Another bright idea...

[J NRG]

.

[zachattack54]

Fcuking government.

[heinz256]

Un-fuckin-believable

[TurboD]

i agree with this.
why can't they carry guns?
are they going to tell us we cannot carry lighters because we are likely to burn down the building?


have you ever been to a gun convention?

what type of atmosphere do you find?
you find a very polite, very respectful environment.
i bet a bar with people holding guns will be a very polite bar and will have no one out to start a fist fight.

i don't see what is wrong with being able to defend yourself.


if you have a disagreement with someone at a bar with people holding guns, are you likely to push them and start using physical force?

no

--------------------------------


think about this:

if i were to go into a place and shoot it up and kill everyone i see.......

what would be the most likely place to go?

a place packed with people holding guns,

or a school where guns are banned and NO ONE CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES?

think about that.

if all the teachers in the school are carrying guns, would a kid be likely to wanna go into the school waving around a gun?


if i wanna kill someone, or kill the most number of people possible, and not risk myself getting killed, do i wanna wave a gun around a bar filled with cops?
or do i wanna go into a school with tons of people trapped and not armed?

-------------------

and lol @ the gov't comment
guess what, this law was pushed by the gun owners not the gov't

the gov't wants to prevent citizens from carrying guns any chance they get.


-------------------

do you think a bank would get robbed if everyone in the bank was packing heat?

what about auto theft, how nervous would you be breaking into a car knowing the owner is likely carrying a gun.

--------------------

banning guns does not prevent crime or murder, just like banning drugs does not get rid of drugs or crimes related to drugs.

if you are feeling the need to shoot someone, all you have to do is buy a gun and go and kill someone.

when i go to the shooting range i'm not afraid im going to get shot up by a bunch of criminals, in fact the opposite, i know the shooting range is the one place that i know for a fact will never have a criminal walk in waving around a gun.

--------------

have you ever heard of a gun convention or a shooting range being robbed or held up?
no
why?

because its a totally retarded idea, even stupid criminals know this.

but apparently the 3 posters above me, including the OP are not aware of this.

----------------

why do you think the USA is never invaded by any other country, do you think it has something to do with the millions and millions of gun owners that are able to defend themselves?

[FiveFreshFish]

Haven't Texans been able to do this for awhile?

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by TurboD
if you have a disagreement with someone at a bar with people holding guns, are you likely to push them and start using physical force?

no No. I'd shoot them first.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Eleanor
No. I'd shoot them first.

you should be able to make this decision, but luckily you would be killed shortly after you pulled the trigger.
hopefully this scenario plays out at some point in your life

[jewpac_kurstein]

I wear a bulletproof kippah.

[Gabe182]

Originally posted by TurboD
i agree with this.
why can't they carry guns?
are they going to tell us we cannot carry lighters because we are likely to burn down the building?


have you ever been to a gun convention?

what type of atmosphere do you find?
you find a very polite, very respectful environment.
i bet a bar with people holding guns will be a very polite bar and will have no one out to start a fist fight.

i don't see what is wrong with being able to defend yourself.


if you have a disagreement with someone at a bar with people holding guns, are you likely to push them and start using physical force?

no

--------------------------------


think about this:

if i were to go into a place and shoot it up and kill everyone i see.......

what would be the most likely place to go?

a place packed with people holding guns,

or a school where guns are banned and NO ONE CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES?

think about that.

if all the teachers in the school are carrying guns, would a kid be likely to wanna go into the school waving around a gun?


if i wanna kill someone, or kill the most number of people possible, and not risk myself getting killed, do i wanna wave a gun around a bar filled with cops?
or do i wanna go into a school with tons of people trapped and not armed?

-------------------

and lol @ the gov't comment
guess what, this law was pushed by the gun owners not the gov't

the gov't wants to prevent citizens from carrying guns any chance they get.


-------------------

do you think a bank would get robbed if everyone in the bank was packing heat?

what about auto theft, how nervous would you be breaking into a car knowing the owner is likely carrying a gun.

--------------------

banning guns does not prevent crime or murder, just like banning drugs does not get rid of drugs or crimes related to drugs.

if you are feeling the need to shoot someone, all you have to do is buy a gun and go and kill someone.

when i go to the shooting range i'm not afraid im going to get shot up by a bunch of criminals, in fact the opposite, i know the shooting range is the one place that i know for a fact will never have a criminal walk in waving around a gun.

--------------

have you ever heard of a gun convention or a shooting range being robbed or held up?
no
why?

because its a totally retarded idea, even stupid criminals know this.

but apparently the 3 posters above me, including the OP are not aware of this.

----------------

why do you think the USA is never invaded by any other country, do you think it has something to do with the millions and millions of gun owners that are able to defend themselves?

Holy shit. So are you trying to tell me that if everyone was allowed to carry a weapon, there would be less deaths by weapons?? Sounds kinda retarded.

not every person thats into guns is an upstanding citizen. There are fucktards that will kill people.

Instead of a good old fist fight, you would have a fucking blood bath.

And you really think no one invades the states because to many citizens have guns. You sir are a fucktard!!! And I challenge you to a duel!!

[psycoticclown]

Criminals might not want to shoot up a bar, but what about some guy who gets fucking drunk, sees a guy hitting on his girl, tells him to back off, other guy, also drunk, tells him to fuck off. Guy whips out gun, bam catastrophe.

Just because somebody might have a gun might not dissuade drunk people. I've seen tiny ass guys (110 lbs dripping wet) get in fights with guys who are massive just because they were drunk. The fact that the other guy being double their weight and 2 feet taller than them doesn't dissuade them either, so why would a guy having a gun affect the decisions of a drunk asshole?

[FraserB]

A) The people who are carrying are not allowed to drink
B) Most places will have posted signs banning guns
C) Open carry is not unusual at all in the US

[benz_890]

Originally posted by FraserB
A) The people who are carrying are not allowed to drink


you're not allowed to get behind the wheel after drinking do you see that stopping people?

[97'Scort]

I believe you have to declare that you're carrying when you go in, whether you like it or not. At least, I've seen people do that.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by benz_890


you're not allowed to get behind the wheel after drinking do you see that stopping people?

EXACTLY

stupid people do stupid things.
if a stupid person wants to shoot up a bar, nothing is stopping them from buying a gun and going to a bar.

so to ban guns is to say that only the ordinary citizen with intentions of self defense is not allowed to carry a gun.

when guns are illegal all this does it remove guns from the people that use them for self defense and criminals continue to carry guns.

if you are willing to risk death by using a gun in a bar that is your choice.

people have been killed in bar fights, but most bars as far as i know ban fighting.

but at least fighting they cannot ban you from using your fists to defend yourself, but with guns you are being told you aren't allowed to carry it for self defense.


Criminals might not want to shoot up a bar, but what about some guy who gets fucking drunk, sees a guy hitting on his girl, tells him to back off, other guy, also drunk, tells him to fuck off. Guy whips out gun, bam catastrophe.

Just because somebody might have a gun might not dissuade drunk people. I've seen tiny ass guys (110 lbs dripping wet) get in fights with guys who are massive just because they were drunk. The fact that the other guy being double their weight and 2 feet taller than them doesn't dissuade them either, so why would a guy having a gun affect the decisions of a drunk asshole?

you didn't even read the original post/story/law


A) The people who are carrying are not allowed to drink

anyone in canada can buy a gun, go into a bar that doesn't search you and they can get drunk and shoot up the bar, there is nothing from stopping anyone from doing this.

but at least if people in the bar are carrying guns, no one is going to do something stupid like wave a gun around a bar.

jesus, read my post again.

[FraserB]

People with a CCW will most likely have to declare if they are going to be in a bar with a weapon. Unlike Canada, the US has real laws to deal with gun offenses. Get caught drinking with a gun and there goes the CCW permit and hello jail.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Gabe182


Holy shit. So are you trying to tell me that if everyone was allowed to carry a weapon, there would be less deaths by weapons?? Sounds kinda retarded.

not every person thats into guns is an upstanding citizen. There are fucktards that will kill people.

Instead of a good old fist fight, you would have a fucking blood bath.

And you really think no one invades the states because to many citizens have guns. You sir are a fucktard!!! And I challenge you to a duel!!

this post is totally ignorant.
you didn't even read what i wrote.

i gave you an example of tons of people carrying guns, like a shooting range or a gun convention.
and none of these events turn into a "blood bath"

so now that ive given an example that supports my claim that carrying guns doesn't turn into a blood bath.

now to properly debate, you would actually have to back up your claims with an practical example that supports your theory.

and if you find an example of where guns turn into a bloodbath in public, you need to then explain how this could never happen when you have armed criminals that carry guns and disregard the laws.

on a side note, when you make personal attacks like "fucktard" this shows that you have no intention of a debate, but rather you are just bathing in your own ignorance.

[wes_v]

This is RETARTED:thumbsdow Guns are only meant and designed for 1 thing killing. Now with this new law a lot more will happen in a bars and restaraunts :facepalm:

[TurboD]

Originally posted by wes_v
This is RETARTED:thumbsdow Guns are only meant and designed for 1 thing killing. Now with this new law a lot more will happen in a bars and restaraunts :facepalm:

if your theory is that people that carry guns are a threat to ordinary non-violence citizens.

calgary city police for example discredits this theory, because they are legally allowed to carry guns and they are not a life threat to the ordinary non-violent citizen

do you refuse to go to tim hortons because you know police are there with guns?
are you afraid that if they are given incorrect change it will result in a blood bath?
do you think somehow that members of the police service are not human beings with emotions and human errors?
do you think every member of the police service is a totally 100% walking example of moral ethics?
do you think police officers don't get upset?
have you ever seen a member of the police service in a bar? if you have, did you flee the bar out of fear?

if not, why?


why is almost everyone in this thread incapable of reading or putting forth an idea to be debated?
are people really that mindless that they can only use forum smileys to convey an unsupported point?

there is a chance a police officer could leave his gun un-attended at home and his kid could grab it and shoot it by accident.
there is a chance a police officer could commit a crime and shoot someone without cause
etc

does this mean we should remove guns from police officers?

[psycoticclown]

The reason there isn't bloodbaths at gun shows and shooting ranges is because there isn't aren't 2 critical factors involved... alcohol and the density of people. Even if people are not allowed to drink, you think a really busy club, the staff is going to keep an eye on EACH and every person with a gun? No. Look at how busy Roadhouse or Tantra get. Anybody can buy somebody else a drink and bouncers aren't going to be able to remember each and every person that has a gun on them.

And banning people from drinking inside the bar doesn't keep people from predrinking. What's stopping Bubba and Billy Bob from drinking and than going to the bar with their guns to "impress" people?

