Gun law is stupid

[Svante]

.
There are laws to get rid of guns in Canada becusae too many person have them. MP Garry Breitkreuz say the laws are not fair to persons especially who hunt in the north. Most MP in parliament think this cause the crime. Do you think if there are more guns then more persons get kill? David Miller he say too many guns come from US and there must be gun ban in US.

fro m Wildbore

Ontario Preimer Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller are trying to get a handgun ban in place. These two guys are idiots and are a huge threat to LEGAL gun ownership in Canada. The Toronto Mayor has also frequently demands handgun bans be implimented in the US.

I actually ask Americans to send letters to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, saying that you are offended by David Miller's statements about American gun ownership.

Minister of Public Safety
House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6

I think if somebody are goin g to kill they will do this with a gun or some different way. then there are persons i n Canada who think if you get rid of guns lives will be saved.i think this are wrong becuase criminals will be the only person with guns.

i don’t like guns but i think people should own them. i don’t think taking guns away fro m people will reduce crime. people must b e able to protect there home.

i think person mus t be educated abaout guns befojr they have a gun and laws must change. in Canada if you kill somebody that hurt you i n your home you go to jail for longtime. so what good are guns to protect if you are in jail?

Toronto the Bad: BOYCOTT TORONTO
.
.

 

[Diuretic]

Everybody hates Toronto, heck if the Leafs ever had season good enough to win the Stanley Cup non-Torontonians would probably burn it down!

Miller has a problem though, gang crime. Not that I know much about him or his politics but it seems he came to office as a single-issue candidate, did nothing about the issue that got him elected and stayed on because it was a good gig.

But Miller has conflated gun control with crime control. I think the situation in Toronto is that handguns in particular are coming across the border into criminal hands in a big way, I'm not sure but it could be a trade for drugs. There have been some highly publicised shootings which are related to gang activity - this is just one of them - 'Toronto has lost its innocence,' police say of Boxing Day shooting

As far as I know it's not ordinary Torontonians who are going around shooting each other and innocent bystanders, it's gang members who are criminals. So that's where the focus should be. Miller has, excuse the pun, picked the wrong target, but he's picked a soft target.

 

[Chris]

Guns don't cause crime, they make crime more lethal.

Tougher sentencing will prevent crime. There are no thieves in Saudi Arabia.

 

[alan1]

Guns don't cause crime, they make crime more lethal.

Tougher sentencing will prevent crime. There are no thieves in Saudi Arabia.

They make defense more lethal also.

I agree with tougher sentencing for crimes that involve victims.

 

[Chris]

They make defense more lethal also.

I agree with tougher sentencing for crimes that involve victims.

Defense?

A guy was talking in the movie theater so I shot him.

I got drunk and got in an argument with a guy, so I shot him.

I got mad at my wife, so I got a gun and shot her.

This is what typically happens.

 

[Father Time]

Defense?

A guy was talking in the movie theater so I shot him.

I got drunk and got in an argument with a guy, so I shot him.

I got mad at my wife, so I got a gun and shot her.

This what more what typically happens.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

 

[alan1]

Defense?

A guy was talking in the movie theater so I shot him.

I got drunk and got in an argument with a guy, so I shot him.

I got mad at my wife, so I got a gun and shot her.

This what more what typically happens.

I'll make you a deal Chris,
You can forgo your right to own a gun and I won't help you if a criminal tries to take advantage of you, your family or your property, but I will testify in court after the fact
and you,
stay out of my way when a criminal tries to take advantage of me and I use my gun to defend my family, myself and my property, and you can testify in court after the fact.

Deal?

 

[Diuretic]

The bloke who used his firearm inappropriately may go to prison and serves him right. Then he might not. Question is, will he now not be able to ever legally get a firearm? That's the key in that one. Other responsible gun owners would be aghast at what the idiot did. Anyone else with a short fuse temper and a ccw permit would be wise to reflect. Of course I'm assuming the bloke was lawfully possessing.

Back to Mayor Miller. He's confused and he's also desperate. But he's gone after exactly the wrong people. Gang bangers in TO don't give a rat's arse about lawful firearms or firearms laws, they'll get their weapons through the underground channels they inhabit

 

[Chris]

Do you have any proof to back this up?

Here's a pretty good article about the subject that explains the statistics.....

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

 

[Chris]

I'll make you a deal Chris,
You can forgo your right to own a gun and I won't help you if a criminal tries to take advantage of you, your family or your property, but I will testify in court after the fact
and you,
stay out of my way when a criminal tries to take advantage of me and I use my gun to defend my family, myself and my property, and you can testify in court after the fact.

