Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

From my cold dead hands!


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L

And the response from the NRA:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/statement-from-chris-w-cox-on-us-senate-defeat-of-manchin-toomey-schumer-amendment.aspx?s&st&ps

Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.

The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What, all of them? All the studies are flawed? I don't think so. Gun ownership in the US is too widespread to be heavily influenced in that way.

I certainly don't recall saying that "all of them" are flawed. I was referring specifically to the one Might AC referenced, claiming that people who carry guns are 4.5 more likely to be shot than people who do not carry guns.

Here in BC, when we hear on the news that someone has been shot, it almost invariably turns out that both the shooter and the victim are involved in the drug trade. Gang members are going to be highly over-represented among victims of firearms homicides, and "people who carry firearms" are going to be highly over-represented among gang members.

It's like noting that people who carry a lighter daily are 4.5 times more likely to die of lung cancer, and calling on a ban on lighters as a means of preventing lung cancer. It might well be true that people who carry lighters daily are 4.5 times more likely to die of lung cancer, but there is an obvious factor being overlooked, and it would be the height of dishonesty to present this as an argument in favor of banning lighters.

BC doesn't have a gun problem. Certain parts of the Greater Vancouver Area have a gang problem.

And anyway, on a macro scale, I have no doubt that society would be better off without any guns. Then even the cops wouldn't need them. They could use tasers or whatever.

I remain convinced that some urbanites just don't understand that in many parts of this country, a firearm is a frequently used tool.

-k

Edited by kimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Wait, what's wrong with background checks?

-k

Nothing under the auspices of what you or I have obtained well getting our RPALs, just as we are checked and cross referenced daily, but background checks for individual purchases in the United States that don’t include all criminal and metal health records are futile in this thought exercise and largely unenforceable…..
At one point (back in the 90s) the NRA was in favour of background checks, but advocacy groups put the kibosh on it for privacy concerns………Even gun manufactures and registered dealers favoured such a notion for financial reasons, namely because it would limit the trade in used firearms at smaller gun shows for logistical reasons, as such, the used market would decline, well new firearms sales would increase.
In this proposed legislation, there were no provisions for the required inclusion of mental health records and criminal arrests and police files at the State and County level, coupled with the exemption for firearms transactions that were “non profit” and between family and friends…….Basically the proposed legislation was nothing but window dressing.
If Americans want “gun control”, it should be at a State level and similar to several aspects that were just introduced in Connecticut, namely a requirement for extensive criminal and mental health checks, coupled with a “permit” allowing a consumer to purchase a firearm after obtaining a required safety course….In essence, almost our PAL/RPAL license but administrated at a State level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing under the auspices of what you or I have obtained well getting our RPALs, just as we are checked and cross referenced daily, but background checks for individual purchases in the United States that don’t include all criminal and metal health records are futile in this thought exercise and largely unenforceable…..

Which is why the NRA and all the gun nuts fought so frantically against it, right? This bill, in fact, was a compromise worked out between conservative democrat and republican senators. The fact is the gun nuts don't want any kind of restrictions on weapons. None. No controls whatever, whether they be background checks, presenting ID, records, nothing. If the NRA had its way fully automatic weapons would be for sale at every Sears and K-Mart just as easily as you could buy a TV or toaster.

Which is why, of course, the NRA and everyone affiliated with them, are wack jobs, in the eyes of the majority

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I BC doesn't have a gun problem. Certain parts of the Greater Vancouver Area have a gang problem.I remain convinced that some urbanites just don't understand that in many parts of this country, a firearm is a frequently used tool.

-k

I've always made the distinction between urban and rural areas in discussions about firearms. I agree that in rural areas there can be a justifiable reason to posses firearms. But not hand guns and not assault weapons or weapons with clips with more than five bullets.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you mean.........Don’t really agree with your contention in that regard………I would suggest that a gun solely for the purpose of self defence might allow oneself to feel equal to a potential threat……..Perhaps not powerful, but not powerless if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Which is why the NRA and all the gun nuts fought so frantically against it, right? This bill, in fact, was a compromise worked out between conservative democrat and republican senators. The fact is the gun nuts don't want any kind of restrictions on weapons. None. No controls whatever, whether they be background checks, presenting ID, records, nothing. If the NRA had its way fully automatic weapons would be for sale at every Sears and K-Mart just as easily as you could buy a TV or toaster.

Which is why, of course, the NRA and everyone affiliated with them, are wack jobs, in the eyes of the majority

No, the failed legislation was purely window dressing to pacify the hysterical segment of the population that fear guns.
As for the “eyes of the majority”, well Obama and company often cited the single poll stating 90% were in favour of such legislation, yet stating that Republicans and some Democrats were fearful of being re-elected well facing an “onslaught of NRA money”……..
My question, if the politicians that voted against the legislation did so for fear of losing their jobs, why didn’t they vote with the “90%”? Simply put, they obviously voted for what their constituents wanted….If not, they will be tossed out during the next election……..And I can’t see that happening.
I’m sorry if you’ve been drinking the Obama administrations Kool-aide and in turn falling for it’s Newspeak…..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I've always made the distinction between urban and rural areas in discussions about firearms. I agree that in rural areas there can be a justifiable reason to posses firearms. But not hand guns and not assault weapons or weapons with clips with more than five bullets.