And what in crowded rooms. If a fight did break out, it wouldn't be too hard for somebody to steal somebody's gun and Bam, big problem. Also, what if a fight were to break out and somebody sober whipped out their gun to "stop" fight and was bumped by the crowd and lets off a bullet? What about defending yourself and hitting somebody innocent? In a crowded bar, do you think that every shot is going to hit your target? At least with bar fights, bystanders can get out of the way. If a shootout did break out, you must be naive to think the ONLY casualties will be with the 2 parties. Bystanders WILL be hit, other people will whip out their guns to stop the gunfight and you'll just end up with a bunch of dead people... and that's ignoring my next point

If a shootout were to happen in the bar, think about the stampede of people leaving the bar, 1000 drunk people leaving a bar from 3 or 4 exits will cause stampeding and trampling.

There are so many scenarios I can think of where alcohol + crowds + guns = bad situation.

The situations you pose with cops are completely retarded, cops aren't just picked off the street, they go through a pretty extensive background search and than training before they are given their guns. They have a moral code, sure some might not and you have police brutality incidents, but the majority of cops can control themselves and their weapon. That is NOT true of Joe Blow who got their gun and license a few days ago and to impress the ladies at the club, he brings them along. If you think that the public lets cops wield guns and that should mean all citizens should be allowed to too... :facepalm:


Oh and I'm not against guns btw, I actually rather like them... alot. I had a pretty extensive Airsoft collection and in the process of getting my PAL, but this idea is just stupid.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by psycoticclown
The reason there isn't bloodbaths at gun shows and shooting ranges is because there isn't aren't 2 critical factors involved... alcohol and the density of people. Even if people are not allowed to drink, you think a really busy club, the staff is going to keep an eye on EACH and every person with a gun? No. Look at how busy Roadhouse or Tantra get. Anybody can buy somebody else a drink and bouncers aren't going to be able to remember each and every person that has a gun on them.

And banning people from drinking inside the bar doesn't keep people from predrinking. What's stopping Bubba and Billy Bob from drinking and than going to the bar with their guns to "impress" people?

And what in crowded rooms. If a fight did break out, it wouldn't be too hard for somebody to steal somebody's gun and Bam, big problem. Also, what if a fight were to break out and somebody sober whipped out their gun to "stop" fight and was bumped by the crowd and lets off a bullet? What about defending yourself and hitting somebody innocent? In a crowded bar, do you think that every shot is going to hit your target? At least with bar fights, bystanders can get out of the way. If a shootout did break out, you must be naive to think the ONLY casualties will be with the 2 parties. Bystanders WILL be hit, other people will whip out their guns to stop the gunfight and you'll just end up with a bunch of dead people... and that's ignoring my next point

If a shootout were to happen in the bar, think about the stampede of people leaving the bar, 1000 drunk people leaving a bar from 3 or 4 exits will cause stampeding and trampling.

There are so many scenarios I can think of where alcohol + crowds + guns = bad situation.

The situations you pose with cops are completely retarded, cops aren't just picked off the street, they go through a pretty extensive background search and than training before they are given their guns. They have a moral code, sure some might not and you have police brutality incidents, but the majority of cops can control themselves and their weapon. That is NOT true of Joe Blow who got their gun and license a few days ago and to impress the ladies at the club, he brings them along. If you think that the public lets cops wield guns and that should mean all citizens should be allowed to too... :facepalm:


Oh and I'm not against guns btw, I actually rather like them... alot. I had a pretty extensive Airsoft collection and in the process of getting my PAL, but this idea is just stupid.

i think the bar owners would be deciding whether to allow guns or not.

and a place like the road house would OBVIOUSLY not allow guns....
but what about a bar that just has a few people at tables and some light music and mature people.
some bars are prone to fights breaking out and excessive drinking, and others are not.
the bar owners would be making the decision to allow guns or not.

and if the bar couldn't keep track or control the people that had guns in the bar they wouldn't not allow people to bring in guns in the first place.

in the end, in this situation it is the property owner's decision. If you don't feel safe you have the option to not enter this bar that has declared these rules.
if the bar owner decides guns are allowed there is obviously a reason behind this and it has been thought out and somewhat tested in the past.

i would agree with you that i wouldn't want the road house to allow guns, but even if they did allow guns, i just wouldn't attend this bar, and with the attendance down the bar owners would remove the law.

my position is that it should be legal to own and carry a gun. but the property owners should be allowed to ban guns on their property.

and i go back to my previous point, that shooting ranges allow guns and there is a reason for this and it is well thought out and there are measures in place.
if the public was really as ruthless as everyone makes them out to be, shooting ranges would have pre aimed guns in non-removable holders that can be fired at a target and cannot be removed.

but the shooting ranges allow for people to bring in their own personal gun and use their own discretion to fire the gun.
this proves that not all gun carrying public situation are the result of a blood bath.

i have little to no training with a gun and don't even have my gun license but i can tell you that i have been to a local shooting range and it didn't end in a blood bath

you brought up an example of where you would not want guns (mass crowds + mass alcohol) and i can agree with that, but not every bar is the same and not every bar has customers that act like those at the road house.

on your statement about the police, are you saying there is no chance a police officer could be merged into a crowd where someone could grab his gun?
and since this is possible and as a matter of fact has happened several times where a police officer has had their gun removed, how is that not the same as the pubic grabbing a gun from anyone else?

in the end i believe it to be the property owner's decision and if you don't like it, don't enter that bar!

and on the consequences for gun crime, i would argue joe blow would be less likely than the police officer to shoot someone, because the police officer has a chance of getting off the charge and joe blow does not.

i bet you that there has been more cases of un-lawful gun fire by police than by registered gun owners.

[97'Scort]

I'm up in the air whether it's a good idea or not, but it's not the people with the permits you have to worry about. It's not like you can just pick one up at the store. There's a pretty strict approval process, just like in Canada with a PAL. Hell, it took me 4 months to get my PAL in the mail.

IMO, the people with the permits are the cautious people who know how to use their weapons and are aware of the dangers. Why they choose to carry in public is beyond me: having one for self defence for a home break in is one thing, but I think just carrying one around for the hell of it is just that - for the hell of it. You're never going to get it out in time to stop a mugger who's already on you.

Generally, the people who are going to get trashed and shoot up the place are not the ones who have gone to the trouble to apply for the permits.

[TurboD]

i would like to add to this thread a news story of an off duty officer that had been charged with attempted murder for firing his gun after having a "altercation"

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/04/officer_charged_with_attempted.html


A Birmingham police officer is charged with attempted murder after an off-duty altercation led to gunfire, authorities said.

Officer Alvin Bland, 30, was placed in the county jail Wednesday afternoon with bond set at $60,000.

The South Precinct patrolman was arrested Monday night after authorities said he got into an argument with another man in Wylam and opened fire on him.

Bland, who works the morning shift, was off duty at the time of the altercation.

this story is proof that police do pose a threat by carrying guns in public.

and if you can make excuses to justify this officers actions, why not make excuses for the registered gun owner that makes the same mistake?

[CUG]

The reason no one here thinks carrying guns is a good idea, is the same reason criminals aren't locked up for proper amounts of time.

[DayGlow]

Nothing will change IMHO. What's mores dangerous: gangsta wannnbe with his gat stuck in his pants or someone who has jumped through all the hoops to have a concealed carry permit?

The type of person that is dangerous with a gun still carries it even though they aren't supposed to.

[tirebob]

I just did a quick search as I had read some stats years ago and thought it would be interesting to look again. I don't know how reliable these wiki sources to be, but these charts are interesting... Any different more credible sources out there to prove or disprove these numbers???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[em2ab]

Originally posted by TurboD
i would like to add to this thread a news story of an off duty officer that had been charged with attempted murder for firing his gun after having a "altercation"

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/04/officer_charged_with_attempted.html



this story is proof that police do pose a threat by carrying guns in public.

and if you can make excuses to justify this officers actions, why not make excuses for the registered gun owner that makes the same mistake?
Your logic and reasoning are retarded and make no sense. Laws are made on statistics, not weak comparisons between carrying guns and carrying lighters. Statistics will show that there will be a higher number of gun related incidents if people are allowed to carry weapons into a bar and a higher level of fatalities. So what's going to happen is Town Drunk Jimmy is going to get shot and killed if this law passes and people are allowed to carry guns into bars. Someone is going to die so let's assume it's Town Drunk Jimmy. Jimmy's got a wife and 3 kids that are in college and everyone in his family is trying to get him sober. Now you need to justify passing this law is more important than Jimmy's life because he's going to die if you do it.

Now how does it look?

I'm also assuming there will be some sort of time limit as well. I don't see people carrying guns into a nightclub at midnight. Probably just the afternoon at a pub.

[3g4u]

Welcome to USA home of AWESOME!

As opposed to here where only criminal gang members carry guns leaving law abiding citizens helpless to defend themselves.

"An armed society is a polite society. "

[TurboD]

Originally posted by em2ab

Your logic and reasoning are retarded and make no sense. Laws are made on statistics, not weak comparisons between carrying guns and carrying lighters. Statistics will show that there will be a higher number of gun related incidents if people are allowed to carry weapons into a bar and a higher level of fatalities. So what's going to happen is Town Drunk Jimmy is going to get shot and killed if this law passes and people are allowed to carry guns into bars. Someone is going to die so let's assume it's Town Drunk Jimmy. Jimmy's got a wife and 3 kids that are in college and everyone in his family is trying to get him sober. Now you need to justify passing this law is more important than Jimmy's life because he's going to die if you do it.

Now how does it look?

I'm also assuming there will be some sort of time limit as well. I don't see people carrying guns into a nightclub at midnight. Probably just the afternoon at a pub.

you show me the statistics of more violence in a bar where there are registered gun owners in attendance?
you cannot make up statistics to prove your point!

laws are not made on statistics, laws are made on the majority vote.

the statistics for car accidents are freaking massive, but does this mean we should protect people by banning cars?
no

if you are the town drunk and you choose to enter a bar where most everyone is armed, and you start shit, you deserve to get a bullet in your chest.

if i get drunk and go into a lions cage and start slapping his nose, what do you think is the logical next step for my life?

and the sober registered gun owners are not likely to shoot the drunk, they also have a wife and kids that they want to protect by not going to jail.

how would it look? it looks like another stupid drunk doing something stupid.

[codetrap]

I always liked this quote...

Robert A. Heinlein: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

It would be an interesting experiment, if we could alter the laws to back this up to the point where if you saw something going down that was really bad, like some chick beating a baby to death, if you had the choice to put that chick down to save the baby...

I suspect there would be a flurry of violence and gun deaths as all the really stupid people were weeded out of society, but eventually it would level off as the more intelligent people realized that hey, if I'm a moron, I could be killed.

And of course, we'd have to arm the cops a whole lot better....

[v2kai]

i'm with TurboD on this one.

