bit about the law.
Paperwork does not stop an evil person.
See above for one more reason why our firearm deaths per 100,000 pop. are lower.
The non ability to carry will only reduce in principle accidental gun deaths where legal owners are involved....
Once again; see above link.
As per my posted statistics by the CDC, accidental gun deaths in the US (with no distinction between firearms legally owned or not) is statistically insignificant
Once again we are not talking about JUST accidental deaths and if we were; removing the handgun aspect would change your stats remarkably.
.....we are goign back to square one...it's cultural and social....nothing to do with legal gun ownership.
We're only remaining at square one due to not considering the obvious.
...in the same way it could happen in an American home...negligent handling of a firearms
Wrong answer. I said law abiding, not negligent.
Try again. I'll help you.
A law abiding handgun owning American mom with a 2 y.o. child might keep her loaded handgun on her person or concealed in her purse when she's at home.
Where can a law abiding handgun owning Canadian mom with a 2 y.o. child keep her handgun at home and what criteria must the handgun meet with regards to being loaded or not, trigger locked or not?
Not so weak when you consider the vast majority of firearm deaths in America are committed using handguns:
So?? are these people stopped by a law?? No..again, weak argument...and the vast majority of mass shooting are committed by disturbed gun fanatics or people into guns that no paperwork is going to stop
Quote:
See above for one more reason why our firearm deaths per 100,000 pop. are lower.
See "cultural and social differences" already abundantly discussed
Quote:
Once again; see above link.
Once again, see the accidental death by firearms CDC statistics....a very scary.....0.6%........
Quote:
Once again we are not talking about JUST accidental deaths and if we were; removing the handgun aspect would change your stats remarkably.
....again over and over.....tell me how Canadian law prevent a law abiding citizen committing a handgun crime at some point....I'm all ears...again, crickets....
Quote:
Wrong answer. I said law abiding, not negligent.
Try again. I'll help you.
A law abiding handgun owning American mom with a 2 y.o. child might keep her loaded handgun on her person or concealed in her purse when she's at home.
Where can a law abiding handgun owning Canadian mom with a 2 y.o. child keep her handgun at home and what criteria must the handgun meet with regards to being loaded or not, trigger locked or not?
A concealed firearm has to be constantly under your control.....a child reaching for a firearms is negligent firearms handling, both in the US and in Canada.
Well, let's take a look. Remember, in the US, "the people," as enunciated in the preamble to the US Constitution and in the Second Amendment, have the right to keep and bear arms. But in Canada, you have to answer a lot of personal questions before you are allowed the privilege of acquiring them. Among them are the following:
-- During the past five (5) years, have you been charged, convicted or granted a discharge for an offence...?
-- During the past five (5) years, have you been subject to a peace bond, protection order or an order under section 810 of the Criminal Code?
-- During the past five (5) years, have you or any member of your household been prohibited from possessing any firearm?
-- During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?
-- During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?
-- During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?
Then, the applicant is asked about conjugal status; and if that applies, about details as to the conjugal partner.
Note that one or more "Yes" answers to the above do not necessarily prevent a license to purchase/otherwise acquire being granted, but it does give an idea of why such a license might be denied. Your marriage broke down six months ago because your spouse was sleeping around, and you want a handgun? Your spouse is under a gun prohibition? You visited a physician for treatment for depression? You punched a guy in a bar fight three years ago? In the US, no problem. In Canada, we might have a problem.
Let me educate you about buying a firearm in the US...this is the paperwork you have to fill up every time you buy one, no matter how many do you own already...you do not show up at a gun shop and buy a firearm as too many people incredibly still believe....probably including you I'm afraid...
People have been denied for a little as having too many speeding tickets.
Page 2
Last edited by saturno_v; 02-05-2016 at 10:12 PM..
A law abiding handgun owning American mom with a 2 y.o. child might keep her loaded handgun on her person or concealed in her purse when she's at home.
