Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 266
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Why are Canadians (and Brits) so worried about guns?

  1. #1 Why are Canadians (and Brits) so worried about guns? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I was crossing the Canadian border two weeks ago, and they asked if I had a list of things, including mace, in my possession. So I went to my truck and got my mace and brought it to them. They checked to see if it was for use against animals only, or humans also (of course it was for use against humans).

    Then they confiscated it!!! They told me I had a choice between letting them confiscate it, or keeping it and letting them arrest me for possession of a dangerous weapon in Canada.

    It's not even lethal!!!


    This has me wondering about the more general question of gun control. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic of taking things to such an extreme, but I'm sure it is related to the logic of banning firearms in some way.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Same thing in Australia. We call them offensive weapons.

    If you want to carry such weapons here, you can apply for a special license. Usually only granted to people under specific threat from specific people - after a great deal of paperwork and lengthy interviews.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Why would the UK or Canada want to have guns in circulation in their countries? They have a very low crime rate in that respect compared to the US and other countries that have guns, it's a no brainer people use guns to shoot each other, stopping the circulation means they're less easily accessed and you don't get anywhere near as much gun crime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    They told me I had a choice between letting them confiscate it, or keeping it and letting them arrest me for possession of a dangerous weapon in Canada.
    Also Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Turkey to name a few.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not even lethal!!!
    Well, it can be lethal.
    "The Los Angeles Times reported in 1995 at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA."
    Which is why they are often called "less-lethal" rather than "non-lethal".

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This has me wondering about the more general question of gun control. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic of taking things to such an extreme, but I'm sure it is related to the logic of banning firearms in some way.
    Pepper sprays are categorised as firearms in the UK, so they are subject to all related legislation.
    But the basic premise is that civilians are not allowed to walk around armed with dangerous weapons.

    This even applies to carrying big sticks (unless you have a legitimate reason).
    For example, if you walked around town on a Saturday night with a baseball bat, you would be stopped by the police for having an offensive weapon.
    SE15, Ascended and scheherazade like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    ahahaha awesome... they saw your face and asked do you have mace... and guess what you had one...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    They don't want "offensive weapons" in their country because they have seen what happens in countries like the United States where firearms are easily obtained and can be carried with limited restrictions.

    These countries have had mass killings in their pasts and their solutions are to remove the weaponry which made those killings possible rather than taking the approach of the US and trying to circulate more firearms. It is a different approach and the murder rates in those countries are, almost without exception, drastically lower than ours.

    A better question would be why Americans are so callous in regards to the losses from mass shootings.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    A better question would be why Americans are so callous in regards to the losses from mass shootings.
    Mass shootings, although deeply distressing, are not what drove the initial outlawing of firearms in the UK.
    It was 'normal' gun crime that was the target of gun legislature.
    SE15 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    A better question would be why Americans are so callous in regards to the losses from mass shootings.
    Mass shootings, although deeply distressing, are not what drove the initial outlawing of firearms in the UK.
    It was 'normal' gun crime that was the target of gun legislature.
    We don't care about that in America.

    For us, it's all about the big dramatic events. Kids are killed every day by guns in this country, be it at the hands of a murderer or another kid just messing with a pistol. What motivates us is the big Hollywood stuff. Car chases, police storming schools, scenes of mass hysteria.

    The problem is that we seem to forget we're not supposed to be entertained by these events...
    Lazy Jester likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,230
    Nothing bad yet, but I'd like to ask people to keep things civil in this new Gun thread. It won't be allowed to continue as long as the other one did this time around. Thanks in advance.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    For us, it's all about the big dramatic events. Kids are killed every day by guns in this country, be it at the hands of a murderer or another kid just messing with a pistol. What motivates us is the big Hollywood stuff. Car chases, police storming schools, scenes of mass hysteria.
    The problem is that we seem to forget we're not supposed to be entertained by these events...
    The UK can be as guilty as anyone of this - infotainment is more popular than news.
    IMO, we need to completely change the way our media behaves.
    danhanegan likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    For example, if you walked around town on a Saturday night with a baseball bat, you would be stopped by the police for having an offensive weapon.
    I have been arrested twice for brandishing my sense of humour.

    But to answer the OP, the British are not worried about guns because we have gun ownership pretty well controlled. You should try it sometime.
    SE15, Strange, Ascended and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Answering the OP, you should have check the laws of that country prior to bringing anything that can be considered a weapon. If you were in the USA, you would have to exercise the same responsibility when traveling between different states.

    Gun Politics in Canada
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    For us, it's all about the big dramatic events. Kids are killed every day by guns in this country, be it at the hands of a murderer or another kid just messing with a pistol. What motivates us is the big Hollywood stuff. Car chases, police storming schools, scenes of mass hysteria.
    The problem is that we seem to forget we're not supposed to be entertained by these events...
    The UK can be as guilty as anyone of this - infotainment is more popular than news.
    IMO, we need to completely change the way our media behaves.
    I agree, but not through legislation. We need a social mindset shift. We need to recognize, as a population, that our media is grossly inadequate in terms of actual journalism and that their op-ed quality programs are destructive to the public consciousness because we have come to accept media as credible and truthful.

    To JG's comment; we can't control guns here in the USA. The vast majority of the population wants stricter regulation, but we can't get it through the government. They manipulate us by addressing phony statistics which suggest that A) gun ownership reduces your risk of being the target of criminal activity, B) gun legislation takes guns away from law-abiding people and gives them to criminals, and C) the best way to prevent gun crimes by criminals is to better arms the populace.

    Personally, I don't understand our fixation with guns. It's like taking the pacifier from a baby. If 20 dead children gunned down in a school doesn't motivate us to change immediately and dramatically, I cannot fathom what will. Perhaps that makes me a poor speaker on behalf of the American population.
    Lazy Jester likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Answering the OP, you should have check the laws of that country prior to bringing anything that can be considered a weapon. If you were in the USA, you would have to exercise the same responsibility when traveling between different states.

    Gun Politics in Canada
    This.

    Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from it, regardless of whether or not you believe the law is ridiculous.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    For example, if you walked around town on a Saturday night with a baseball bat, you would be stopped by the police for having an offensive weapon.
    I have been arrested twice for brandishing my sense of humour.
    Also:
    Coughing without due care and attention.
    Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
    Possession of an offensive wife.

    Constable Savage - YouTube
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    each country has its own needs...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,230
    Let's say you look at different kinds of things and grade them according to how dangerous they are by arriving at a number derived from ease of use, availability, amount of damage that can be inflicted etc.

    Is it simply a case of where a country's threshold lies for what is acceptable risk? Because the arguments of guns for self defence etc can be applied to knives, catapults, RPG's, flame thrower anti-hijack systems, acid water pistols, Swords and pepper spray as well.

    The issue becomes, with how much can the general public be trusted? How is the threshold determined?

    To me, guns are just one step too far in terms of limited control. How do people judge where the government stops protecting society and starts oppressing them? It seems silly to keep referring to a bill of rights hundreds of years old on all matters, as if times haven't changed.
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Is it simply a case of where a country's threshold lies for what is acceptable risk? Because the arguments of guns for self defence etc can be applied to knives, catapults, RPG's, flame thrower anti-hijack systems, acid water pistols, Swords and pepper spray as well.
    It seems to be based on how public opinion balances the different risks.
    I have seen the argument that the risk of gun death is outweighed by the risk of governmental oppression.
    Personally, I don't think that argument holds water.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    The issue becomes, with how much can the general public be trusted? How is the threshold determined?
    That question is very general.
    In general, the public are trustworthy.