[TKRIS]

Holy shit!


Am I in the right forum?
Is this bizarro Beyond?

_______________________________
If I had the power, I'd put a goddamned gold star next to TurboD's name.

[Tomaz]

A) The people who are carrying are not allowed to drink
Note to self: Never pick on the guy who doesn't have a beer in his hand.


B) Most places will have posted signs banning guns
I believe it would be concield weapon. I don't know about the states, but I dont get patted down often here.



C) Open carry is not unusual at all in the US
Being raised in a Country or household that doesn't allow guns can play a huge influence on a person's thought process. I was raised by an ex military father who cant even stand the sounds of fireworks (reminds him of bombs dropped on his town in WW2). He wouldn't even allow cap guns in the house. Now you are telling me that a person can (1) conceil a gun, then (2) enter a bar? That sounds fucking retarded to me. It's like smoking while filling up your car. Not very likley that you will spark a fire, but it could happen and it's just not a good idea.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Tomaz
Being raised in a Country or household that doesn't allow guns can play a huge influence on a person's thought process. I was raised by an ex military father who cant even stand the sounds of fireworks (reminds him of bombs dropped on his town in WW2). He wouldn't even allow cap guns in the house. Now you are telling me that a person can (1) conceil a gun, then (2) enter a bar? That sounds fucking retarded to me. It's like smoking while filling up your car. Not very likley that you will spark a fire, but it could happen and it's just not a good idea.

i can certainly sympathize with your father's post war problems.

but i cannot see any solid points in your post, are you saying that people that don't like loud noises have the right to prevent people from using self defense?
are you saying that one persons problem decides what laws should be in place?

if you are saying things that are not a good idea should be banned then, smoking itself should be banned in the first place. far more deaths are directly caused by smoking than gun violence in north america.

also i don't think someone that has been to war and legally used a gun has the right to tell someone else to not use a gun.
its like a smoker telling someone not to stand too close to a tv because it could give them cancer.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by TurboD
if you are saying things that are not a good idea should be banned then, smoking itself should be banned in the first place. far more deaths are directly caused by smoking than gun violence in north america.

Cars, alcohol and sex should probably be banned then too.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by sputnik


Cars, alcohol and sex should probably be banned then too.

not to mention any prescription drug with side effects
or any type of extreme sports

[freshprince1]

Originally posted by 3g4u
Welcome to USA home of AWESOME!

As opposed to here where only criminal gang members carry guns leaving law abiding citizens helpless to defend themselves.

"An armed society is a polite society. "


this.

[President Obama]

Now I know why DMX said to stay the fuck outta Arizona LOL

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TurboD


i can certainly sympathize with your father's post war problems.

but i cannot see any solid points in your post, are you saying that people that don't like loud noises have the right to prevent people from using self defense?
are you saying that one persons problem decides what laws should be in place?

if you are saying things that are not a good idea should be banned then, smoking itself should be banned in the first place. far more deaths are directly caused by smoking than gun violence in north america.

also i don't think someone that has been to war and legally used a gun has the right to tell someone else to not use a gun.
its like a smoker telling someone not to stand too close to a tv because it could give them cancer.

Point being that you will have to realize that I, along with a lot of other people, are being raised on the belief that you dont need guns for your day to day living. What is the need to carry something the is MADE AND INTENDED FOR THE USE OF KILLING at all times?

Smoking is a habit, drinking is social but can be abused, car accidents happen, carrying a tool to shoot and kill someone is unessesary.

That person who entered the war to defend his country was, in fact, at war. You are not at war and are not defending your country. Why carry a gun that has no intention in being used? You want to carry a gun? You want to defend your country? Join the military and fight for your casue where the war is happeneing. do not think the war is in the bar, shopping mall, coffee shop. No NEED to carry weapons on the street.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Tomaz


Point being that you will have to realize that I, along with a lot of other people, are being raised on the belief that you dont need guns for your day to day living. What is the need to carry something the is MADE AND INTENDED FOR THE USE OF KILLING at all times?

Smoking is a habit, drinking is social but can be abused, car accidents happen, carrying a tool to shoot and kill someone is unessesary.

That person who entered the war to defend his country was, in fact, at war. You are not at war and are not defending your country. Why carry a gun that has no intention in being used? You want to carry a gun? You want to defend your country? Join the military and fight for your casue where the war is happeneing. do not think the war is in the bar, shopping mall, coffee shop. No NEED to carry weapons on the street.

some good points, i can agree that it is in some cases excessive to carry a gun.

what is the difference if i join the police and carry a gun on my days off or if i don't join the police and carry a registered gun on my days off?
why do the police carry guns? the answer is that there is an obvious threat.

and being raised a certain way doesn't automatically make the idea moral or superior to people's rights.

should it be illegal to take self defense classes to learn how to kill someone with your bare hands?

would you feel safer in a bar that was occupied by 20 of the top UFC fighters?

and in that bar would you be likely to pick a fight?

and if i was raised to not fight, should i be able to make it illegal for registered fighters to be in public places?

[Crymson]

Althought i'm pretty anti-gun, but i kind of have to agree with TurboD.

It's like Dayglow's coment above -- the people who shouldn't carry guns are gonig to anyway.

And, like TurboD is argueing -- cops do not possess a super morality compass. They're average guys, with a bit of training and hopefully a decent definitino of right and wrong.

If i had faith that a system could be put into place (and i DON'T - not with our government) that put a few more guns on the street in the hands of people who would typically do the right thing, it would probably be alot safer.

ALSO, call me cold hearted. But i'd way rather hear about a civillian blowing away a drug dealer, rapist, carjacker, whatever than hearing more stories about our pathetic justice system.

There is SUCH a push against vigiliantism in our society -- and i don't understand WHY. People need to stand up for themselves, we live in a society where civillians are powerless, the justice and penal system do not reflect the average person's frustrations, and the police are used as tax collectors more than protectors.

Wouldn't you think something has to change?

Legalize and tax everything.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by TurboD
you should be able to make this decision, but luckily you would be killed shortly after you pulled the trigger. And then my buddy would shoot that guy and then his buddy would shoot my buddy etc.
hopefully this scenario plays out at some point in your life Thanks for indirectly making a death threat against me :thumbsup:

[TurboD]

^ any time!

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TurboD


some good points, i can agree that it is in some cases excessive to carry a gun.

what is the difference if i join the police and carry a gun on my days off or if i don't join the police and carry a registered gun on my days off?
why do the police carry guns? the answer is that there is an obvious threat.

and being raised a certain way doesn't automatically make the idea moral or superior to people's rights.

should it be illegal to take self defense classes to learn how to kill someone with your bare hands?

would you feel safer in a bar that was occupied by 20 of the top UFC fighters?

and in that bar would you be likely to pick a fight?

and if i was raised to not fight, should i be able to make it illegal for registered fighters to be in public places?

As far as I know, you cant carry a gun in public wether you are an off duty cop or not. :dunno: pardon my ingorance if you can.

I think the idea of being able to live in a society where you dont feel the need to carry a gun is far superior. A bit unrealistic, but wouldn't it be nice?:)

No it should not. Your hands are desinged as tools to live your day to day life. A gun was designed with one purpose, to kill.

Yes, I would feel safer. I know that there is no way that i am going to piss off one of those guys. And I know not one stray bullet is going to hit me if they decided to fight eachother.

Under no circumstance am I ever going to start a fight. I have been trained to try an deflate all situations to reasonable levels where no physical force will be nessesary.

[luxor]

Originally posted by TurboD

why do you think the USA is never invaded by any other country, do you think it has something to do with the millions and millions of gun owners that are able to defend themselves?

:facepalm:

Man you are an imbecile. I can't even stand reading all your posts cause they get more and more retarded. Shows your (lack of) intelligence and reasoning abilities I guess. The quote that I have above is just one of the weak examples you pulled out of your asshole to try and justify guns. The reason that the USA hasn't been "invaded" has nothing to do with the number of gun owners. That statement may have been true when the American Constitution was first written but that was a long ass time ago. I would like to see today how good "gun owners" can defend their US of A without the US Military.

You put a few guys in a room without any weapons and you get a fist fight. As soon as you give them guns, you will get a blood bath and you will most certainly see a couple dead.

Hey since you are so brilliant why not allow prisoners to pack heat? I mean they need to defend themselves too right? Pretty rough in there so lets give them one right and allow them to all carry guns. I'm sure that will make the prison system more peaceful. No difference than a place full of drunks with guns. Fucking dumb ass.

[wes_v]

Originally posted by TurboD


if your theory is that people that carry guns are a threat to ordinary non-violence citizens.

calgary city police for example discredits this theory, because they are legally allowed to carry guns and they are not a life threat to the ordinary non-violent citizen

do you refuse to go to tim hortons because you know police are there with guns?
are you afraid that if they are given incorrect change it will result in a blood bath?
do you think somehow that members of the police service are not human beings with emotions and human errors?
do you think every member of the police service is a totally 100% walking example of moral ethics?
do you think police officers don't get upset?
have you ever seen a member of the police service in a bar? if you have, did you flee the bar out of fear?

if not, why?


why is almost everyone in this thread incapable of reading or putting forth an idea to be debated?
are people really that mindless that they can only use forum smileys to convey an unsupported point?

there is a chance a police officer could leave his gun un-attended at home and his kid could grab it and shoot it by accident.
there is a chance a police officer could commit a crime and shoot someone without cause
etc

does this mean we should remove guns from police officers?
Everything you said is about the police. Im not talking about the police, Im talking about ordinary people with permits who can have handguns concealed...

[cherpintow]

Originally posted by TurboD
i agree with this.
why can't they carry guns?
are they going to tell us we cannot carry lighters because we are likely to burn down the building?

This seems like a fair analogy to me. Especially with all of the BIC related deaths we've all been hearing about lately.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by cherpintow


This seems like a fair analogy to me. Especially with all of the BIC related deaths we've all been hearing about lately.

have you ever heard of a death related to arson?


Everything you said is about the police. Im not talking about the police, Im talking about ordinary people with permits who can have handguns concealed...

police are ordinary people fyi - they don't have super powers

and @ luxor

your comments were angry and show me that you aren't ready nor willing to debate this issue.

you didn't even put forth a theory that is backed up with evidence.

[Hamann]

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." ~Plato

I'm not 100% sure what is required in the States but its been a series of hoops to jump through here for me to get my Restricted and Unrestricted firearms license

Fact is someone who has gone through all the trouble to get their license etc is less likely (in my mind atleast) to shoot up a place versus someone who has gotten a gun from "less than legal" means.

Like TurboD mentioned, the shooting range and gun conventions have been some of the safest places I have ever been.