Is Argus ok if we own these then:

Norinco-M14.jpg

Or do these scare you also? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Argus ok if we own these then:

Norinco-M14.jpg

Or do these scare you also? :rolleyes:

Guns don't care me. Gun nuts scare me.

And frankly, my attitude towards guys with 50 guns is about the same as my attitude toward the guy in the wifebeater shirt with the yard full of pit bulls.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L
Which is why the NRA and gun nuts fought frantically against it.

No, the NRA will oppose Firearms Legislation that does nothing to effect gun crime, well only placing restrictions upon law abiding citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Guns don't care me. Gun nuts scare me.

And frankly, my attitude towards guys with 50 guns is about the same as my attitude toward the guy in the wifebeater shirt with the yard full of pit bulls.

So you're scared of clothing and dogs also eh? Makes sense........

And what number of guns owned by a person, or as you describe them “gun nuts”, doesn’t cause you concern? A man with 50 firearms conjures a negative attitude in your view, what about a guy with say 10 guns? Or a women with 5? What's the cut-off in Argus's view?

Edit to add:

Does a 13 year old girl, under the supervision of adults, with only 3 guns also scare you?

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

And to go back to Canada, in Ontario in particular:

http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2013/04/18/guns_by_the_numbers.html

757: Number of crime guns police in Ontario traced in 2011

44: Number of U.S. states Ontario crime guns were traced back to in 2011

60% or 459 of those 757 guns were smuggled across the border from the U.S.

I'm shocked........

20% or 149 guns originated in Canada, often stolen from legal gun owners

So they also steal guns off legal Canadians?

19% or 142 guns were too old to trace or couldn’t be traced due to lack of information, such as obliterated serial numbers

So a registry wouldn’t have made a difference……..

So if the Toronto Star’s numbers are correct, ~99% of firearms used in gun related crimes in Ontario were obtained illegally………But there should be a ban on legal ownership of all “Assault Rifles” and handguns, and only rural folks in Ontario should be aloud to own from the remaining firearms categories (as defined by Argus)…………..Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the Toronto Star’s numbers are correct, ~99% of firearms used in gun related crimes in Ontario were obtained illegally………But there should be a ban on legal ownership of all “Assault Rifles” and handguns, and only rural folks in Ontario should be aloud to own from the remaining firearms categories (as defined by Argus)…………..Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

The reason there are so many illegal firearms out there is because there are so many legal firearms out there. Where millions of people legally own firearms its fairly predictable that many of them would be stolen and find their way into the hands of criminals. Where guns are sold freely at thousands of shops, its entirely predictable they will wind up in the wrong hands. Most of the guns used in crimes in Canada were smuggled in from the US. As I said, I'm under no illusions we could entirely remove guns from society, but if we could, I would advocate for it barring a few approved weapons in rural areas used as tools and hunting rifles kept in depots where city dwellers could pick them up on their way out of town.

What we could do is make it much more expensive to have restricted weapons illegally. Long, mandatory prison sentences for those smuggling or selling them illegally would be a good start. Even longer sentences for those possessing, much less using them would be good too. We might have to exempt such laws from the constitution however, since the only group which still advocates for violent criminals are judges and lawyers.

Unsurprising, since most of them have nothing approaching moral or ethical values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

The reason there are so many illegal firearms out there is because there are so many legal firearms out there. Where millions of people legally own firearms its fairly predictable that many of them would be stolen and find their way into the hands of criminals. Where guns are sold freely at thousands of shops, its entirely predictable they will wind up in the wrong hands. Most of the guns used in crimes in Canada were smuggled in from the US. As I said, I'm under no illusions we could entirely remove guns from society, but if we could, I would advocate for it barring a few approved weapons in rural areas used as tools and hunting rifles kept in depots where city dwellers could pick them up on their way out of town.

What we could do is make it much more expensive to have restricted weapons illegally. Long, mandatory prison sentences for those smuggling or selling them illegally would be a good start. Even longer sentences for those possessing, much less using them would be good too. We might have to exempt such laws from the constitution however, since the only group which still advocates for violent criminals are judges and lawyers.

Unsurprising, since most of them have nothing approaching moral or ethical values.

Well I disagree fully with your first paragraph and liken it to being similar to blaming the women for being raped, I agree fully with throwing the book at those caught using a firearm in the commission of a crime and those that smuggle weapons into the country or sell firearms and ammunition to unlicensed individuals. No arguments there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Yeah, it's not like that at all. Nice try with the rhetoric though.

Sure it is......I, a legal gun owner, shouldn't have guns because someone could steal them and use them in a crime.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it is......I, a legal gun owner, shouldn't have guns because someone could steal them and use them in a crime.........