    But if you were to ask "How much can the public be trusted when angry?" or "How much can the public be trusted when drunk?" I would say "Not much".

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    How do people judge where the government stops protecting society and starts oppressing them?
    Governments already do both - they are not mutually exclusive.
    But the fact that the American government currently oppresses its people is a good argument against the effectiveness of personal gun ownership at deterring governmental oppression.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Governments already do both - they are not mutually exclusive.
    Is oppression really the right word? How about protecting them? I have a guy on Facebook who seems to think any kind of government control is oppression, which to my mind is utter nonsense.

    It varies from issue to issue I suppose.

    But the fact that the American government currently oppresses its people is a good argument against the effectiveness of personal gun ownership at deterring governmental oppression.
    Wasn't really thinking at all in terms of gun ownership's role in deterring government oppression. Is that a real concern among Americans I wonder? Rather paranoid if you ask me.

    I wonder if the highly litigious nature of Americans and this fear of Governmental oppression betrays a general psychological trend not found in the same concentrations in most other developed nations?
    Last edited by KALSTER; October 28th, 2013 at 11:06 AM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Wasn't really thinking at all in terms of gun ownership's role in deterring government oppression. Is that a real concern among Americans I wonder? Rather paranoid if you ask me.
    Yes, but it is unfounded. Again, the media plays a large part in this role. Our mainstream conservative media reports, with all seriousness, that the first thing Hitler did was take away peoples' guns. I genuinely worry about the mental state of anyone who thinks the government of the United States is going to enter into a situation in any way comparable to the Nazis.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I wonder if the highly litigious nature of Americans and this fear of Governmental oppression betrays a general psychological trend not found in the same concentrations in most other developed nations?
    I think you would find quite a few contrasts between the American state of mind and most other first world nations.

    Our nation thrives on armed conflict.
    scheherazade likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    But the fact that the American government currently oppresses its people is a good argument against the effectiveness of personal gun ownership at deterring governmental oppression.
    Wasn't really thinking at all in terms of gun ownership's role in deterring government oppression. Is that a real concern among Americans I wonder? Rather paranoid if you ask me.
    I only know what the vocal pro-gun people say.
    But that is what a lot of them say.
    And IMO - it displays an unjustified level of fear.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I wonder if the highly litigious nature of Americans and this fear of Governmental oppression betrays a general psychological trend not found in the same concentrations in most other developed nations?
    I am reasonably convinced that it is a psychological issue - possible stemming from how America was formed.
    And that issue is stoked by financial interests in arms sales.

    It reminds me of when tobacco was still being marketed as "good for you" and companies like BAT were blocking cigarette research.
    scheherazade likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Well clearly there are countries in the world where citizens either want or feel it's acceptable to own and use guns, many don't see it as a problem and feel they are responsible enough to use them, I however have always been convinced that the potential danger outways the benefits. But I am British, I live in a country with gun control laws and obviously this is bound to have an influence. So I don't think that I or other such people should be allowed to tell people living in countries that have chosen to accept gun ownership that they shouldn't, after all we live in democratic societies where the will of the people is at least supposed to prevail, this mean each countries people should be free to choose their own laws for themselves.

    That being said I don't think it's either unfair or unjustified to still be concerned about the potential dangers of gun ownership in any country, nobody wants to see anybody being unnecessarily being shot and killed. Is this being worried? Or just rightly being aware of the dangers that privately owned guns pose.

    Also I don't think it really comes down to an irresponsibility issue, because I don't for one second imagine firearms are knowingly sold to those who intend to missuse them, it's just that when people have access to these weapons and are in a state of mind to missuse them then bad things happen that simply couldn't if the people didn't have the guns in the first place.

    Then there's the criminal element, even in a country such as Britain that has gun control laws people still die at the hands of firearms that criminals have managed to get hold of, criminals will and do use such weapons if they can get them. If we were to relax our gun control laws then more people will die it's as simple as that, guns kill people there's no getting away from this fact that's what they are designed to do.

    Also certain types of pepper strays and stuns now fall into the category of firearms because they are considered dangerous and shouldn't be in public hands, meaning that anyone caught with or trying to buy them are subject to criminal prosecution.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    even in a country such as Britain that has gun control laws people still die at the hands of firearms that criminals have managed to get hold of, criminals will and do use such weapons if they can get them. If we were to relax our gun control laws then more people will die
    I've found this an interesting point of contention with gun owners. Despite the fact that it is a bit unnerving to move around human lives on a statistics chart, I have wondered something.

    We can assume that even with universal firearm bans in the US, some people will still die violently at the hands of criminals with firearms. However, would that number be lower than it is now wherein our laws allow us to own firearms to protect ourselves?

    In the end, though lives would still be lost to them, would firearm bans save American lives? If the answer is yes, I cannot think of a legitimate reason to continue down this path to more widespread gun ownership and less restriction. Does anything trump American lives?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    We can assume that even with universal firearm bans in the US, some people will still die violently at the hands of criminals with firearms. However, would that number be lower than it is now wherein our laws allow us to own firearms to protect ourselves?
    A criminal won't choose to take a knife to a gunfight.
    And if everyone has easy access to guns, then every confrontation is a possible gunfight.

    Personally, since you are 40 times more likely to survive being stabbed than shot, I'd rather be in a knife-fight.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    And if everyone has easy access to guns, then every confrontation is a possible gunfight.
    That's sort of my rationale.

    However, in the US we have a different approach; if the criminal has a pistol, you bring a shotgun. If the criminal brings a shotgun, you bring an AR. Now that the criminals have ARs, I suppose we need to open the law to RPGs and roof-mounted .50 cals on our cars.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    even in a country such as Britain that has gun control laws people still die at the hands of firearms that criminals have managed to get hold of, criminals will and do use such weapons if they can get them. If we were to relax our gun control laws then more people will die
    I've found this an interesting point of contention with gun owners. Despite the fact that it is a bit unnerving to move around human lives on a statistics chart, I have wondered something.

    We can assume that even with universal firearm bans in the US, some people will still die violently at the hands of criminals with firearms. However, would that number be lower than it is now wherein our laws allow us to own firearms to protect ourselves?

    In the end, though lives would still be lost to them, would firearm bans save American lives? If the answer is yes, I cannot think of a legitimate reason to continue down this path to more widespread gun ownership and less restriction. Does anything trump American lives?
    I guess you could look at it this way, here in the UK crimes happen just like in the US, people get robbed or burgled without the criminals having guns. This means people arn't getting shot or killed. But if society changed and everyone was carrying or had access to weapons then I can't see why the criminals wouldn't also have guns, and these are the people most likely to use them.

    What the crime figures from the US show is that even where people are allowed to carry guns for protection crimes are still happening, gun ownership doesn't stop crime all it does is ensure that the crimes being committed often end up with more violence and deaths. Take the guns away the crimes happen but without quite so much death. If you have a gun you pose a greater threat to the criminal, they're far more likely to shoot first and think later, however if they think you don't pose a threat they are far less likely to shoot you as they don't have a reason. So do guns make us safer from crime? Well I don't think so.
    John Galt and exchemist like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    The gun registry in Canada was an issue of contention for decades and one of the planks that the Conservatives got elected on last time was their promise to do away with the long gun registry while maintaining records for pistols and other specialized firearms.

    A great number of people in this nation yet reside in areas where wildlife can pose a risk to livestock, pets and even humans. Subsistence hunting, sport hunting and trapping are other activities where firearms are utilized, especially in the northern territories, and the more remote regions of most of the provinces.