In all honesty though, I can't see night club type places allowing guns, I think this would more effect smaller pubs and bars

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Hamann
Fact is someone who has gone through all the trouble to get their license etc is less likely (in my mind atleast) to shoot up a place versus someone who has gotten a gun from "less than legal" means.


No, not just "in your mind"...
In reality.
There are a staggering (to the gunphobic Canadians, anyway) number of Americans with CCW permits. An astoundingly tiny number of them (FAR fewer than what we'd expect from statistical white noise) ever commit a firearm related offense.

As far as demographics go: Licenced gun owners with CCW permits are one of the most non-violent, law abiding groups in the entire USA.

[Hamann]

Originally posted by TKRIS


No, not just "in your mind"...
In reality.
There are a staggering (to the gunphobic Canadians, anyway) number of Americans with CCW permits. An astoundingly tiny number of them (FAR fewer than what we'd expect from statistical white noise) ever commit a firearm related offense.

As far as demographics go: Licenced gun owners with CCW permits are one of the most non-violent, law abiding groups in the entire USA.

:thumbsup:

[bjstare]

Originally posted by TKRIS


No, not just "in your mind"...
In reality.
There are a staggering (to the gunphobic Canadians, anyway) number of Americans with CCW permits. An astoundingly tiny number of them (FAR fewer than what we'd expect from statistical white noise) ever commit a firearm related offense.

As far as demographics go: Licenced gun owners with CCW permits are one of the most non-violent, law abiding groups in the entire USA.

Amen to that. To all the people posting comments about individuals getting in fights and starting bloodbaths... this is ridiculous. My grandpa lived in Texas when he was still alive and had a CCW permit (and was an ex police officer). He said the background checks and training that are involved in getting your CCW are very extensive. This means your not going to have a bunch of gun wielding idiots running around shooting people; also your not likely going to get "bloodbaths" when fights escalate. It is unlikely CCW permit owners will ever use their gun outside of a firing range, except when they really need to: In self defense, or the defense of others around them.

(And my grandpa passed away from cancer, not being shot. I know you were thinking it.)

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TKRIS


No, not just "in your mind"...
In reality.
There are a staggering (to the gunphobic Canadians, anyway) number of Americans with CCW permits. An astoundingly tiny number of them (FAR fewer than what we'd expect from statistical white noise) ever commit a firearm related offense.

As far as demographics go: Licenced gun owners with CCW permits are one of the most non-violent, law abiding groups in the entire USA.

Do they need a gun to be a "non-violent, law abiding group"?

What would change if they didn't have a gun? What's the point of having a gun if you are a law abiding citizen?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Tomaz


Do they need a gun to be a "non-violent, law abiding group"?

:facepalm:

How is it even possible to miss a point that completely?


Originally posted by Tomaz
What would change if they didn't have a gun? What's the point of having a gun if you are a law abiding citizen?



:rofl: :rofl:
What's the point of having an alarm system in your car if you're not going to break into cars?

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by luxor



Man you are an imbecile. I can't even stand reading all your posts cause they get more and more retarded. Shows your (lack of) intelligence and reasoning abilities I guess. The quote that I have above is just one of the weak examples you pulled out of your asshole to try and justify guns. The reason that the USA hasn't been "invaded" has nothing to do with the number of gun owners. That statement may have been true when the American Constitution was first written but that was a long ass time ago. I would like to see today how good "gun owners" can defend their US of A without the US Military.

You put a few guys in a room without any weapons and you get a fist fight. As soon as you give them guns, you will get a blood bath and you will most certainly see a couple dead.

Hey since you are so brilliant why not allow prisoners to pack heat? I mean they need to defend themselves too right? Pretty rough in there so lets give them one right and allow them to all carry guns. I'm sure that will make the prison system more peaceful. No difference than a place full of drunks with guns. Fucking dumb ass.

:facepalm: You make a very, i repeat, very poor argument. You compared criminals with guns, to law abiding citizens with permits to carry a concealed handgun? Not everyone has the same "shoot em up" mentality that you see shown with the local FOB/FK her in Calgary... Gotta love left wing, paranoid, anti-gun Canadians.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TKRIS


:facepalm:

How is it even possible to miss a point that completely?


:rofl: :rofl:
What's the point of having an alarm system in your car if you're not going to break into cars?

I didn't miss the point. Humor me and tell me what would change if these people didn't have guns? SFA would be a correct answer.

I am starting to realise that you are missing the point that I am trying to make. An alarm DETERS thieves. A gun KILLS a thief. Neither you or I have the power to enforce law. What makes it even better to enforce death?

[Gabe182]

Originally posted by TurboD


have you ever heard of a death related to arson?



police are ordinary people fyi - they don't have super powers

and @ luxor

your comments were angry and show me that you aren't ready nor willing to debate this issue.

you didn't even put forth a theory that is backed up with evidence.

Yea and you saying that you wish another poster was shot shows me your not ready to make an argument. You keep saying that everyone against you is not ready to put up an argument, yet your guilty of the same thing.


I'm not against guns, I just think some of your points are invalid, like how the US never gets invaded because civilians have guns. I dont understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

I think whatever happens with the legality of guns, there will always be deaths by them. I just think by letting everyone have one makes it to easy for the wrong people to get ahold of them.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Tomaz


I didn't miss the point. Humor me and tell me what would change if these people didn't have guns? SFA would be a correct answer.

I am starting to realise that you are missing the point that I am trying to make. An alarm DETERS thieves. A gun KILLS a thief. Neither you or I have the power to enforce law. What makes it even better to enforce death?

a citizen has the right to defend themselves.

one thing you are missing is the fact that guns are a HUGE deter ant - in fact, more so than an alarm.

if a thief breaks into a car knowing it has an alarm he is risking someone seeing and reporting him, and he is risking jail time

if a thief breaks into a car in an area known to have citizens carrying registered guns he has a greater risk, his risk is death.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Gabe182


Yea and you saying that you wish another poster was shot shows me your not ready to make an argument. You keep saying that everyone against you is not ready to put up an argument, yet your guilty of the same thing.


I'm not against guns, I just think some of your points are invalid, like how the US never gets invaded because civilians have guns. I dont understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

I think whatever happens with the legality of guns, there will always be deaths by them. I just think by letting everyone have one makes it to easy for the wrong people to get ahold of them.

put yourself in the shoes of an invader,

are you going to want to invade a country where guns are banned, or are you going to wanna invade and terrorize a country with millions and millions of armed citizens.

its a lot harder to fight a nation than an army.

look at afghanistan, the USA troops cannot fight them because they can hide anywhere and everywhere and are very armed.

if you wanted to terrorize citizens, would you take the risk they are going to hold off your army and resist, or are you gonna wanna terrorize the citizens that have guns banned for use?

i have to check my facts, but i think there is a good example of the swiss holding off nazi troops:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30756.html


Again and again, Hitler ordered his generals to draw up plans to invade Switzerland--but never followed through. Why didn't he? One reason was that military crises elsewhere kept intervening. But another was Switzerland's convincing, if purely defensive, military posture. German troops referred to Switzerland as a porcupine (Stachelschwein); the Swiss air force consisted of 250 planes, none of them bombers. The most famous element of Swiss defense were the sabotage plans: At the moment of German invasion, the Simplon and St. Gotthard tunnels would be blown up, as well as all bridges over the Rhine, power stations, and air fields. Avalanches and landslides would be set off to block armor and infantry movement.

Another key deterrent factor, Halbrook suggests, was Switzerland's tradition of a popular army--"the people in arms." At one point an astonishing 20 percent of the Swiss population was under arms, a figure unheard of in a modern country officially at peace--or even most countries at war. Every Swiss home had a rifle. Sharpshooting was and is the national sport; each weekend the hills are alive with the sound of gunfire, with fathers delighting in instructing their kids in proper technique. Swiss youths were trained to shoot at 300 meters, Germans at 100. German generals had to consider the example of the Finns, another small nation of skiers and riflemen who had recently held off a Russian invasion far more tenaciously than outsiders expected.

now again i am giving facts to support my position,

where are your facts to back up your theory?

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TurboD


a citizen has the right to defend themselves.

one thing you are missing is the fact that guns are a HUGE deter ant - in fact, more so than an alarm.

if a thief breaks into a car knowing it has an alarm he is risking someone seeing and reporting him, and he is risking jail time

if a thief breaks into a car in an area known to have citizens carrying registered guns he has a greater risk, his risk is death.

Personally, I could never take a life. I value human life a lot more than my car. I rather give up my wallet than kill a thug (jokes on him, I'm broke! lol). Don't get me wrong, I will beat a motherfucker down if I ever caught someone breaking into my car. However, a person’s life I hope to never have in my hands. That will be too much responsibility.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Tomaz


I didn't miss the point. Humor me and tell me what would change if these people didn't have guns? SFA would be a correct answer.

And that would be somewhat relevant....if I was claiming that it was having guns that made these people responsible. But that wasn't even close to being the point.
Let me walk you through this once more, as if you were a small child...
Hand wringers assume that having people carry around guns will result in those people going nuts and killing anyone who pisses them off.
However, not only are they no more likely to do so than anyone else, but they're far less likely than those who don't have a permit to carry a firearm.
The kind of people who go through all the trouble to legally carry a firearm are the last people you should be afraid of.
Once more: You are much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone who does not have a CCW than someone who does.


Originally posted by Tomaz
I am starting to realise that you are missing the point that I am trying to make. An alarm DETERS thieves. A gun KILLS a thief. Neither you or I have the power to enforce law. What makes it even better to enforce death?

Yeah, because the likelihood of me having a gun isn't going to influence your choice to violently assault me at all...:rofl:
My having an alarm is a deterrent because it increases your chances of getting caught. My having a gun is an infinitely bigger deterrent because it increases your chances of getting dead.

When Florida introduced "Shall issue" laws, violent crime dropped drastically.
To the point where it became necessary to introduce laws against having any outward marking on rental vehicles to curb the crime wave against tourists.
Florida started giving CCWs to anyone who qualified for one, and criminals quickly concluded that it was too dangerous to fuck with anyone from Florida...

You and I absolutely have the power to enforce the law. FAR more importantly, we have the power, and I'd argue obligation, to protect ourselves and those around us from grievous bodily harm and death.
If you try to kill me, I absolutely have the right to do whatever I have to to stop you from doing so. That is a fundamental right, without which our society could not function.
Do you actually believe that we do not have the right to protect ourselves from harm? Do you actually believe that if someone tries to kill me, and I kill him first, *I've* done wrong?

That is the most pathetic example of a defeatist victim complex I've ever heard.


Your entire argument is based on your own conjecture, contradicts the available evidence, and completely neglects any relevant data in favor of relying solely your own speculation about what you "figure" would happen...

EDIT: It's not a cut and dry issue. There are valid arguments against CCW permits and gun ownership. Unfortunately, you haven't raised a single one of them.