Deal?

I don't own a gun. Guns are most dangerous to the people that own them and their families.

As far as crime goes tougher sentencing works.

 

[alan1]

I don't own a gun. Guns are most dangerous to the people that own them and their families.

As far as crime goes tougher sentencing works.

Well, that's not a proven fact,
but swimming pools are.
In fact, more people die from accidental drownings than from guns.

 

[Chris]

Well, that's not a proven fact,
but swimming pools are.
In fact, more people die from accidental drownings than from guns.

Actually it is.

The states with the most guns per capita have the most gun deaths per capita.

 

[alan1]

Actually it is.

The states with the most guns per capita have the most gun deaths per capita.

Care to link anything that says they have the most criminal or accidental caused deaths from guns?

 

[Father Time]

Here's a pretty good article about the subject that explains the statistics.....

Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine

Well let's see that doesn't prove that fewer guns are used in self defense. That source barely proves anything.

Here's two examples

"Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol."

"We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there’s a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in ‘self-defense,’ it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

How did they come to that conclusion? They give us no sources, no info, no links to surveys conducted, and more importantly NO NUMBERS. If they took a survey, I want to see their exact results, how many people they polled and how they got their pollees. I've only skimmed it but it appears to have no links to such data.

I'm not saying I don't trust Harvard but what I've heard directly contradicts what they say and so I'd like some more proof other than verbal reassurances (which goes for both sides).

 

[Father Time]

Let's ignore statistics for a bit and focus on the general arguments.

If a person has no criminal background, is sane and has no intentions of committing crimes I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to purchase an AK-47.

It's dangerous but so are cars,(and before you give me the license shtick it's legal to drive a car on your own property without a license, at least here in California), you don't need a permit to juggle chainsaws, swallow swords or all sorts of other dangerous stuff. If the person harms someone else with his AK-47 due to negligence then you charge him with criminal negligence, possibly take away his gun and move on.

Now you may say 'well he might kill someone with it'. Using that as justification for not allowing him to have one is pretty much assuming he's going to commit murder using that gun when he hasn't actually done anything. That logic pretty much contradicts 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you can prove he'll commit crimes, or that he's nuts than don't let him buy one. But the burden of proof lies with the one taking away liberties.

Finally even if 99% of all the people in the U.S. can't handle owning a gun that's no reason to take away guns from the remaining 1%.

 

[roomy]

Let's ignore statistics for a bit and focus on the general arguments.

If a person has no criminal background, is sane and has no intentions of committing crimes I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to purchase an AK-47.

It's dangerous but so are cars,(and before you give me the license shtick it's legal to drive a car on your own property without a license, at least here in California), you don't need a permit to juggle chainsaws, swallow swords or all sorts of other dangerous stuff. If the person harms someone else with his AK-47 due to negligence then you charge him with criminal negligence, possibly take away his gun and move on.

Now you may say 'well he might kill someone with it'. Using that as justification for not allowing him to have one is pretty much assuming he's going to commit murder using that gun when he hasn't actually done anything. That logic pretty much contradicts 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you can prove he'll commit crimes, or that he's nuts than don't let him buy one. But the burden of proof lies with the one taking away liberties.

Finally even if 99% of all the people in the U.S. can't handle owning a gun that's no reason to take away guns from the remaining 1%.

The argument would be, Why would anyone wish to own an AK47? Convince me with valid reasons for owning one before you are granted a permitMost applicants would have great difficuilty doing that.

 

[Father Time]

The argument would be, Why would anyone wish to own an AK47? Convince me with valid reasons for owning one before you are granted a permitMost applicants would have great difficuilty doing that.

They want one.

There's a good enough reason.

The way I see it, they don't need a good reason to own one, you need a good reason why they personally shouldn't be allowed to own one.

 

[roomy]

They want one.

There's a valid reason.

The way I see it, they don't need a good reason to own one, you need a good reason why they personally shouldn't be allowed to own one.

 

[Father Time]

Give me a good reason why the average citizen shouldn't be allowed to own AK-47s.

Or at the very least a good reason why the burden should be on people that want one.

If the person doesn't plan to commit crimes with his newly acquired AK-47 then why should he not be allowed to have one?

 

[roomy]

Give me a good reason why the average citizen shouldn't be allowed to own AK-47s.

Or at the very least a good reason why the burden should be on people that want one.

If the person doesn't plan to commit crimes with his newly acquired AK-47 then why should he not be allowed to have one?

What would he wish to do with one? hunt deer?