    One argument used in support of the gun registry was that it was a good tool for police agencies to consult to know whether or not there may be weapons at the address they were called to. Given the poor record keeping of a largely transient resident population, that argument held about as much water as a seive. Like people are going to remember to send a 'change -of-address card' to the gun registry...right...

    The rational is that those who are intent on breaking the law are not going to abide by it hence the unintentional lapse of registry due to an inefficient system was making criminals of law abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to address the intentional use of firearms by those involved in crime.

    As for mace being a lethal weapon and confiscated at the border, you might not want to try crossing the border with your home and garden pest supplies either, many of which can be dangerous if not used as directed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    A great number of people in this nation yet reside in areas where wildlife can pose a risk to livestock, pets and even humans. Subsistence hunting, sport hunting and trapping are other activities where firearms are utilized, especially in the northern territories, and the more remote regions of most of the provinces.
    Clearly this shows that there is at least a genuine reason for having a gun in Canada, if such reasons are shown to exist then I would certainly support people's right to gun ownership. Clearly though that is very different from the case in UK where the most we have to worry about is a small bite from abadger as the worst the local wildlife can actually throw anyone here.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Clearly though that is very different from the case in UK where the most we have to worry about is a small bite from abadger as the worst the local wildlife can actually throw anyone here.
    Although true, a (e.g) farmer can still apply for a shotgun licence.
    (More likely for shooting pheasant than badgers. Farmers are scared of badgers. Never mess with a badger. If they don't get you, Brian May will!)
    Ascended likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    in UK ... the most we have to worry about is a small bite from abadger
    I don't know. Jeremy Clarkson told me that honey badgers go for the testicles. I'd want to be armed for that encounter.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    in UK ... the most we have to worry about is a small bite from abadger
    I don't know. Jeremy Clarkson told me that honey badgers go for the testicles. I'd want to be armed for that encounter.
    Honey badgers are the rulers of the evil badger kingdom.
    Luckily, they only like hot, dry countries - which excludes Britain completely.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    in UK ... the most we have to worry about is a small bite from abadger
    I don't know. Jeremy Clarkson told me that honey badgers go for the testicles. I'd want to be armed for that encounter.
    You don't need a gun, just a very good codpiece my friend
    Flick Montana and RedPanda like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    To JG's comment; we can't control guns here in the USA. The vast majority of the population wants stricter regulation, but we can't get it through the government.
    Not sure where you get "vast majority" from?Those who want gun control want it badly, and those who vobject to it object strongly. Probably both think they are the overwhelming majority (and aren't). And both feel unrepresented.
    They manipulate us by addressing phony statistics which suggest that A) gun ownership reduces your risk of being the target of criminal activity, B) gun legislation takes guns away from law-abiding people and gives them to criminals, and C) the best way to prevent gun crimes by criminals is to better arms the populace.Personally, I don't understand our fixation with guns. It's like taking the pacifier from a baby. If 20 dead children gunned down in a school doesn't motivate us to change immediately and dramatically, I cannot fathom what will. Perhaps that makes me a poor speaker on behalf of the American population.
    I think those things are just post hoc justifications for something more fundamental.

    It's about being at peace with your own mortality. Realizing you will die someday, maybe sooner than later, And not wasting the time you have worrying about the bogeyman. Americans who smoke may sometimes fall in this category also.

    Adding quantity of days at the cost of quality of days is a break even proposition at best.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Not sure where you get "vast majority" from?Those who want gun control want it badly, and those who vobject to it object strongly. Probably both think they are the overwhelming majority (and aren't). And both feel unrepresented.
    Recent polls for American citizens in regards to background checks for firearms top 90% in favor of such measures. That strikes me as a vast majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think those things are just post hoc justifications for something more fundamental.

    It's about being at peace with your own mortality. Realizing you will die someday, maybe sooner than later, And not wasting the time you have worrying about the bogeyman. Americans who smoke may sometimes fall in this category also.

    Adding quantity of days at the cost of quality of days is a break even proposition at best.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    What does being at peace with mortality have to do with firearm ownership?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ammunition has almost doubled in price in the past year
    now, it costs me $2 for the deer tag, and $2 for the bullet
    which brings the cost per pound up to 4¢ (if I don't miss) plus freezer wrap, and a lot of time and labor
    unless I have to re-zero the weapon---usually takes 3-5 shots, so another $6-$10 amortized over the life of the zeroing
    probably not inaccurate to round that 4¢ up to 6-8¢
    (oh well)
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    @sculptor,

    Yes. There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.

    I have a gun on the property so that if the need ever arose, I could put a 1000 lb animal out of it's misery if it broke a leg for example, and prognosis was not favorable as is usually the case with horses.
    Yes, I could call a vet and have it dispatched 'humanely' at considerable expense and after an eternity of waiting, if one was available, there being a shortage of such practitioners in these parts. Afterwards, I would then have a 1000 lb contaminated carcass that is much more of an environmental hazard to dispose of.

    Likewise, when I am hauling horses in a trailer, I want a gun with me in case there ever is an accident and an animal needs to be dispatched, or as when my brother hit a moose on the highway and he and mother had to watch the poor animal thrashing in the ditch for 45 minutes until a Conservation officer could be summoned to do the deed.

    Guns, especially basic rifles, are just another tool.

    It's people who need the regulating and then there's always going to be those who respect no regulations.
    KALSTER and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,230
    I don't have a problem with guns per se, just with it not being regulated highly enough. The gun laws are tighter down here than they were in the past.

    In fact, I'd like to own a gun, probably a pistol of some sort. It would be locked away in a hidden safe though and would only be taken out to go target shooting or if there is maybe someone trying to break into the house. I wouldn't drive around with it, nor carry it around.

    Alternatively, I'd like to belong to a gun club where you'd need to be a member to attend, where you can get training and where you could hire all sorts of guns to shoot with on the day. Again, a long list of hoops would need to be jumped through in order to qualify.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Yes. There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    Maybe in the US, not here. We fully accept that farmers need guns.

    (One bit of esoteric information that people don't think about until they're told. A vital part of government preparedness for bushfires is to ensure adequate ammunition stocks. When you're shooting sheep and cattle and other animals by the thousands after a fire, one thing that's needed pronto is lots and lots of ammunition - which farmers/vets/park rangers probably couldn't afford to buy at such short notice and the conventional stockists probably wouldn't have on hand.)
    scheherazade likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Yes. There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    And for those legitimate uses it is legal to own a gun in the UK.
    (Even?) the UK doesn't ban guns when they are actually needed.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think those things are just post hoc justifications for something more fundamental. It's about being at peace with your own mortality. Realizing you will die someday, maybe sooner than later, And not wasting the time you have worrying about the bogeyman. Americans who smoke may sometimes fall in this category also. Adding quantity of days at the cost of quality of days is a break even proposition at best.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.What does being at peace with mortality have to do with firearm ownership?
    I think sometimes a person can be so committed to an ideology that they honestly can't even imagine any other way of thinking.Like, for example, an outlook where death is an acceptable outcome. People can die and it's ok. The bigger tragedy sometimes is to live. Doctor assisted suicide prevents needlessmisery. Gun assissted suicide gives a troubled.person a much needed rest. Or removes an abusive husband from his childrens lives before the abuse can become a perpetual, cross generaltional cycle.I know all that is anathema and I ought to be put in thestocks for saying it.......or suspended. Why not?

    Go ahead and suspend me. I'm not going to change a well reasoned outlook just to avoid getting shut up. Give me a rational reason and I might change it. But not just because it makes people angry.