Originally posted by Tomaz
Personally, I could never take a life. I value human life a lot more than my car. I rather give up my wallet than kill a thug (jokes on him, I'm broke! lol). Don't get me wrong, I will beat a motherfucker down if I ever caught someone breaking into my car. However, a person’s life I hope to never have in my hands. That will be too much responsibility.
I sincerely hope that I'm never burdened with the responsibility of killing another human being either, and can't fathom the pain and struggle that decisions would bring. That said, I also recognize that there is a chance (however small) that doing so could save my life, my wife's life, or my daughter's life. As such, I do what I can to make sure that if that time comes I actually have a choice.

Being an unarmed victim should be a choice.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by TurboD
look at afghanistan, the USA troops cannot fight them because they can hide anywhere and everywhere and are very armed.

Your theory is dumbass :facepalm: Last I checked Afghanistan is very much under the control of the USA/Nato. Where is this armed resistance rising up to free their country? Oh you mean the men in caves with tiny little pee shooters who cower from the Apache Helicopters, A10 gunships, Cruise Missiles, Abraham Tanks and the F22 Fighters?

Gun ownership to defend your country given the current state of weapons technology is idiotic. A single Abraham tank would be able to counter any armed militia you may raise in the United States. The trick being the weapons you need to fight on equal footing with the military are NOT guns.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by TKRIS


And that would be somewhat relevant....if I was claiming that it was having guns that made these people responsible. But that wasn't even close to being the point.
Let me walk you through this once more, as if you were a small child...
Hand wringers assume that having people carry around guns will result in those people going nuts and killing anyone who pisses them off.
However, not only are they no more likely to do so than anyone else, but they're far less likely than those who don't have a permit to carry a firearm.




Yeah, because the likelihood of me having a gun isn't going to influence your choice to violently assault me at all...:rofl:
My having an alarm is a deterrent because it increases your chances of getting caught. My having a gun is an infinitely bigger deterrent because it increases your chances of getting dead.

When Florida introduced "Shall issue" laws, violent crime dropped drastically.
To the point where it became necessary to introduce laws against having any outward marking on rental vehicles to curb the crime wave against tourists.
Florida started giving CCWs to anyone who qualified for one, and criminals quickly concluded that it was too dangerous to fuck with anyone from Florida...

You and I absolutely have the power to enforce the law. FAR more importantly, we have the power, and I'd argue obligation, to protect ourselves and those around us from grievous bodily harm and death.
If you try to kill me, I absolutely have the right to do whatever I have to to stop you from doing so. That is a fundamental right, without which our society could not function.
Do you actually believe that we do not have the right to protect ourselves from harm? Do you actually believe that if someone tries to kill me, and I kill him first, *I've* done wrong?

That is the most pathetic example of a defeatist victim complex I've ever heard.


Your entire argument is based on your own conjecture, contradicts the available evidence, and completely neglects any relevant data in favor of relying solely your own speculation about what you "figure" would happen...

EDIT: It's not a cut and dry issue. There are valid arguments against CCW permits and gun ownership. Unfortunately, you haven't raised a single one of them.

Got it, thank you for pointing this out to me.

You are right. You having a gun will never affect the way would violently assault you, cause it would not happen to begin with.

Can you tell I was raised with a hippy mentality? I forgot to factor in that the world is filled with paranoid, power hungry, self preserved asses like yourself. Plus adding to the mix; all those common thugs that are too weak minded to accept their faults and push forward for success. I guess if you add those in, all your arguments are very valid and can be proven through the statistics of the very patriotic country.

Now looking through my eyes, there is no need to carry a gun in my lifestyle. I work, I go to school, I be friendly to everyone I meet. I treat others the way I expect to be treated. This has never caused any conflicts with any other human. By removing myself from any problematic situations, I find my life very laid back.

I have had to defend myself once. And I was successful without taking the perp’s life. Why would anyone need a gun then?

I bet this sounds a bit idealistic, maybe a bit naïve: I believe that you can create a populous where you don’t have violence and crime. I have never needed a weapon in my life. Perhaps others will try and lead the same lifestyle? I hope so.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Your theory is dumbass :facepalm: Last I checked Afghanistan is very much under the control of the USA/Nato. Where is this armed resistance rising up to free their country? Oh you mean the men in caves with tiny little pee shooters who cower from the Apache Helicopters, A10 gunships, Cruise Missiles, Abraham Tanks and the F22 Fighters?

Gun ownership to defend your country given the current state of weapons technology is idiotic. A single Abraham tank would be able to counter any armed militia you may raise in the United States. The trick being the weapons you need to fight on equal footing with the military are NOT guns.

learn how to debate,

GIVE ME EVIDENCE, not just opinion

here is a wiki quote for your dull brain:


In a recent interview, former head of U.S. troops in Iraq and now the head of U.S. Central Command, General David H. Petraeus, insisted that the Taliban are gaining strength. He cited the recent uptick in attacks in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. Petraeus also insisted that the challenges faced in Afghanistan are more complicated than the ones that were faced in Iraq during his tour and in order to turn around the recent events this would require removing militant sanctuaries and strongholds, which are widespread inside Afghanistan.[175]

On October 1, 2008, the top American general in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, warned that the situation in Afghanistan could get a lot worse. The international forces within Afghanistan have not been able to hold territory they have cleared because of the lack of troops. For this reason the general called for an extra three combat brigades (roughly 20,000 troops). Without this urgent rush of troops the Taliban would be able to get back into the communities that were once cleared by international troops. The general went on to say that things could get a lot worse before they get better.[176]

last you checked?

lol, was that a press release in 2002?

you find me the list of deaths caused by the taliban in the last 2 years and then report back and let me know if their pee shooters are working or not

[TKRIS]

While I agree that claiming other countries aren't invading the US because the population is armed is a stretch, I also disagree that they would be inconsequential to defending themselves from their own military, should the need arise.
Because of the amount of armed citizens, there is enough resistance in the USA to ensure that any attack on them by their own government would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

That's why the first step to gaining totalitarian like power is always to disarm he people.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Tomaz


Got it, thank you for pointing this out to me.
You're welcome.


Originally posted by Tomaz
You are right. You having a gun will never affect the way would violently assault you, cause it would not happen to begin with.

Can you tell I was raised with a hippy mentality? I forgot to factor in that the world is filled with paranoid, power hungry, self preserved asses like yourself.

Hehe. This retarded logic amuses me every time I see it (and I've seen it a lot):
"We need to get rid of all guns so we don't all get killed by bloodthirsty maniacs, but if you want to protect yourself and your family then you're just being paranoid..."

Hahaha


Originally posted by Tomaz

Now looking through my eyes, there is no need to carry a gun in my lifestyle. I work, I go to school, I be friendly to everyone I meet. I treat others the way I expect to be treated. This has never caused any conflicts with any other human. By removing myself from any problematic situations, I find my life very laid back.

I have had to defend myself once. And I was successful without taking the perp’s life. Why would anyone need a gun then?

I bet this sounds a bit idealistic, maybe a bit naïve: I believe that you can create a populous where you don’t have violence and crime. I have never needed a weapon in my life. Perhaps others will try and lead the same lifestyle? I hope so.
A bit idealistic and naive?

Thousands of people die every year because they haven't had your good fortune. You'd like to see that trend continue, because if it hasn't happened to you personally, apparently it doesn't happen at all...


We don't live in a utopian society, and we likely never will. You can look at the world through rose colored blinders all you want, but it does not begin and end at your front door. You do not get to tell everyone they aren't allowedd to defend themselves from harm because you don't think anyone should cause them harm.


"No one needs car alarms because my car hasn't been broken into, and I don't think we should live in a world where people break into cars."


I'm terribly sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but "The Secret" is bullshit. Hoping really hard doesn't make it so. You can't simply wish all the world's ills away.
You and me and TurboD and Mazdavirgin might well all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but the cracked out degenerate piece of shit who kicks your door in at 3am isn't interested in joining us...
If you're home, he might kick the shit out of you and rape your wife though. But I'm sure you could reason with him right?

I want to live in a world safe from harm as much as ANYONE. The difference is that I recognize that we DO NOT live in such a world, and that it's my responsibility to ensure my safety, and the safety of those in my charge, because no one else will.

[polarice]

A little study on assault/murder and guns:

"Medical researchers from Washington State compared homicide data from Seattle with data from that city's neighbour to the north, Vancouver. These two cities are similar in geography, climate, demographics, and penalties for homicide and for crimes committed with firearms. However, it is easier to buy a gun in Seattle, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than Vancouver.

The researchers found that for the years of 1980-1986, the two cities had similar rates for burglaries, robberies, and assaults. But in Seattle the rate of assault involving firearms was 7.7 times that of Vancouver. They also found that a person in Seattle was almost twice as likely to be murdered as a person in Vancouver. This was linked to the fact that Seattle's rate of homicide by firearm was five times higher than Vancouver's. The availability of firearms was found to be directly related to the levels of risk in the two cities and to the homicide rate as well"


Source: J.H Sloan et al., "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities," New England Journal of Medicine 319 (1988), 1260. Copyright 1988 Massachusetts Medical Society.

There is an actual source, not random junk from wikipedia. Just for you TurboD

[TurboD]

Originally posted by polarice
A little study on assault/murder and guns:

"Medical researchers from Washington State compared homicide data from Seattle with data from that city's neighbour to the north, Vancouver. These two cities are similar in geography, climate, demographics, and penalties for homicide and for crimes committed with firearms. However, it is easier to buy a gun in Seattle, which has a higher rate of gun ownership than Vancouver.

The researchers found that for the years of 1980-1986, the two cities had similar rates for burglaries, robberies, and assaults. But in Seattle the rate of assault involving firearms was 7.7 times that of Vancouver. They also found that a person in Seattle was almost twice as likely to be murdered as a person in Vancouver. This was linked to the fact that Seattle's rate of homicide by firearm was five times higher than Vancouver's. The availability of firearms was found to be directly related to the levels of risk in the two cities and to the homicide rate as well"


Source: J.H Sloan et al., "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities," New England Journal of Medicine 319 (1988), 1260. Copyright 1988 Massachusetts Medical Society.

There is an actual source, not random junk from wikipedia. Just for you TurboD

you don't think the gun registry process has changed in the states in the last 20 years?

were all those violent crimes committed with registered guns?

1988 - LOL
great source

[polarice]

It was a six year study, proper research takes time and effort. I'm going to guess you aren't aware of how crime rates have been flowing for the last 20 years are you? (That is a serious question).

[TurboD]

Originally posted by polarice
It was a six year study, proper research takes time and effort. I'm going to guess you aren't aware of how crime rates have been flowing for the last 20 years are you? (That is a serious question).