Where can a law abiding handgun owning Canadian mom with a 2 y.o. child keep her handgun at home and what criteria must the handgun meet with regards to being loaded or not, trigger locked or not?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v
....... A concealed firearm has to be constantly under your control.....a child reaching for a firearms is negligent firearms handling, both in the US and in Canada.
Still an incorrect answer.
In Canada a law abiding mom cannot have a permit to carry and she must keep her handgun unloaded and concealed in a locked gunsafe in her home.
A law abiding American mom can have a permit to carry and to keep her handgun loaded and concealed on her person.
The Canadian 2 y.o. cannot accidently shoot his mother because he cannot reach for the mother's handgun because the handgun is not available to reach, it is not loaded and is locked up in the gunsafe.
The American 2 y.o. can accidently shoot his mother at home because if he can reach for his mother he can also reach for her loaded handgun that she's carrying on her person.
You asked "....what about if she get shot at home accidentally by her son??"
I don't know what was the point of your question but the answer is that a 2 y.o. Canadian child cannot accidently shoot his mother with her handgun because no such thing is available to him to touch but an American 2 y.o. child can accidentally shoot his CCW mother with her handgun because it is available to him if his mother is available to him.
Any handgun being carried on any person is not being kept under controlled conditions and can be taken away from the carrier even if the carrier is most conscientious and responsible with their firearms.
The highlighted part is enough to show who is not comprehending Canada's laws. There is a HUGE difference in who can own a hand gun in Canada, and who can in the US.
That woman in Walmart when her 2 year shot her by grabbing her gun, was a LEGAL gun owner with a concealed weapons permit.
THERE IS NO WAY IN CANADA THAT SHE WOULD OF EVER BEEN ALLOWED TO LEGALLY CARRY A LOADED HANDGUN.
This is the FUNDAMENTAL difference that you seem to want to ignore. No matter how many links to our ACTUAL laws etc I give you, you seem incapable of accepting this fact.
As the Switzerland piece goes, I stand by it.
Hey, it's "only" 800 extra accidentally dead people a year, right? Who cares about that? What's more important are Americans' right to carry guns around with them.
And this is why good fences make for good neighbours
Let me educate you about buying a firearm in the US...this is the paperwork you have to fill up every time you buy one, no matter how many do you own already...you do not show up at a gun shop and buy a firearm as too many people incredibly still believe....probably including you I'm afraid...
People have been denied for a little as having too many speeding tickets.
"Handguns are easily concealable, and as most illegal weapons are handguns, most illegal weapons will remain undiscovered. Furthermore, interestingly, gunfacts.info points out that criminals who may have committed a crime with a weapon do not actually need to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as this would be an act of self-incrimination, a ruling upheld in 1968 in the case of Haynes vs. the US."
So there you have the oxymoronic situation that a convicted felon does not have to declare or register his firearms already in his possession due to it being a case of self incrimination...whooee!
Another excerpt from above stats:
"only 15% of firearms possessed by Federal inmates were obtained through a retail store. The largest portion of illegal weapons were given to the inmates by a family member or a friend."
Yep; it sure is tough for a felon, or anyone for that matter, to get hold of a handgun in the U.S..
When they assume the psychological significance of nothing more dangerous than a toaster they will continue to be given the same degree of "preventative" attention by the public at large.
Hey, it's "only" 800 extra accidentally dead people a year, right? Who cares about that? What's more important are Americans' right to carry guns around with them.
And this is why good fences make for good neighbours
It is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. I can understand as a Canadian why you wouldn't like it, because it's not part of the national DNA.
Which leads to another reason why the countries couldn't merge...
Some of the first words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Try and find the same in the British North America Act. The closest you'll find is "peace, order and good government". Not individual rights, not liberty, not a pursuit of happiness.
Both countries were founded on totally different principles.
It is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. I can understand as a Some of the first words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
We'll obviously the truth was NOT self-evident to the signers of that document as they deemed slaves not to be equal.
I do agree that if I lived in 18th century America or Canada that owning a gun might be deemed a necessity and important right.
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.