    I know its an emotional topic, but I want to hear scientific reasons.
    Last edited by kojax; October 28th, 2013 at 10:47 PM.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Or removes an abusive husband from his childrens lives before the abuse can become a perpetual, cross generaltional cycle.I know all that is anathema and I ought to be put in thestocks for saying it.......or suspended. Why not?
    The more likely and more frequent outcome is that the abusive person will use any gun in the house to threaten - and ultimately to injure or kill - a partner and/ or any children just because it's available when they're overcome by bad temper or deranged by drugs. Without the gun, they'd use their fists or a knife, both of which are much less lethal. And of course, the partner or one of the kids may be overcome by distress or despair in such a household and if a gun is available, they'll be the ones to attempt suicide in that moment - which is much more likely to 'succeed' when a gun is used.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by kalster View Post
    let's say you look at different kinds of things and grade them according to how dangerous they are by arriving at a number derived from ease of use, availability, amount of damage that can be inflicted etc.

    Is it simply a case of where a country's threshold lies for what is acceptable risk? Because the arguments of guns for self defence etc can be applied to knives, catapults, rpg's, flame thrower anti-hijack systems, acid water pistols, swords and pepper spray as well.

    The issue becomes, with how much can the general public be trusted? How is the threshold determined?

    To me, guns are just one step too far in terms of limited control. How do people judge where the government stops protecting society and starts oppressing them? It seems silly to keep referring to a bill of rights hundreds of years old on all matters, as if times haven't changed.
    applause!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    We must have 20 guns at our house (hunting rifles) and the kids grew up with them. They are locked away. Ammo in a separate locked place.

    Our kids took hunting safety in order to get their hunting licenses which INCLUDED a 2 day gun safety and training session.

    Before their rifles (which was their Christmas present when they came of age legal to hunt), could be purchased, they had a two week waiting period, while they checked background of purchaser (my husband) before sale was final or approved.

    I do not want more government telling me what I can and cannot own when it comes to anything except of course obvious, bombs, meth, etc. That wasn't what I feel my country's Constitution was based on.

    I abhor the violence that people do with guns, but frankly, I don't think outlawing them in a country this large (NO OFFENSE intended to anyone of any country, whatsoever) is going to keep people, here, who want to get a gun for an illegal or violent reason from getting one.

    I do NOT however, think that people need semi-automatic weapons for ANY reason, especially hunting. If you can't track, with a simple old fashioned rifle, then I really don't consider you a hunter. That way the animal has a chance, cause if you are my husband, you'll miss a hell of a lot!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I guess you could look at it this way, <..Snip..> So do guns make us safer from crime? Well I don't think so.
    Very cogently and concisely argued post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    I hope you don't mind me responding to your comment to sculptor.

    Firstly, would you have a problem with a background check on your firearms? Does that impede your ability to use it for hunting or other domestic purposes?

    Secondly, do restrictions on fully automatic weapons hinder hunters? Do you need a military AR with an extended clip, night vision scope, and grip in order to bring down a deer?

    I think the issue here is the assumption that firearm regulations mean sweeping bans on weapons. What we're asking for are stronger regulations that ensure people with criminal records or a history of violence or mental health concerns don't get near a firearm. To me, that means restricting the parents of troubled children as well. We're also asking for strong regulation on fully automatic weapons like ARs. I don't see a practical need for a weapon like that aside from sheer mass killing power. That's why the military uses them.

    My father in law is a hunter. He uses a bolt action. I'm not concerned that someone with that weapon is going to be able to go into a movie theater and shoot 50 people. I doubt anyone is suggesting that, either.

    Some of us on the gun control platform are reasonable about the issue.
    RedPanda and scheherazade like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by flick montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    there are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    i hope you don't mind me responding to your comment to sculptor.

    Firstly, would you have a problem with a background check on your firearms? Does that impede your ability to use it for hunting or other domestic purposes?

    Secondly, do restrictions on fully automatic weapons hinder hunters? Do you need a military ar with an extended clip, night vision scope, and grip in order to bring down a deer?

    I think the issue here is the assumption that firearm regulations mean sweeping bans on weapons. What we're asking for are stronger regulations that ensure people with criminal records or a history of violence or mental health concerns don't get near a firearm. To me, that means restricting the parents of troubled children as well. We're also asking for strong regulation on fully automatic weapons like ars. I don't see a practical need for a weapon like that aside from sheer mass killing power. That's why the military uses them.

    My father in law is a hunter. He uses a bolt action. I'm not concerned that someone with that weapon is going to be able to go into a movie theater and shoot 50 people. I doubt anyone is suggesting that, either.

    Some of us on the gun control platform are reasonable about the issue.
    so do we use bolt action....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Some of us on the gun control platform are reasonable about the issue.
    Aye, there's the rub.

    And you carry the weight of the "gun control nuts" upon your weary shoulders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Some of us on the gun control platform are reasonable about the issue.
    Aye, there's the rub.

    And you carry the weight of the "gun control nuts" upon your weary shoulders.
    It's no different than the crazies who think "liberals" want to come into their house and take their guns.

    Just distance yourself from them and try not to make eye contact.

    EDIT: I would also add that I think the rational people are in the majority, but we make for more boring news pieces so we don't get the air time.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    I hope you don't mind me responding to your comment to sculptor.
    Not at all.

    Firstly, would you have a problem with a background check on your firearms? Does that impede your ability to use it for hunting or other domestic purposes?
    One requires an FAC, Firearms Acquisition Certificate, to purchase a firearm in this country. It is done through the RCMP office with mandatory back ground checks, including whether you are divorced etc. One also has to pass a firearms safety course.

    Secondly, do restrictions on fully automatic weapons hinder hunters? Do you need a military AR with an extended clip, night vision scope, and grip in order to bring down a deer?
    I'm not up on all of the current restrictions but military type weapons used to be on the restricted list and there are daylight restrictions on the hours of hunting.

    It is unlawful to hunt any wildlife between one hour after sunset and one hour
    before sunrise. The website
    www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/services/sunrise
    provides sunrise and sunset data for Whitehorse and Dawson.


    Where the sun does not rise or set daily, it is unlawful to hunt wildlife when
    the centre of the sun is more than 6° below the horizon. This is known as
    astronomical twilight, which means it is dark enough to see stars

    http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/publication...gs_2013-14.pdf
    I think the issue here is the assumption that firearm regulations mean sweeping bans on weapons. What we're asking for are stronger regulations that ensure people with criminal records or a history of violence or mental health concerns don't get near a firearm. To me, that means restricting the parents of troubled children as well. We're also asking for strong regulation on fully automatic weapons like ARs. I don't see a practical need for a weapon like that aside from sheer mass killing power. That's why the military uses them.
    Likewise, I do not understand the attraction of such weapons and they have no application save for military aggression, in my opinion. I agree with regulating whom should have access to firearms as such is a serious responsibility, not to be taken likely. Hell, I would not even grant driving privileges to some of the idiots behind the wheel, were it my decision to make. Many lives are lost to carelessness and stupidity.

    My father in law is a hunter. He uses a bolt action. I'm not concerned that someone with that weapon is going to be able to go into a movie theater and shoot 50 people. I doubt anyone is suggesting that, either.

    Some of us on the gun control platform are reasonable about the issue.