In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council in Georgia voted unanimously to pass a law that requiring all heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

Amazingly, Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said after the law passed, the crime rate in the city dropped 89 percent. Compare that huge drop to the modest 10 percent drop statewide in Georgia and you have a pretty bizarre statistic.


In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA


2003: 614 Part 1 Crimes Reported 2,354 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population.
2004: 577 Part 1 Crimes Reported 2,192 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population.
2005: 579 Part 1 Crimes Reported 2,027 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population.
2006: 558 Part 1 Crimes Reported 1,786 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population.
2007: 578 Part 1 Crimes Reported 1,792 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population.
2008: 587 Part 1 Crimes Reported 1,764 Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population

2008 National Average of Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population: 3,666

2008 - ya thats right, 1,764 compared to a 3,666 national average.


want me to destroy you with facts any further?

[polarice]

I'll bite.
I must have missed that in the previous posts, and where did it come from?

What was the rate of homicide and or gun violence before they changed legislation? An 89% drop seems impressive but can be rather misleading.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by polarice
I'll bite.
I must have missed that in the previous posts, and where did it come from?

What was the rate of homicide and or gun violence before they changed legislation? An 89% drop seems impressive but can be rather misleading.



11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981; but nonetheless, the crime rate dropped even lower (by 89%) after the ordinance was passed.


In 1998, Decatur, GA, (another Atlanta suburb with a population of comparable size to that of Kennesaw) reported 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents, while Kennesaw had merely 243 property crimes per 100,000 (that is .243 per 1,000). In contrast, Morton Grove has a crime rate of about 10 times that of Kennesaw.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263000

if you search for info on Kennesaw georgia you will find any source you wish for this information.

[polarice]

“ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.”

Okay, so how many of the citizens opted out vs. the amount that do? Even in the crime rate statistics that you posted for their city, crime still exists. So how does having a gun help any of that? It MAY be an answer in SOME communities for SOME types of crime, However it isn't something that is universally strong enough to be mandated as law.

Im googling this as I go

"Criminologist and gun-control critic Gary Kleck attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law (Kleck, 1991), and Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991)."

http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ke/kennesaw,_georgia.htm

[TurboD]

Originally posted by polarice
“ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.”

Okay, so how many of the citizens opted out vs. the amount that do? Even in the crime rate statistics that you posted for their city, crime still exists. So how does having a gun help any of that? It MAY be an answer in SOME communities for SOME types of crime, However it isn't something that is universally strong enough to be mandated as law.

Im googling this as I go

"Criminologist and gun-control critic Gary Kleck attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law (Kleck, 1991), and Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991)."

http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ke/kennesaw,_georgia.htm

+1 for research and debate ready posts

my argument would be even a 1% drop in rapes/murder/break ins would be a good thing imo.

so any experiment that resulted in even a 1% drop would be worth researching further imo.

[polarice]

Originally posted by TurboD


+1 for research and debate ready posts

my argument would be even a 1% drop in rapes/murder/break ins would be a good thing imo.

so any experiment that resulted in even a 1% drop would be worth researching further imo.

This is really the problem with debating any type of crime issue; you are never going to be able to definitively say that by doing X crime droped by Y%.

I came across this website while googling Kennesaw Ga.
http://www.guninformation.org/

[TurboD]

Originally posted by polarice


This is really the problem with debating any type of crime issue; you are never going to be able to definitively say that by doing X crime droped by Y%.

I came across this website while googling Kennesaw Ga.
http://www.guninformation.org/

i am pro gun control

to be clear, my position is not that everyone should be able to carry a gun around and do with it as they please.

although i do think that the citizen should have the right to own a registered gun.

and to stay more or less on the topic of this thread...

i also believe that if a business owner is going to benefit by having guns allowed in his business i think that owner has a right to allow this.

[J NRG]

.

[v2kai]

Originally posted by J NRG


:nut:



Id say if you smoke every time you fill, its actually quite likely going to happen.

I wasnt allowed to have cap guns either. By the time i was 16 I turned down offers to purchase gats around 4 times.

"An armed society is a polite society." Remind me of where i grew up. Im not sure i can say polite is quite the word id use.


And aside from a diner or pub why would you be at a bar with a gun but not to drink?

The only concern i have about Canadians not being very well armed is that we are essentially sitting ducks if shit ever hit the fan. Gee i wonder why anybody would ever fuck with us?!

youre missing it. go back and read some more. the reason WHY your memories of being 16 and where you grew up are like that is because that's what it is now. only the ones who arent supposed to guns and are likely to use them in violent crimes are the ones who have them. if every single citizen had a gun on them and some gang banger pulls a gun in a grocery store do you really think he'll make it out alive? would he even try it?

if the general populace knew cops werent around to give out tickets for a month, it's likely you'd see a shit ton of speeders. but if you knew every single person around you could give you a ticket how many speeders do you think there would be...?

[J NRG]

.

[v2kai]

Originally posted by J NRG


I guess id prefer to know he makes it out if it also means everyone else in the store does instead of a scared 17 yr old clerk is letting something off he cant even hold down....

Yes he would try. Hunger and addiction do crazy things. He'd just make sure not to miss (too much) as he did try.

no dude. not some scared little 17 yr old if was scared no WAY he'd pull out his own gun. someone with the proper training, confidence and licensing like they would have to have to attain a weapon its not just given to you at birth but it is a societal norm much like a drivers license. to drive a car in itself can be a weapon, it may as well be a gun.

and the likehood of gang banger boy carrying it out is WAY LESS. hes on drugs he probably IS nuts. the bottom line is the consequences for the gang banger are exponentially higher if everyone is armed. basically lets put it this way. gang banger is gonna pull the gun either way would you rather have some sort of defense or maybe the coked out druggie just starts firing at unarmed civilians i mean drugs do crazy shit right? or he starts randomly firing at armed civilians, maybe a casualty but LIKELY significantly less, if it even would occur. the deterrent is HUGE. youre automatically assuming it turns into a bloodbath. looking BOTH possible outcomes i would take the defense scenario.

there is a similar problem with driving licenses over here regarding drivers licenses. look at finland. HUGE emphasis on driver training, safety and very strict => result, awesome drivers for the most part(cant say everyone that'd be lying) if we had the same strict laws and training for our liscenses you really think drunk driving would be the problem it is today. just go drive around calgary, how many ricers or soccer moms in mini vans or WHOEVER cant drive. if guns were made a societal norm with strict rules, training and education like they should be, like drivers licenses should be, it wouldnt be the scenario youre trying to paint

[polarice]

Originally posted by v2kai

if the general populace knew cops werent around to give out tickets for a month, it's likely you'd see a shit ton of speeders. but if you knew every single person around you could give you a ticket how many speeders do you think there would be...?

Actually, there was a really interesting study done over a one year period down in the states, fairly recently (Im too lazy to go look at my notes to find the specifics) that kind of disproves that. So what they did is set up the city in 3 different zones. One zone was the control group where policing stayed the same, the second saw an influx of policing, and the third had zero patrol at all (the only went to the area if there was an emergency). The crime rates stayed the same in the areas as before the study. It didn't matter whether or not there was a police presence or not.

People complain about the gun registry and such (it is a political mess) but what would the costs be of programming and training for every citizen to have a gun? Furthermore, how many people actually know how to use their guns properly?

Popular media has convinced people that we're living in some deranged age of crazy killers everywhere. The fact is we're not. Since the 1990's the crime rate has been declining (with the exception of a 1% increase in Homicide in 03/04).

I just don't see a valid argument for people to carry guns for the sake of safety.

[luxor]

Originally posted by beyond_ban


:facepalm: You make a very, i repeat, very poor argument. You compared criminals with guns, to law abiding citizens with permits to carry a concealed handgun? Not everyone has the same "shoot em up" mentality that you see shown with the local FOB/FK her in Calgary... Gotta love left wing, paranoid, anti-gun Canadians.

Save that facepalm for yourself buddy. By your level of grammar, I can already tell you are not too smart and probably couldn;t even finish high school. I'll lay it out for you more simply then. You assumed that these "law abiding citizens" in the bars have permits to carry a concealed weapon. What makes you think they all have a valid permit for their handgun walking into a bar? How would this differ to someone who didn't have a permit but concealed a handgun walking into the same bar? You really think the bouncer at the door with your same level of education is going to thoroughly run a check? Similarly, these "criminals" also may have had valid permits for a concealed weapon. The way I see it, a bunch of angry drunks with guns aren't any different than a bunch of angry criminals with guns when it comes to violence. Any person with a hand can easily single-handedly kill someone with a gun just about anywhere. Like someone already said, guns were designed to kill, not protect. Cops only have guns because criminals have guns; you have to fight fire with fire. Majority of British Police Officers don't carry guns of regular patrols, I wonder why. Why don't you just stick with sending PMs to TurboD so you guys can have hot gun talks with each other all night.

For the record: I own a non-restricted hunting rifle. Just because I think some of you guy's reasonings are retarded doesn't mean that I'm an "anti-gun Canadian."

[luxor]

Originally posted by v2kai

to drive a car in itself can be a weapon, it may as well be a gun.

there is a similar problem with driving licenses over here regarding drivers licenses.

First off, don't be comparing a gun to a vehicle. A gun is still way more dangerous than any vehcle.

Second, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. If you were to shoot back at the gang banger but miss and hurt an innocent civilian then who is responsible? If the gang banger killed somebody then that's on him. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you probably still think your logic is correct since you'd rather shoot back and try to save yourself while disregarding and endangering everyone else. How would you like it if you got caught in the middle of a cross fire between two person?

:rolleyes:

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by TurboD
learn how to debate,

GIVE ME EVIDENCE, not just opinion

here is a wiki quote for your dull brain:

last you checked?

lol, was that a press release in 2002?

you find me the list of deaths caused by the taliban in the last 2 years and then report back and let me know if their pee shooters are working or not

:rofl: So you are conceding that the taliban is putting up a pointless resistance in your own words?! Afghanistan has been under nato/US rule since 2001 and you think that this is a good example of the difficulty of invading a country with guns? They have been crushed and subjugated for over 8 years and not a sign of them even coming close to kicking out the invaders... That is awesome evidence of the "civilian militia". No see the Afghans are better armed than any citizen in the US. They have surface to air missiles, rocket propelled grenades, and military grade explosives. Americans don't have any such resources and you expect them to put up an equivalent resistance?

Not to mention the resistance by the Afghans is pathetic. Let us look at the numbers shall we? The population of Afghanistan is ~28 million.

Ok so we have 28 million potentially armed citizens and lets see they have caused 1403 casualties since 2001? I would like to give them a big :facepalm: Oh and you can look at the graphs yourself for coalition losses but the number of deaths in the last two years is still a drop in the bucket compared to the deployed forces of 120,000 souls. That works out to roughly a 1% casualty rate. At that rate well I don't think your wonder army with their pee shooters is ever going to get anywhere.