Someone WILL steal them and use them in a crime. We know this to be a fact. If there are millions of guns out there then criminals will have no difficulty getting their hands on them. It's not about you personally, it's a macro thing. Further, there is no actual practical use for these weapons in cities. I think you'll agree there is a practical reason or two to have women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Someone WILL steal them and use them in a crime. We know this to be a fact. If there are millions of guns out there then criminals will have no difficulty getting their hands on them. It's not about you personally, it's a macro thing. Further, there is no actual practical use for these weapons in cities. I think you'll agree there is a practical reason or two to have women.

That argument is ridiculous…….there are tens of millions of guns “out there”, throughout rural and urban Canada, yet the vast majority of crime guns are smuggled in from the States……Your proposal would be akin to banning sports cars and home electronics, fore if the public owns such “luxuries”, criminals are bound to steal them…..As such, we should restrict their ownership, that way criminals won’t have anything to steal. :rolleyes:

As to practical use, when did our society start regulating pastimes based on their practical usage? Again, there are no practical uses having sports cars that can travel over 100 Kph and 4x4 SUVs, as such, out in the sticks we should have private race tracks and owners have to keep their cars at the raceway, just in case they are tempted to open up with them on public roads or thieves are tempted to steal them……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

kind if proves his point.

No, no it doesn't......How would banning or further restricting, along the lines proposed by Argus, private ownership of firearms in Canada prevent illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada? As mentioned by the Toronto Star, the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes in Canada are smuggled US guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Another report by the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2013/04/19/the_gun_pipeline_mules_who_bring_firearms_across_border_pay_high_price_for_fast_money.html

In 2009, Toronto police seized 861 crime guns in the city, at least 70 per cent of which are smuggled in from the U.S. A crime gun is any gun that is illegally possessed or has an obliterated serial number, or is seized in relation to a criminal act, such as a shooting.

In the same year, border services in Ontario seized just nine crime guns they believed were headed for the criminal market, according to a 2010 internal report on gun smuggling obtained by the Star.

“Intelligence and investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies reveal that hundreds of firearms are smuggled into Canada yearly that are destined for the criminal market,” says the report.

While border services seize hundreds of guns across Canada each year, most belong to legitimate American travellers who don’t declare their weapons, which is against the law. These “mom and pop” guns made up the majority of the 2,641 guns seized by border services across Canada between 2005 and 2009, according to the report.

Still, all firearms, the report says, are a public safety concern because even “mom and pop” guns that make their way into Canada could be stolen or diverted to the criminal market in some way.

The Star’s research also found that border services is confiscating nearly half the number of guns they did a decade ago. From 2001 to 2005, border services seized an average of 856 firearms per year. Over the past five years, the average has been 494 firearms per year. A spokeswoman wouldn’t speculate why that is.

In an email to the Star, she said the agency places a “high priority on the detection and interdiction of undeclared firearms.”

When police can’t find a record of a firearm in the Canadian system, it means they’ve been smuggled into the country, so they request to run a trace with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, through their assistant attaché who is based in Toronto.

In the past five years, Canadian police have asked the firearms bureau to trace 6,574 guns seized on this side of the border.

The ages of mules smuggling suspected crime guns vary, though the largest group was 26-35 years old, according to the 2010 report.

Most are men, though females make up a sizeable portion (17 per cent) when compared to seizures of all guns.

Yet from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/04/homicides-statistics-canada-2011.html

Statistics Canada reported Tuesday that the homicide rate has stayed "relatively stable over the past decade." Prior to that, it had been declining since the mid-1970s.

However, deaths related to firearms aren't nearly as common, the federal agency said.

"The rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 population has generally been declining since the mid-1970s and, in 2011, reached its lowest point in almost 50 years."

The Canadian murder weapon of choice is now the blade.

"An increase in stabbings accounted for virtually the entire increase in homicides in 2011," the federal data agency said.

It said there were 39 more stabbings in 2011 compared to 2010. Overall, stabbings accounted for 35 per cent of homicides, firearms for 27 per cent, beatings for 22 per cent and strangulation for seven per cent.

So firearms homicides have been declining in favour of knives and the vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are smuggled in from the States…….Yet we need to restrict (or ban) legal ownership of Canadian firearms :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no it doesn't......How would banning or further restricting, along the lines proposed by Argus, private ownership of firearms in Canada prevent illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada? As mentioned by the Toronto Star, the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes in Canada are smuggled US guns.

As I've said before, I acknowledge the reality that we would have no real way of keeping guns off the street by further controlling them here. As long as we have a multithousand mile border with a nation of gun nuts they are going to find their way into our streets. That's why I favor draconian legislation which would basically give those who smuggle, sell and posses illegal firearms a decade or two cracking rocks to think about the error of their ways. Unfortunately, for decades now, Canadian judges have thwarted every effort to crack down on illegal firearm possession and use. I'd kind of like to say to a judge "Okay, you won't send this guy to prison for a long term for using a firearm. That's your decision. But if he gets out and does it again, you're going to share his next term in prison."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...