    Bolt action rifles are the most dependable in extreme conditions although I favor a lever action for carrying in a scabbard as it is less bulky and I am not packing firearms in extremely cold weather. I used to hunt grouse and pride myself on head shots unless the range was such that I took them behind the wings. Must never hit the breast which is the only viable meat on those birds! Since I started work in retail grocery, the birds have been safe from me. Perhaps when I retire, I may trailer the horses to more remote areas to hunt small game but I might also just hunt them with a camera from here on in
    .
    Flick Montana and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Or removes an abusive husband from his childrens lives before the abuse can become a perpetual, cross generaltional cycle.I know all that is anathema and I ought to be put in thestocks for saying it.......or suspended. Why not?
    The more likely and more frequent outcome is that the abusive person will use any gun in the house to threaten - and ultimately to injure or kill - a partner and/ or any children just because it's available when they're overcome by bad temper or deranged by drugs. Without the gun, they'd use their fists or a knife, both of which are much less lethal. And of course, the partner or one of the kids may be overcome by distress or despair in such a household and if a gun is available, they'll be the ones to attempt suicide in that moment - which is much more likely to 'succeed' when a gun is used.
    Fists present a very not level playing field. The basic requirement for absolute tyranny is for the tyrant to be free to dole out punishment, yet entirely immune to retaliation.

    The possibility of the wife snapping and shooting him is a much more plausible threat than her taking karate classes and beating him to. The point where he requires hospitalization.


    Is living under conditions of tyranny better than death? Have you ever lived under those conditions? Do you know for sure what you'd prefer? You suggested a child living in that household might commit suicide. So I guess we know that hypothetical child's preference.

    If their situation is truly inescapable by any other means, then I'd be curious to know on what basis you judge the child's decision to be wrong?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Have you ever lived under those conditions?
    You should think before you write stuff like this. Approximately a quarter of women have experienced domestic violence, so the odds of you hitting a sensitive point when addressing remarks like this to a woman are quite high.

    And I'm one of those statistics. What would I prefer? For the violence, and especially the threats and intimidation, to just stop. It's actually easier to deal with a black eye than with the overwhelming terror of someone "teasing" you by jerking on the ladder when you're standing at its top. The verbal reminder that "I could have killed you if I wanted to" is just the icky icing on the mouldy cake. That's the sort of thing that makes you startle awake in the middle of the night with a racing heart. Even when there was an injury, I tended to shake more at the memory of the whole interaction leading up to it rather than the fist meets face moment.

    If their situation is truly inescapable by any other means, then I'd be curious to know on what basis you judge the child's decision to be wrong?
    It's not the decision, it's the outcome when a gun is used. More certainty of death. If a child unsuccessfully attempts suicide for this reason, the other parent or the ER or the cops are going to ask some hard questions. Maybe of the abuser, maybe of themselves. And that can result in the child, with or without the non-violent parent, leaving that household, maybe forever. The possibility of a better life free of violence versus a violent end to a short life?

    The child isn't wrong, just desperate. It's the easy availability of truly lethal options that's the problem here.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was crossing the Canadian border two weeks ago, and they asked if I had a list of things, including mace, in my possession. So I went to my truck and got my mace and brought it to them. They checked to see if it was for use against animals only, or humans also (of course it was for use against humans). Then they confiscated it!!! They told me I had a choice between letting them confiscate it, or keeping it and letting them arrest me for possession of a dangerous weapon in Canada. It's not even lethal!!!This has me wondering about the more general question of gun control. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic of taking things to such an extreme, but I'm sure it is related to the logic of banning firearms in some way.
    Hmmm? I cross into Montana quite often. I can't take mace, certain other weapons, firearms, etc. Guests are not allowed these weapons in your country without a specific identified documented purpose and a foreigner is not allowed them in mine. This is quite the norm between most nations that have a secure border crossing.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was crossing the Canadian border two weeks ago, and they asked if I had a list of things, including mace, in my possession. So I went to my truck and got my mace and brought it to them. They checked to see if it was for use against animals only, or humans also (of course it was for use against humans). Then they confiscated it!!! They told me I had a choice between letting them confiscate it, or keeping it and letting them arrest me for possession of a dangerous weapon in Canada. It's not even lethal!!!This has me wondering about the more general question of gun control. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic of taking things to such an extreme, but I'm sure it is related to the logic of banning firearms in some way.
    Hmmm? I cross into Montana quite often. I can't take mace, certain other weapons, firearms, etc. Guests are not allowed these weapons in your country without a specific identified documented purpose and a foreigner is not allowed them in mine. This is quite the norm between most nations that have a secure border crossing.
    Fair enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I'm pretty sure Massachusetts requires a person to have some sort of permit/license to own stun guns, mace and other incapacitating products. Heck, with regards to fireworks, we can't even own sparklers (yes, I know, they have caused fatalities) — never mind the more serious stuff. Slingshots are also illegal. I won't even speculate on peashooters.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I'm pretty sure Massachusetts requires a person to have some sort of permit/license to own stun guns, mace and other incapacitating products. Heck, with regards to fireworks, we can't even own sparklers (yes, I know, they have caused fatalities) — never mind the more serious stuff. Slingshots are also illegal. I won't even speculate on peashooters.
    I can honestly say I have never seen a peashooter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I'm pretty sure Massachusetts requires a person to have some sort of permit/license to own stun guns, mace and other incapacitating products. Heck, with regards to fireworks, we can't even own sparklers (yes, I know, they have caused fatalities) — never mind the more serious stuff. Slingshots are also illegal. I won't even speculate on peashooters.
    I can honestly say I have never seen a peashooter.


    You have now.
    scheherazade and babe like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    I'm British.

    Let me see... hmmm:

    - Firearms exist to kill and maim people and/or animals
    - Killing and maiming are not good for individuals or society
    - Nobody in modern society really needs guns
    - A peaceful society is more or less the point of having such
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,417
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    - Nobody in modern society really needs guns
    Not everyone is "fortunate" enough to live where the local large predatory fauna have been driven to extinction.

    I've seen cougar and bears walking through my back yard. I live about 20 minutes from a state Capital. It is also at minimum about a 20 minute response time for ambulance or police assuming I make it to a traditional phone because I don't have cell phone coverage either; and that's in ideal dry weather conditions. And while animal attacks are relatively rare for folks with some bear and cougar sense they are still a persistent threat to people, their livestock and pets for tens of millions of Americans still living in rural locations. Because it's directly to the thread, US and Canada % rural populations are similar.

    I think there are certainly valid requirements to own guns in some circumstances even in "civilized societies"--its more a question of what screening we want for gun buyers and owners, capabilities for those firearms, minimum safety requirements for those guns, and education/awareness we want the population to have about firearms.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    - Nobody in modern society really needs guns
    So you don't count farming as a modern activity. Or working as a park ranger is some kind of anachronism?

    Whether you're a farmer who needs to dispatch an injured animal quickly or a parks employee destroying feral animals or an escort for people venturing into crocodile/ bear/ big cat territory, guns are an essential tool in lots of situations.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Lynx I guess it's probarbly different for many of us though, I mean we don't all live in the same places or have the same conditions to put up with. Us Brits killed off anything dangerous in our country hundreds if not thousands of years ago, certainly nothing like bears or cougars roaming around.

    It means we're bound to have different attitudes and approaches towards guns, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong in wanting a weapon for protection but it doesn't also mean everyone else is wrong who thinks guns are dangerous and shouldn't be in public ownership.

    What it does mean is that people and places have to look at the issues sensibly and balance need against risk, countries and communities then have to decide for themselves if their need for gun ownership is worth the danger that they present to public, there isn't always a one size fits all answer and there certainly isn't always a right or wrong answer.
    babe likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    - Nobody in modern society really needs guns
    So you don't count farming as a modern activity. Or working as a park ranger is some kind of anachronism?