[CUG]

My dislike for liberals started on this topic, and compounded with every turd-burglar rapist/murderer that was sentenced less than 5 years for their handiwork. Throw in the western alienation bit and yeah, I'm a conservative by default.

I'm impressed with the patience of people like TKRIS and Polarice that take the time to explain very clear and concise points to an incredibly ignorant and sub-intelligent audience.

Props gentlemen.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


:rofl: So you are conceding that the taliban is putting up a pointless resistance in your own words?! Afghanistan has been under nato/US rule since 2001 and you think that this is a good example of the difficulty of invading a country with guns? They have been crushed and subjugated for over 8 years and not a sign of them even coming close to kicking out the invaders... That is awesome evidence of the "civilian militia". No see the Afghans are better armed than any citizen in the US. They have surface to air missiles, rocket propelled grenades, and military grade explosives. Americans don't have any such resources and you expect them to put up an equivalent resistance?

Not to mention the resistance by the Afghans is pathetic. Let us look at the numbers shall we? The population of Afghanistan is ~28 million.

Ok so we have 28 million potentially armed citizens and lets see they have caused 1403 casualties since 2001? I would like to give them a big :facepalm: Oh and you can look at the graphs yourself for coalition losses but the number of deaths in the last two years is still a drop in the bucket compared to the deployed forces of 120,000 souls. That works out to roughly a 1% casualty rate. At that rate well I don't think your wonder army with their pee shooters is ever going to get anywhere.

i can't believe you think the lives of the troops in canada/usa are a drop in the bucket...

i only need quotes and sources to refute your pee shooter theory.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=106464&sectionid=3510203


US military death toll in Afghanistan at 757


A security map by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) showed a deepening security crisis with substantial Taliban activity in at least 97 percent of the war-ravaged country.

http://www.icosmaps.net/latest_maps/051_map/051_map

http://www.icosmaps.net/

[J NRG]

.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by polarice
People complain about the gun registry and such (it is a political mess) but what would the costs be of programming and training for every citizen to have a gun? Furthermore, how many people actually know how to use their guns properly?
I would strongly oppose the idea that the government should pay for everyone to get training and permits to carry.

I paid for my own licensing costs. I pay for my own training costs. I pay my own range fees, and I pay for my own ammo.
The point isn't that everyone should be armed. The point is that it should be a choice.

As far as using firearms properly: If the SHTF, I'd rather stand next to the guys I've shot IPSC with than the average cop. You'd be astounded at how incompetent some cops are with their firearms (certainly not all, but talk to a gun store owner sometime...).
I've never seen anyone at either of my ranges that doesn't know how to properly handle their firearm.


Originally posted by polarice
Popular media has convinced people that we're living in some deranged age of crazy killers everywhere. The fact is we're not. Since the 1990's the crime rate has been declining (with the exception of a 1% increase in Homicide in 03/04).

I just don't see a valid argument for people to carry guns for the sake of safety.

Here's the paradox of this argument:
While crime rates have been dropping, CCW permit numbers have been climbing. With the widespread use of "Shall issue" laws, there are more people than ever carrying concealed.

Now, of course, correlation does not equal causation. You can't simply look at huge, generalized, ambiguous statistics like that and claim that the national crime rate is dropping as a direct result of more people being armed. But you can make certain inferences. The idea that more CCW will result in more crime, for example, is extremely dubious.

When you couple that with the smaller, more focused causal studies (like in the case of Florida I mentioned earlier), that idea is ever further discredited.
Like I said before, it's certainly not a cut and dry issue. But all indications are that having more CCW holders will result in something between no increase in crime, and a lower increase in crime. So while the argument that "more legal guns=less crime" may be somewhat debatable in certain circumstances, the argument that "more legal guns=more crime" is flawed right from go.

Ultimately, it's a personal choice. The difference is that only one side is trying to tell the other side what to do.
The "pro" side is advocating that they have the right to defend themselves, while the "anti" side is trying to revoke that right, based on what they're frightened might happen, despite all indications contradicting those assumptions.

"I'm not telling you you have to be armed, but you're telling me I can't be."
Removing human rights requires something more solid than one's opinion on whether or not another person really needs that right...

[DayGlow]

does anyone have any studies on if people that have a CCW permit are more likely to commit a gun crime?

It's not like they are getting into gunfights now on the drop of a hat in malls, on the roads and everywhere else they carry already.

Again this is a massive non-issue. Yes the USA has a very large gun-culture different from Canada, they have more gun crime and guns are more prevalent within society. That does not mean that person with a CCW permit is somehow less responsible and more likely to draw down on someone because they don't like the way they look at them.

I predict life will go on just the same as before. There will be shootings and crimes, but someone carrying into a restaurant/bar isn't going to cause mass shootings.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by TurboD

i can't believe you think the lives of the troops in canada/usa are a drop in the bucket...

i only need quotes and sources to refute your pee shooter theory.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=106464&sectionid=3510203

http://www.icosmaps.net/latest_maps/051_map/051_map

http://www.icosmaps.net/

Again with the straw man arguments? Quite frankly your silly links are opinions I am basing this on fact... The fact of the matter is a tiny contingent of armed forces numbering 120,000 has subjugated a whole country of 28 million people for over 8 years. Those 28 million people have ready access to rifles and weapons far superior than their American counter parts and they cannot throw out their invaders...

The lives of troops in the Afghan war are a drop in the bucket. War will involve loss of life and by far this recent conflict is easily the least bloody war for the United States in quite some time. Especially when you consider how long they have been occupying the country. Compare this conflict to world war 2, vietnam or the korean war...

I have yet to see any convincing arguments concerning how the Afghans are going to somehow get rid of the US army. Keep in mind how hilariously outnumbered the army is at the moment. The army makes up less than 0.5% of the countries population yet they have absolute control and authority... So if guns are such an equalizer I wonder how 0.5% of your population manages to subjugate the other 99.5%?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by DayGlow
does anyone have any studies on if people that have a CCW permit are more likely to commit a gun crime?
Like I said before, they are far less likely to commit a crime.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp



* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

[TurboD]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin

I have yet to see any convincing arguments concerning how the Afghans are going to somehow get rid of the US army. Keep in mind how hilariously outnumbered the army is at the moment. The army makes up less than 0.5% of the countries population yet they have absolute control and authority... So if guns are such an equalizer I wonder how 0.5% of your population manages to subjugate the other 99.5%?

http://www.icosmaps.net/

80% of Afghanistan has heavy taliban insurgent activity

another 17% with substantial insurgent activity

after almost a decade

[Gabe182]

Originally posted by TKRIS

Like I said before, they are far less likely to commit a crime.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp





Good post. I guess it would also be less likely for someone to not commit a crime if a law like this is passed because the gun can be traced back to the person.

^
actually I'm not sure about this, if you shoot someone with a registered gun can it somehow be traced back to you?

[polarice]

Originally posted by TKRIS

I would strongly oppose the idea that the government should pay for everyone to get training and permits to carry.

I paid for my own licensing costs. I pay for my own training costs. I pay my own range fees, and I pay for my own ammo.
The point isn't that everyone should be armed. The point is that it should be a choice.

As far as using firearms properly: If the SHTF, I'd rather stand next to the guys I've shot IPSC with than the average cop. You'd be astounded at how incompetent some cops are with their firearms (certainly not all, but talk to a gun store owner sometime...).
I've never seen anyone at either of my ranges that doesn't know how to properly handle their firearm.

I am not astounded by the incompetency of some officers who do not know how to handle their firearms properly, which is why I would be concerned with average citizens handling fire arms in mass. As far as I know it is legal for Canadians to own firearms, but it is not a constitutional right to, correct? Even if the laws were more open and made readily accessible, I would argue that the same people that were gun holders before, will continue to be and there wouldn't be a huge influx of new gun holders. (Is CCW a Canadian permit, or an American one?)

If the argument is to have the ability to carry a gun at all times then yes there would be an extra cost to the government. I was more speaking to the administrative costs of licensing and testing individuals to make sure they were fit to be carrying, which in my opinion would have to be strict and involve some sort of retest/licensing every X amount of years.


Originally posted by TKRIS

Here's the paradox of this argument:
While crime rates have been dropping, CCW permit numbers have been climbing. With the widespread use of "Shall issue" laws, there are more people than ever carrying concealed.

Now, of course, correlation does not equal causation. You can't simply look at huge, generalized, ambiguous statistics like that and claim that the national crime rate is dropping as a direct result of more people being armed. But you can make certain inferences. The idea that more CCW will result in more crime, for example, is extremely dubious.

When you couple that with the smaller, more focused causal studies (like in the case of Florida I mentioned earlier), that idea is ever further discredited.
Like I said before, it's certainly not a cut and dry issue. But all indications are that having more CCW holders will result in something between no increase in crime, and a lower increase in crime. So while the argument that "more legal guns=less crime" may be somewhat debatable in certain circumstances, the argument that "more legal guns=more crime" is flawed right from go.

Ultimately, it's a personal choice. The difference is that only one side is trying to tell the other side what to do.
The "pro" side is advocating that they have the right to defend themselves, while the "anti" side is trying to revoke that right, based on what they're frightened might happen, despite all indications contradicting those assumptions.

"I'm not telling you you have to be armed, but you're telling me I can't be."
Removing human rights requires something more solid than one's opinion on whether or not another person really needs that right...

I will agree that the notion that more legal guns does not equal an increase in crime. The study that I brought up in my initial post was meant to show ongoing conditions where there hadn't been a change in legislation and the given cities were studied. I will not say that the difference in crime rates is caused by guns but it is interesting to note the differences, and they can't be disregarded.

[2Valve0]

americans :banghead:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Gabe182



Good post. I guess it would also be less likely for someone to not commit a crime if a law like this is passed because the gun can be traced back to the person.

^
actually I'm not sure about this, if you shoot someone with a registered gun can it somehow be traced back to you?

This is a bit of a hot topic.
The cops can't tie a specific gun to a bullet without having both the gun, and a bullet that's preserved well enough to pull information off of (which, despite what CSI would have you believe, is very rare, difficult, and time consuming). So unless the cops have your gun, they can't link you to anything.
If the cops have your gun they usually know that it's yours anyway (got it from you, or from your house, etc), so registration isn't at all useful. If the cops don't know who's gun it is (found it on the street by the crime scene, etc), then they can find out it's yours if it's registered, but that doesn't really mean anything, because it could have been stolen, misplaced, went missing without you realizing, etc. that doesn't tie you to the crime either.

In short, the best that registration is ever going to do is provide some flimsy circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, that's not enough to justify the cost, intrusion, and pain in the ass it is to keep it in place.