    Whether you're a farmer who needs to dispatch an injured animal quickly or a parks employee destroying feral animals or an escort for people venturing into crocodile/ bear/ big cat territory, guns are an essential tool in lots of situations.
    The average person does not need guns, despite farmer or park rangers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Have you ever lived under those conditions?
    You should think before you write stuff like this. Approximately a quarter of women have experienced domestic violence, so the odds of you hitting a sensitive point when addressing remarks like this to a woman are quite high.

    And I'm one of those statistics. What would I prefer? For the violence, and especially the threats and intimidation, to just stop. It's actually easier to deal with a black eye than with the overwhelming terror of someone "teasing" you by jerking on the ladder when you're standing at its top. The verbal reminder that "I could have killed you if I wanted to" is just the icky icing on the mouldy cake. That's the sort of thing that makes you startle awake in the middle of the night with a racing heart. Even when there was an injury, I tended to shake more at the memory of the whole interaction leading up to it rather than the fist meets face moment.
    Wouldn't you feel better if you had the option to purchase a firearm and not tell your husband about it? Then if he goes too far, you can draw it from its hiding place and kill him in self defense (or defense of one of your children, as the case may be.)

    There is unfortunately a chance he'll find it. Even better. Buy two guns. Leave one for him to find (without a firing pin in it.) Then kill him with the other when he confronts you about it.

    Even if you employ a ruse to draw him out and make him be obvious about it (so others won't mistakenly doubt his heinous intentions) - you are honestly killing him in self defense. Anyone who will take your life in their hands, and hold that power over your head is a sufficient threat to deserve lethal deterrence.

    The problem is hardening your heart enough to do it. A Christian upbringing will teach you to forgive unconditionally. Which of course isn't the best thing for your children. Better you show them there's a little justice in the world.


    If their situation is truly inescapable by any other means, then I'd be curious to know on what basis you judge the child's decision to be wrong?
    It's not the decision, it's the outcome when a gun is used. More certainty of death. If a child unsuccessfully attempts suicide for this reason, the other parent or the ER or the cops are going to ask some hard questions. Maybe of the abuser, maybe of themselves. And that can result in the child, with or without the non-violent parent, leaving that household, maybe forever. The possibility of a better life free of violence versus a violent end to a short life?

    The child isn't wrong, just desperate. It's the easy availability of truly lethal options that's the problem here.
    You prefer a failed suicide attempt over a (probably) painless death? What if, in the absence of a gun, the child simply endures that hell? Grows up, and then commits a similar act against their own children? Is that better?

    If the child prefers to die, maybe it's because the child understands his/her own situation better than the rest of us do looking in from the outside?

    Nearly every Christian faith teaches that suicide is a sin. Some teach that it is an instant ticket to hell. Therefore, anyone Christian taught will tend to see suicide as the worst thing ever. Not only death, but damnation. But even Christians understand that death , when not self inflicted, can be a mercy for some people.

    If people would let go of the need to inflict their religion on others, we might start to look at suicide a little differently. Perhaps we'd see it as an inalienable right.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    - Killing and maiming are not good for individuals or society

    That's a pretty sweeping assumption.

    Sometimes killing is great for society. Depends who you kill, and why.

    - A peaceful society is more or less the point of having such
    Peace is not always just peace.
    babe likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Same thing in Australia. We call them offensive weapons.

    If you want to carry such weapons here, you can apply for a special license. Usually only granted to people under specific threat from specific people - after a great deal of paperwork and lengthy interviews.


    Which means, obviously, that the individual who TRULY needs to protect himself, or herself, is DENIED that "privilege" immediately. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    This even applies to carrying big sticks (unless you have a legitimate reason).
    For example, if you walked around town on a Saturday night with a baseball bat, you would be stopped by the police for having an offensive weapon.
    What about on a week-night? My friends & I played softball 7 days a week, back in the day, and carried bats and ball back and forth without a SECOND THOUGHT. What the hell has happened to human society? Kids playing are "suspect", a box containing a "surprise" gift for a birthday celebration likely contains an incendiary device, today's societal "restraints" sicken me to the point of being GLAD I will soon exit this disgusting miasma we call "society". Pity the present and future generations shackled by such god-damned unjustifiable controls. jocular
    sculptor and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Yes. There are plenty of legitimate uses of firearms that completely get over-looked in the debate.
    And for those legitimate uses it is legal to own a gun in the UK.
    (Even?) the UK doesn't ban guns when they are actually needed.
    Like, by the Military, or Law Enforcement, or Security Agencies, or, ...what? The business owner who has been robbed AT GUNPOINT a sufficient number of times? Sick society there. joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was crossing the Canadian border two weeks ago, and they asked if I had a list of things, including mace, in my possession. So I went to my truck and got my mace and brought it to them. They checked to see if it was for use against animals only, or humans also (of course it was for use against humans). Then they confiscated it!!! They told me I had a choice between letting them confiscate it, or keeping it and letting them arrest me for possession of a dangerous weapon in Canada. It's not even lethal!!!This has me wondering about the more general question of gun control. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic of taking things to such an extreme, but I'm sure it is related to the logic of banning firearms in some way.
    Hmmm? I cross into Montana quite often. I can't take mace, certain other weapons, firearms, etc. Guests are not allowed these weapons in your country without a specific identified documented purpose and a foreigner is not allowed them in mine. This is quite the norm between most nations that have a secure border crossing.


    Obviously, then, the border crossing between U.S. and Mexico is the LEAST SECURE IMAGINABLE, EH? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I'm pretty sure Massachusetts requires a person to have some sort of permit/license to own stun guns, mace and other incapacitating products. Heck, with regards to fireworks, we can't even own sparklers (yes, I know, they have caused fatalities) — never mind the more serious stuff. Slingshots are also illegal. I won't even speculate on peashooters.
    Obviously, you are not aware that a BRASSIERE, (bra), may easily be used as a slingshot, quite effectively, I might add; back then we called them "bee-bops". Now, having revealed this simple, untoward fact publicly to MILLIONS, we can expect BRASSIERES to be soon outlawed! Hooray! Am all for it. Burn the god=damned things for all posterity! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    - Nobody in modern society really needs guns
    Not everyone is "fortunate" enough to live where the local large predatory fauna have been driven to extinction.

    I've seen cougar and bears walking through my back yard. I live about 20 minutes from a state Capital. It is also at minimum about a 20 minute response time for ambulance or police assuming I make it to a traditional phone because I don't have cell phone coverage either; and that's in ideal dry weather conditions. And while animal attacks are relatively rare for folks with some bear and cougar sense they are still a persistent threat to people, their livestock and pets for tens of millions of Americans still living in rural locations. Because it's directly to the thread, US and Canada % rural populations are similar.

    I think there are certainly valid requirements to own guns in some circumstances even in "civilized societies"--its more a question of what screening we want for gun buyers and owners, capabilities for those firearms, minimum safety requirements for those guns, and education/awareness we want the population to have about firearms.
    I live similarly in the Mainland, including the bears and the cougars. You are 100% right one girlie! Though I do not live close to the capital. My small community there has approximately 1630 people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Lynx I guess it's probarbly different for many of us though, I mean we don't all live in the same places or have the same conditions to put up with. Us Brits killed off anything dangerous in our country hundreds if not thousands of years ago, certainly nothing like bears or cougars roaming around.

    It means we're bound to have different attitudes and approaches towards guns, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong in wanting a weapon for protection but it doesn't also mean everyone else is wrong who thinks guns are dangerous and shouldn't be in public ownership.

    What it does mean is that people and places have to look at the issues sensibly and balance need against risk, countries and communities then have to decide for themselves if their need for gun ownership is worth the danger that they present to public, there isn't always a one size fits all answer and there certainly isn't always a right or wrong answer.
    Well said Ascended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Which means, obviously, that the individual who TRULY needs to protect himself, or herself, is DENIED that "privilege" immediately. jocular
    Not at all. If you really need a gun for protection, the cops here have procedures for getting you a special license to carry a concealed weapon. A couple of blokes I worked with carried concealed weapons for quite a while on that basis. Their (government) jobs got them into deep water with some very bad people.

    If it's not a personal issue, but a business one, they'll advise you on the best methods for keeping yourself or your employees out of harm's way. I don't know if it's common in the US, but here a lot of service stations lock their doors at night. You pay for your petrol through a teller window kind of affair. The door locks can be released, but employees like to check you out and to check all the cameras for lurkers before they do that.

    If you or your staff are being targeted often, converting the front of a shop into a servery type arrangement might be the best idea. Almost like getting back to old-fashioned grocery stores with access to stock only for the person serving and no open displays or self-service at all, even if it's only for certain hours of the day. Using barriers of some sort to prevent people from getting into certain areas or bank teller style shields for staff can be effective in some cases. Rejecting that because you're afraid of missing out on a few sales from people wandering your premises at will at all hours of the day and night is a matter for risk judgement and risk assessment. Presuming that it's better to risk killing someone rather than securing your business is not morally admirable.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    A better question would be why Americans are so callous in regards to the losses from mass shootings.
    Are they really callous? This is another of my imponderables. Uncaring and callous. More significant humane consideration than those found where densily situated persons abound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    This even applies to carrying big sticks (unless you have a legitimate reason).
    For example, if you walked around town on a Saturday night with a baseball bat, you would be stopped by the police for having an offensive weapon.
    What about on a week-night? My friends & I played softball 7 days a week, back in the day, and carried bats and ball back and forth without a SECOND THOUGHT. What the hell has happened to human society? Kids playing are "suspect", a box containing a "surprise" gift for a birthday celebration likely contains an incendiary device, today's societal "restraints" sicken me to the point of being GLAD I will soon exit this disgusting miasma we call "society". Pity the present and future generations shackled by such god-damned unjustifiable controls. jocular
    Did you walk around town on a Saturday night, carrying softball bats?
    No?
    Then your indignation is unfounded.

    The rest of your rant is just stuff you have made up.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    - Killing and maiming are not good for individuals or society

    That's a pretty sweeping assumption.

    Sometimes killing is great for society. Depends who you kill, and why.

    - A peaceful society is more or less the point of having such
    Peace is not always just peace.
    More guns lends to a less safe society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    More guns lends to a less safe society.
    Prove it
    jocular and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    There are too many other factors to consider.

    One could suggest looking at the crime rates in countries with strong firearms regulations compared to the US, but that fails to take societal differences into account.
    jocular and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    There are too many other factors to consider.

    One could suggest looking at the crime rates in countries with strong firearms regulations compared to the US, but that fails to take societal differences into account.
    That is a fair point actually when you consider that it is very difficult to fairly compare all countries like for like, just based purely on the gun death statistics you're over 40 times more likely to die from a gun realted death in the United States as you are in the United Kingdom.

    UK 2010 Gun deaths per 100,000 people = 0.25

    US 2011 Gun deaths per 100,000 people = 10.3

    Source: Wiki: List of countries by firearm-ralated death rate
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    More guns lends to a less safe society.
    Prove it
    Nobody needs guns, it's self-evident.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    No, it's not.

    If you would speak, then prove what you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    I'm stating an opinion, why should I "prove" it? Opinions are inherently subjective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    well,
    now we know what it's worth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    There are too many other factors to consider.

    One could suggest looking at the crime rates in countries with strong firearms regulations compared to the US, but that fails to take societal differences into account.
    That is a fair point actually when you consider that it is very difficult to fairly compare all countries like for like, just based purely on the gun death statistics you're over 40 times more likely to die from a gun realted death in the United States as you are in the United Kingdom.

    UK 2010 Gun deaths per 100,000 people = 0.25

    US 2011 Gun deaths per 100,000 people = 10.3

    Source: Wiki: List of countries by firearm-ralated death rate
    As much as I want to use these kinds of statistics (being someone is is for firearm regulation), I have to wonder this; given the choice, how many Brits would want to carry a concealed firearm compared to Americans?

    EDIT: To add the ever-important anecdote, my mother in law recently attempted to foster a German exchange student. Upon attending church the girl was introduced to how many women there carried guns in their purses. Shocked, she exclaimed, "Why would you want to do that?!"

    Are we deluded into a false sense of security by the notion that we have a firearm on our person? Is it more likely that attempting to draw a firearm and defend yourself from an attacker will get you seriously hurt or killed than if you do not have one?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    A quote from George Washington:

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Good ole George lived in quite a different world.

    What if someone told him about a 16 year old with psychological issues getting his hands on a weapon that could fire its entire 30 round magazine in only a few seconds? What would he say if we showed him gun crime rates in built up urban areas? Would he be impressed by the drastic increase in killing power of modern weapons or would he be horrified?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    It is a mistake to view gun deaths as though they represented homicide rates.
    According to the UN, The USA is 110th on homicide rates, and number one on gun ownership rates.
    all of the 109 countries with higher homicide rates have gun bans

    Guns are not a causal factor in homicide rates.

    List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...summary_en.pdf

    UNODC homicide statistics

    Violence is a multifaceted problem with biological,
    psychological, social and environmental roots. There
    is no simple or single solution to the problem; rather,
    violence must be addressed on multiple levels and in
    multiple sectors of society simultaneously
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Guns are not a causal factor in homicide rates.
    Wow, we should tell Americans that. I mean, if there is no risk of a criminal killing someone with a firearm, there is no reason for all of us to have firearms on our hip.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    freedom isn't free
    it comes with risk

    firearms on our hip
    The new hipsters?

    careful dadio, you might accidentally start a fad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Here's a question I have to ask though, given that it is just as easy kill people in a car by driving into them as trying shoot them with a gun and there are millions of cars in every country on Earth, how come so few are diliberately killed by cars and yet so many are with guns? I have to say it does seem to suggest something about the nature of guns themselves makes them more predisposed to being used to kill people.

    I mean if people didn't have the guns, such as in countries with restrictive laws, they could still quite easily find other ways to kill people like with cars ect... and they arn't doing so.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Here's a question I have to ask though, given that it is just as easy kill people in a car by driving into them as trying shoot them with a gun and there are millions of cars in every country on Earth, how come so few are diliberately killed by cars and yet so many are with guns? I have to say it does seem to suggest something about the nature of guns themselves makes them more predisposed to being used to kill people.

    I mean if people didn't have the guns, such as in countries with restrictive laws, they could still quite easily find other ways to kill people like with cars ect... and they arn't doing so.
    Cars are not nearly as efficient for the purpose of killing and in utilizing them for that purpose, they are far more dangerous to the user.

    Still. there are quite a surprising number of people who DO use vehicles in acts of aggression, speaking just from personal knowledge.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Here's a question I have to ask though, given that it is just as easy kill people in a car by driving into them as trying shoot them with a gun and there are millions of cars in every country on Earth, how come so few are diliberately killed by cars and yet so many are with guns? I have to say it does seem to suggest something about the nature of guns themselves makes them more predisposed to being used to kill people.

    I mean if people didn't have the guns, such as in countries with restrictive laws, they could still quite easily find other ways to kill people like with cars ect... and they arn't doing so.
    Cars are not nearly as efficient for the purpose of killing and in utilizing them for that purpose, they are far more dangerous to the user.