There are other arguments some people have to support a registration system (like so that cops will know if firearms are present when they go on a call), but they're demonstrably stupid and invalid.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by polarice


I am not astounded by the incompetency of some officers who do not know how to handle their firearms properly, which is why I would be concerned with average citizens handling fire arms in mass. As far as I know it is legal for Canadians to own firearms, but it is not a constitutional right to, correct?
This is a subject of some debate.
I'm fairly familiar with Canadian laws, what laws are being used to keep Canadians from being able to carry, and what rights these laws may be infringing upon, but it's really a different topic altogether.


Originally posted by polarice
Even if the laws were more open and made readily accessible, I would argue that the same people that were gun holders before, will continue to be and there wouldn't be a huge influx of new gun holders. (Is CCW a Canadian permit, or an American one?)

CCW is the US.
Canada has ATC (Authorization to Carry), but it's almost exclusively restricted to people who need it for wilderness defense and carrying non-restricted isn't realistic (prospectors, surveyors, etc that work far back in the wilderness)


Originally posted by polarice
If the argument is to have the ability to carry a gun at all times then yes there would be an extra cost to the government. I was more speaking to the administrative costs of licensing and testing individuals to make sure they were fit to be carrying, which in my opinion would have to be strict and involve some sort of retest/licensing every X amount of years.

Why would that become government funded?
We already have licensing and testing for various things, and the government doesn't pay for any of those.

In order to compete in IPSC, you have to take and pass a "Black Badge" course. It takes a couple/few days, and costs $250-$300, plus the cost of a few hundred rounds of ammo.
Why wouldn't something similar be sufficient?
I have no problem with having to demonstrate a certain level of competency, but I disagree that this would have to be government funded. The government doesn't pay to teach you driver's ed, nor pay for your drivers exam.




Originally posted by polarice
I will agree that the notion that more legal guns does not equal an increase in crime. The study that I brought up in my initial post was meant to show ongoing conditions where there hadn't been a change in legislation and the given cities were studied. I will not say that the difference in crime rates is caused by guns but it is interesting to note the differences, and they can't be disregarded.

I think you took my post as being more confrontational than it really was.
My point was just that you can't gerrymander the statistics. You can't claim that people don't need to carry firearms because the crime rate is steadily dropping and ignore the fact that while crime has been dropping, CCW permits have been increasing in lock step.

[polarice]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Why would that become government funded?
We already have licensing and testing for various things, and the government doesn't pay for any of those.

In order to compete in IPSC, you have to take and pass a "Black Badge" course. It takes a couple/few days, and costs $250-$300, plus the cost of a few hundred rounds of ammo.
Why wouldn't something similar be sufficient?
I have no problem with having to demonstrate a certain level of competency, but I disagree that this would have to be government funded. The government doesn't pay to teach you driver's ed, nor pay for your drivers exam.


No, no. Thats not what I meant. The government still has to front the cost of making and enacting the legislation as well as the government agents that carry out the licensing fees. I am not saying that the exam/training/license would be government funded I'm saying the administrative cost of running it would be (just like anything else for example that book they hand out for free when you're studying for your learners exam... it didn't get printed from the book fairies for free).



Originally posted by TKRIS

I think you took my post as being more confrontational than it really was.
My point was just that you can't gerrymander the statistics. You can't claim that people don't need to carry firearms because the crime rate is steadily dropping and ignore the fact that while crime has been dropping, CCW permits have been increasing in lock step.

I didn't find it confrontational, but I don't understand your point. You mentioned that CCW doesn't exist in Canada, but the statistic that I used was for Canadian crime rates, not the USA. So how does more people with CCW have anything to do with a steadily falling crime rate in Canada? On that basis, yes I am saying there is no need to carry firearms... wanting to is a different issue.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by polarice
No, no. Thats not what I meant. The government still has to front the cost of making and enacting the legislation as well as the government agents that carry out the licensing fees. I am not saying that the exam/training/license would be government funded I'm saying the administrative cost of running it would be (just like anything else for example that book they hand out for free when you're studying for your learners exam... it didn't get printed from the book fairies for free).
It may not have been what you meant, but it is how it read. I ws specifically addressing this:


Originally posted by polarice
People complain about the gun registry and such (it is a political mess) but what would the costs be of programming and training for every citizen to have a gun?
My point was that, were we allowed CCW permits, the government would not be footing the bill for training every citizen (or any citizen) to use a firearm.
CCW holders should, and would, pay for their own licencing costs, training fees, etc.
We agree on that.

Here's where we disagree:
The government doesn't need to pay for anything.

The argument that it would cost money to issue licenses, print booklets, etc. is all based on the assumption that applicants wouldn't pay licensing fees to cover these expenses. Why would you assume that, when in every comparable situation that is not the case?

Driver's licenses, books, etc don't get printed by a magical book fairy for free. They get paid for by the fees you and I pay to get our licenses. The exact same way CCW permits would work, and currently works in the US.



Originally posted by polarice
I didn't find it confrontational, but I don't understand your point. You mentioned that CCW doesn't exist in Canada, but the statistic that I used was for Canadian crime rates, not the USA.
I must have misunderstood the limited scope of your argument. Doesn't mater though, since crime rates have been steadily dropping in the USA as well...


Originally posted by polarice
So how does more people with CCW have anything to do with a steadily falling crime rate in Canada? On that basis, yes I am saying there is no need to carry firearms... wanting to is a different issue.

Ummm, wat?
So because there's a bit less crime now than there was 15 years ago, no one has to worry about crime anymore? Hook a brother up to the keys to the magical sunshine world you live in. ;) j/k
My statement still stands (you're a bit vague, so I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here or not):
'Your" opinion on whether or not I "need" to carry a firearm to protect myself is not enough to give "you" jurisdiction to make that choice for me.

"Your" opinion on whether or not anyone needs to carry a firearm is completely irrelevant to the argument of whether or not "they" ought to be allowed to.

*Not "you" specifically.

[Recca168]

Originally posted by TurboD


http://www.icosmaps.net/

80% of Afghanistan has heavy taliban insurgent activity

another 17% with substantial insurgent activity

after almost a decade

Seriously. I agree with some of your points but some are just ridiculous. You should at least give up those arguements. You make it sound like the taliban are taking over the country. If you read your own link instead of just looking at the big numbers on the map here's what it reads



Data detailing the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was gathered from daily insurgent activity reports between January and September 2009. ICOS believes that the level of incidents recorded by this methodology is conservative, as it is based on public third-party reports, and not all incidents are made public.

Permanent presence: defined by provinces that average one (or more) insurgent attack (lethal and non-lethal) per week.

Substantial presence: an average one or more insurgent attacks per month and include residents who believe Taliban are active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings).

Light presence: defined by less than one insurgent attack per month and local residents don't believe Taliban is active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings). To calculate percentages, the total area of Afghanistan was divided by the total area hosting a permanent/ substantial/light Taliban presence.

The most significant insurgent attacks in reality amount 1 or more attacks per week per province, which has amounted to a 214 US casualties so far this year. No matter how you look at it their resistance is ineffective. You can't fight a well equiped military with just guns. That's just how it is.

But back on topic. I personally am unconfortable around firearms but i don't have any problem with responsible people carrying them. Its just the retards with guns that scare me and they aren't really affected by this law anyway.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by Recca168


Seriously. I agree with some of your points but some are just ridiculous. You should at least give up those arguements. You make it sound like the taliban are taking over the country. If you read your own link instead of just looking at the big numbers on the map here's what it reads



The most significant insurgent attacks in reality amount 1 or more attacks per week per province, which has amounted to a 214 US casualties so far this year. No matter how you look at it their resistance is ineffective. You can't fight a well equiped military with just guns. That's just how it is.


I'm interested to see if you have any sources supporting a theory that the USA is in control of Afghanistan.


The Taliban and the Guerrilla Warfare Challenge

The Taliban have forged relationships among many Afghan (and Pakistani) tribes. These tribes have been alienated by Karzai and the Americans, and far more important, they do not perceive the Americans and Karzai as potential winners in the Afghan conflict. They recall the Russian and British defeats. The tribes have long memories, and they know that foreigners don’t stay very long. Betting on the United States and Karzai — when the United States has sent only 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and is struggling with the idea of sending another 30,000 troops — does not strike them as prudent. The United States is behaving like a power not planning to win; and, in any event, they would not be much impressed if the Americans were planning to win.

The tribes therefore do not want to get on the wrong side of the Taliban. That means they aid and shelter Taliban forces, and provide them intelligence on enemy movement and intentions. With its base camps and supply lines running from Pakistan, the Taliban are thus in a position to recruit, train and arm an increasingly large force.

The Taliban have the classic advantage of guerrillas operating in known terrain with a network of supporters: superior intelligence. They know where the Americans are, what the Americans are doing and when the Americans are going to strike. The Taliban declines combat on unfavorable terms and strikes when the Americans are weakest. The Americans, on the other hand, have the classic problem of counterinsurgency: They enjoy superior force and firepower, and can defeat anyone they can locate and pin down, but they lack intelligence. As much as technical intelligence from unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites is useful, human intelligence is the only effective long-term solution to defeating an insurgency. In this, the Taliban have the advantage: They have been there longer, they are in more places and they are not going anywhere.

There is no conceivable force the United States can deploy to pacify Afghanistan. A possible alternative is moving into Pakistan to cut the supply lines and destroy the Taliban’s base camps. The problem is that if the Americans lack the troops to successfully operate in Afghanistan, it is even less likely they have the troops to operate in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States could use the Korean War example, taking responsibility for cutting the Taliban off from supplies and reinforcements from Pakistan, but that assumes that the Afghan government has an effective force motivated to engage and defeat the Taliban. The Afghan government doesn’t.

The obvious American solution — or at least the best available solution — is to retreat to strategic Afghan points and cities and protect the Karzai regime. The problem here is that in Afghanistan, holding the cities doesn’t give the key to the country; rather, holding the countryside gives the key to the cities. Moreover, a purely defensive posture opens the United States up to the Dien Bien Phu/Khe Sanh counterstrategy, in which guerrillas shift to positional warfare, isolate a base and try to overrun in it.

A purely defensive posture could create a stalemate, but nothing more. That stalemate could create the foundations for political negotiations, but if there is no threat to the enemy, the enemy has little reason to negotiate. Therefore, there must be strikes against Taliban concentrations. The problem is that the Taliban know that concentration is suicide, and so they work to deny the Americans valuable targets. The United States can exhaust itself attacking minor targets based on poor intelligence. It won’t get anywhere.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090126_strategic_divergence_war_against_taliban_and_war_against_al_qaeda/?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_campaign=none&utm_medium=email

By George Friedman


If you have any sources showing USA domination I would like to read them so that I can get the truth on this.