    Still. there are quite a surprising number of people who DO use vehicles in acts of aggression, speaking just from personal knowledge.
    Ok I sit corrected, but it's probarbly fair to say I've rarely seen such incidents reported on tv or in the newspapers, where by contrast they seem to have one long endless parade of shooting incidents.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Here's a question I have to ask though, given that it is just as easy kill people in a car by driving into them as trying shoot them with a gun and there are millions of cars in every country on Earth, how come so few are diliberately killed by cars and yet so many are with guns? I have to say it does seem to suggest something about the nature of guns themselves makes them more predisposed to being used to kill people.

    I mean if people didn't have the guns, such as in countries with restrictive laws, they could still quite easily find other ways to kill people like with cars ect... and they arn't doing so.
    Cars are not nearly as efficient for the purpose of killing and in utilizing them for that purpose, they are far more dangerous to the user.

    Still. there are quite a surprising number of people who DO use vehicles in acts of aggression, speaking just from personal knowledge.
    Ok I sit corrected, but it's probarbly fair to say I've rarely seen such incidents reported on tv or in the newspapers, where by contrast they seem to have one long endless parade of shooting incidents.
    You are certainly correct that gun crimes get all of the coverage save for the truly macabre and unusual incidents but that is also quite predictable because of the political interest in gun regulation. I also agree that people will continue to find ways to kill each other no matter what legislation is passed. I have no problem with there being criteria around the personal use of firearms and I do not think that high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons have any place in the normal course of a law abiding society. Sadly, it will have no effect on the criminal use of weapons and where crimes of passion are concerned because there will always be guns obtainable through various covert means.

    Then there is the new 3-D printer technology which may well make the whole debate mute before long.

    Click, Print, Gun: The Inside Story of the 3D-Printed Gun Movement | Motherboard
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post


    Are we deluded into a false sense of security by the notion that we have a firearm on our person? Is it more likely that attempting to draw a firearm and defend yourself from an attacker will get you seriously hurt or killed than if you do not have one?
    Of course it IS, if you do not know what you're doing, obviously. joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    It is a mistake to view gun deaths as though they represented homicide rates.
    According to the UN, The USA is 110th on homicide rates, and number one on gun ownership rates.
    all of the 109 countries with higher homicide rates have gun bans

    Guns are not a causal factor in homicide rates.

    List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...summary_en.pdf

    UNODC homicide statistics

    Violence is a multifaceted problem with biological,
    psychological, social and environmental roots. There
    is no simple or single solution to the problem; rather,
    violence must be addressed on multiple levels and in


    multiple sectors of society simultaneously
    So in essence "guns don't kill people; people kill people"? This is true to some extent, but then mass gun ownership really is redundant in modern society, bar some specific purposes.

    I fully agree that the causes of violence are varied, but then even when mass gun ownership was the norm, say 100 years ago, there were very few mass shootings. It's clear then that such is not congruent with contemporary Western culture. 100-200 years ago, in the US at the least, there was no police force and of course it was a more conflict-ridden culture. Living in a rural area on the Great Plains required a gun for protection. Today, not so much, unless machine guns, semi-auto and fully auto, artillery, etc. can kill tornadoes....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,417
    The primary reason mass murders by firearms was rather rare a hundred years ago is simply due to technology. Even military grade rifles back were usually single shot, most often bolt-action, with a small magazine. Revolver handguns far more common than the semi auto pistols just coming out, and most shotguns were single shot sometimes with two barrels. It's hard not to notice modern versions of those early 20th century weapons are still excellent and sufficient for most valid reasons for gun ownership today and probably safer because of higher manufacturing standards, better reliability and added safety features.
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    they could still quite easily find other ways to kill people like with cars ect... and they arn't doing so.
    I often hear the suggestion that if you take away guns, people who want to kill you will still find other ways to do it and homicide rates won't go down. Perhaps taking away the easiest method of killing someone does, in fact, reduce the chance that they consider homicide at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Of course it IS, if you do not know what you're doing, obviously. joc
    What is my assurance that the man carrying the firearm in the restaurant will have the skill to shoot the criminal and not me? Perhaps firearm ownership should come with the stipulation of regular performance test. Personally, I think the same should be true of owning a car, but America is absurdly far behind in the way we train our drivers. Finland does it right.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    ... mass gun ownership really is redundant in modern society, bar some specific purposes. ....
    The only purpose I need, is my desire to own the weapons.
    I like that "right" thank you very much, and would not wish to relinquish it because some warped ignorant control freak loony thinks I should.

    Meanwhile, there are much more dangerous problems or societal ills that have befallen this once great nation and peoples.

    I remember when Sandra Day O'Connor came out of retirement to campaign against private judicial election campaign funding, fearing that there would necessarily follow a payback on that funding.

    How many of the recent mass shootings have been done by those who were victims of bullying?
    You know of Caligula and Tiberius? Would Caligula have been so violent if not bullied by Tiberius?

    at the risk of quoting the WHO too often, consider this:
    Under:
    What can be done to
    prevent violence?
    Social development programmes – including
    those to prevent bullying,
    http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...summary_en.pdf

    (a little reiteration from my personal department of redundancy department)
    Gun violence ain't the problem, it is just a symptom of the underlying causal factors.
    If you would attain to wisdom.
    Look through the polarized fog and foil of "gun control" into the real depths of the societal ills.

    --------------
    -----------
    ok?
    Maybe this is a perspective(prejudice?) of the aged?---over time, cultures, and distance.
    A couple thousand years ago, Pliny also thought that the ills of society were increasing beyond reason and safety.
    Last edited by sculptor; November 1st, 2013 at 09:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The primary reason mass murders by firearms was rather rare a hundred years ago is simply due to technology. Even military grade rifles back were usually single shot, most often bolt-action, with a small magazine. Revolver handguns far more common than the semi auto pistols just coming out, and most shotguns were single shot sometimes with two barrels. It's hard not to notice modern versions of those early 20th century weapons are still excellent and sufficient for most valid reasons for gun ownership today and probably safer because of higher manufacturing standards, better reliability and added safety features.
    Semi-auto and pump action existed in the late 19th century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The primary reason mass murders by firearms was rather rare a hundred years ago is simply due to technology. Even military grade rifles back were usually single shot, most often bolt-action, with a small magazine. Revolver handguns far more common than the semi auto pistols just coming out, and most shotguns were single shot sometimes with two barrels. It's hard not to notice modern versions of those early 20th century weapons are still excellent and sufficient for most valid reasons for gun ownership today and probably safer because of higher manufacturing standards, better reliability and added safety features.
    Semi-auto and pump action existed in the late 19th century.
    Reading comprehension again. He said "most often", not "exclusively".
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Communication is subjective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,417
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    Communication is subjective.
    Not in this context it isn't. "Usually" and "most" are not only objective, they are easily quantifiable as >50%. And "far more common" means "greater than."

    It's somewhat understandable if you misread something....that happens to everyone....but you'll garnish far more respect when you admit as much when challenged, particularly when it's as simple to understand as this misunderstanding.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Did not graduate on time. Should I be worried?
    By Sleepyhead in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 14th, 2013, 06:16 PM
  2. I am worried Please help.
    By Osborne in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2012, 02:38 AM
  3. Something to be very worried about...
    By w1z4rd in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 28th, 2006, 05:18 PM
  4. Psychologist claims Brits have 'peculiar deferential smiles'
    By silylene in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 26th, 2006, 10:12 AM
  5. microsoft, getting worried
    By goodgod3rd in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th, 2005, 12:18 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •