Toronto Escorts

Guns and crime

Master Muse

New member
Oct 7, 2001
293
0
0
Recently there was a poster who assured all that the US had an horrific and rising crime problem and that our cowboy gun laws (or lack of gun laws) were the substantial factor. As proof, he cited the low crime rates in the UK and the European countries.

To that canard, I demurred.

To those who have an interest, please go to the Wall Sreet Journal's opininjournalonline.com site and read the articel by John Lott which debunks, with stats, the myth that guns in the hands of private citizens is a factor in raising the crime rate.

Please, too, note that e are talking about rates here, not any absolute numbers as countries vary in population.

The truth is that more guns equal less crime, just as long prison sentences mean less crime, just as legalized prostitution means less crime and just as decriminalized marijuana means less crime.
 

Connie Lingus

New member
Feb 3, 2002
63
0
0
I wouldn't say the article "debunks the myth". Nor were the statistics very in-depth. 15 armed robberies, when there were only 10 last year, is a 50% increase as an example. The author also has had a book out on the subject for about two years. Trying to sell more books?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the topic is much more complex than the article can cover. I'd trust the stats a little more if they were based on a per capita basis; e.g., 20 incidents for every 100,000 people.
 

vidi vici veni

Pedantic Lurker
Aug 17, 2001
287
0
0
Across the Rubicon
Guns and Crime

The Lott piece on guns and crime rates can be found at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026

However, I'm not really too impressed with this op-ed piece. It's strikes me as rather smug in tone. Moreover, cross-cultural comparisons can run into all sorts of confounding variables.

Here's another article on the same issue. It makes comparisons between american states that have strict and loose gun laws. I think that's a little more reasonable. There is a common history and culture, for the most part.

For Immediate Release:
1/18/1999


LATEST CRIME STATISTICS REFUTE THE GUN LOBBY: MORE GUNS ON OUR STREETS DO NOT MAKE US SAFER

Crime Rates in States with Strict Concealed Carry Laws Fell Faster Than in States with Lax Laws; Debunks the NRA’s Missouri Strategy

(Washington, D.C.) An analysis conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: more concealed handguns do not mean less crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.

In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.

Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws - falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.

"These numbers demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, Inc. "We don’t need to make it easier for just anyone to (more) carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don’t get guns in the first place."

Lax or "shall issue" CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called "may issue" states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past five years. [snip]

vvv
 

luckyjackson

Active member
Aug 19, 2001
1,505
2
38
Hats off to the NRA. The fact there's a widespread notion that this topic merits serious debate, is a feather in the that organization's cap. It is the most powerful lobby in the U.S., and has obviously succeeded in muddying the facts to a ridiculous degree.

Best article I ever read on the subject was in The Atlantic a few years back, (think I still have it kicking around somewhere). The author constructed a very convincing argument against gun control. However, he started from the premise that because there were already so many guns in the U.S., and so many manufacturers, it was unrealistic to write laws aimed at taking them away from the criminal element.

Obviously, the situation is different in countries not already cursed with a handgun in half the homes. It's dead simple. The more guns there are, the easier it is to get one and use it. That is why the U.S. always had, has now, and unfortunately probably will have more handgun murders than any other country any way you measure it. Rates, actual counts, whatever. That's why Toronto might have about 65 murders in a year, (not all with guns), and Washington or Detroit typically have between 400 and 500.

Lastly, this idiot has blatantly spun the statistics to bolster his own whacked out argument to sell more books.

It's not that murder rates haven't fallen in the U.S. -they have - (and the reasons are not More Guns, as this idiot claims), but the U.S. still has higher rates of murder by handguns, than the rest of the world.
 

E_B_Samaritano

New member
Aug 19, 2001
545
0
0
Silicon Valley, USA
Canadians confuse statistics too...

Too many times I have seen people attempt to compare Canada demographics with that of the US. Such attempts are comparable to a similar distortion of facts given in articles published by the NRA. Anybody who trots out a major urban center in the US that is plagued by gang violence related crime..i.e. MOST of the victims of murder in DC are not innocent bystanders but are members of gangs. These are not random acts of violence against innocent bystanders or residential killings in the suburbs where most of these people who want to be loaded to the teeth are located. This just demonstrates abysmal ignorance of the state of affairs in the US.

Canada in no shape form or fashion compares demographically, economically or otherwise to the US. Not in per capita income, not in GNP/per capita..nada..nothing. To put things in perspective, your largest city is the size of San Diego. How in the hell are you to compare anything in Canada with the state of affairs in the US? Hell, you have fewer people in the second largest country in the world than we have in California. Do you folks think that just because you speak English that you're on par? Well think again folks.

You lose a few in Afghanistan, we lose a lot and don't bitch. Some idiot who never traveled outside of his own neighborhood gets on the board and reports the fact that the accidental deaths of Canadians was not big news in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in a country this large we actually have our own news to report. We lose men in defense of the western world and don't moan and wail about it. We realize that when we send our military into harms way they are not there to give out parking tickets. Your luxury to send peacekeepers anywhere comes at the expense of those of us who will fight the war the preceding war. Anybody think to ask what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone. We lost several men to accidental friendly fire a few months earlier. We lost thousands in other conflicts. You'd think that in a country with so much desolate territory that you'd afford your military a place to practice. But in a country that takes the necessity for military and national defense for granted, I guess that's a little too much to ask.

And BTW..when the US buys 86% of all Canadian exports...HOW MUCH more do you want us to buy? Now that your companies are on the market for firesale prices, we'll just buy those and leave the rest. A lot of your local talent is already working here..wonder why? Guess Canada isn't that paradise afterall..eh?

EBS
 
Last edited:

Mack Bolan

Active member
Sep 24, 2001
975
32
28
Some where in Cyber Space
To E_B_Samaritano

"what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone."

The PPL is under command of US military while in Afghanistan, as is all other military forces. I hope you understand that US pilot are told that they are very expensive train and that a aircraft cost millions of dollars it can be replaced! As you note it was a live fire excercise zone was used by Canada and other forces currently in Afghanistan. With the purpose getting those men used to the local climate and terrain, which in PPL is important, when you consider that most of those have tained for extreme "cold" weather and they had left in middle of winter.
As for trainning, Canada has many bases that are used by all NATO forces for training! When you want to fly, you go to Canada. I don't have to talk about how little money our goverment spend on our arm forces. It's criminal to have cut the budget to the point it's at now.

As for number of people lost in other conflicts, Canada has lost far more people than the US has lost in the 100 years. Many towns in Canada had lost nearly every male. I don't remeber the how many have died on peace keeping mission over the last 50 years. But they do get killed just the same. It just that this could be the first time that they were killed by "friendly" fire in a training zone.
 

Average Joe

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2002
363
0
0
Re: Canadians confuse statistics too...

E_B_Samaritano said:
Too many times I have seen people attempt to compare Canada demographics with that of the US. Such attempts are comparable to a similar distortion of facts given in articles published by the NRA. Anybody who trots out a major urban center in the US that is plagued by gang violence related crime..i.e. MOST of the victims of murder in DC are not innocent bystanders but are members of gangs. These are not random acts of violence against innocent bystanders or residential killings in the suburbs where most of these people who want to be loaded to the teeth are located. This just demonstrates abysmal ignorance of the state of affairs in the US.
Thanks for pointing out that the U.S. is a much more violent country. I'm not saying it's the only reason but don't you think the lack of gun controls might have something to do with it?

E_B_Samaritano said:
Canada in no shape form or fashion compares demographically, economically or otherwise to the US. Not in per capita income, not in GNP/per capita..nada..nothing. To put things in perspective, your largest city is the size of San Diego. How in the hell are you to compare anything in Canada with the state of affairs in the US? Hell, you have fewer people in the second largest country in the world than we have in California. Do you folks think that just because you speak English that you're on par? Well think again folks.
The population of Toronto is 3.8 million. The population of San Diego is 2.8 million. I don't know about you but that doesn't seem to close to me. Toronto is slightly larger than Dallas (3.5 million) and slightly smaller than Atlanta (4.1 million). There are only 8 cities in the U.S. that are bigger.

No one here said we were on par but you can compare rates.

E_B_Samaritano said:
You lose a few in Afghanistan, we lose a lot and don't bitch. Some idiot who never traveled outside of his own neighborhood gets on the board and reports the fact that the accidental deaths of Canadians was not big news in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in a country this large we actually have our own news to report. We lose men in defense of the western world and don't moan and wail about it. We realize that when we send our military into harms way they are not there to give out parking tickets. Your luxury to send peacekeepers anywhere comes at the expense of those of us who will fight the war the preceding war. Anybody think to ask what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone. We lost several men to accidental friendly fire a few months earlier. We lost thousands in other conflicts. You'd think that in a country with so much desolate territory that you'd afford your military a place to practice. But in a country that takes the necessity for military and national defense for granted, I guess that's a little too much to ask.
When the hell did Afghanistan become a gun control issue?

By the way, if the situation were reversed and we accidently killed some of your men you can be damned sure that our leader would have made an official apology as soon as he heard about it not some off hand comment hours later as he was leaving a press conference. The only thing this guy is missing is a red nose and bright orange hair.

E_B_Samaritano said:
And BTW..when the US buys 86% of all Canadian exports...HOW MUCH more do you want us to buy? Now that your companies are on the market for firesale prices, we'll just buy those and leave the rest. A lot of your local talent is already working here..wonder why? Guess Canada isn't that paradise afterall..eh?
Not sure how this relates to gun control either.

If you take a look at the trade between our countries you'll find that we buy a lot more from you than you do from us so don't make it sound like you're doing us a favour.

A lot of people may go down to the states to make money but they all come back eventually. I know a number of people who have done that and say they're glad to be back in Canada because, among other things, the health care is better, better education and they don't have to worry about getting shot. Which brings us back to gun control. Fewer guns means fewer gun fatalities.
 
Last edited:

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
The crime rates could be dropping simply because the economy is improving in some areas. More people are working instead of wondering the streets trying to figure out ways to make a quick buck. Murder rates could be dropping because paramedics & hospitals are getting better at keeping people alive after they have been shot.

Guns are easily available in Canada too. Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too). Now you can buy rifles and handguns in Canada if you file an application, take a course and qualify.

The idea that your family is safer if you have loaded guns ready for action in the house is false. The chances are slim that you will have the gun, in the right place at the right time, so that you can go looking for a gunfight late at night, in order to protect your family. However, the chances are very good that one of the kids in the house will find the gun and start playing with it.
 

vidi vici veni

Pedantic Lurker
Aug 17, 2001
287
0
0
Across the Rubicon
Variables, variables!

Originally posted by KBear The crime rates could be dropping simply because the economy is improving in some areas. More people are working instead of wondering the streets trying to figure out ways to make a quick buck. Murder rates could be dropping because paramedics & hospitals are getting better at keeping people alive after they have been shot.[snip]
This debate will never end in the US because, in addition to a never ending supply of firearms, there's a never ending supply of factors to consider with respect to the relationship of guns to crime rates. That supply is limited only by the human imagination and the funding of various interest groups.

In the rest of the world, the debate is pretty much over. I think it's generally accepted that guns do not improve public safety and that societies in general would be better off without them. Partly those attitudes are practical in nature. Most societies don't have to contend with vast numbers of firearms sloshing about within the populace, criminal and otherwise. Perhaps only America faces that very real problem to such a degree and only in America does the debate rage on.

vvv
 

Average Joe

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2002
363
0
0
KBear said:
Guns are easily available in Canada too. Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too). Now you can buy rifles and handguns in Canada if you file an application, take a course and qualify.
It's not that easy. Anyone feel free to correct me if I get any of the details wrong. Also, these rules have been in place for at least 20 years that I'm aware of.

Before you can buy a handgun or any other restricted weapon you need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). This takes a few weeks and includes an RCMP check. Once you have your FAC you can go to a gun store and purchase a hand gun. The store will give you a receipt that you take to your local police station. They give you a temporary carry permit that will allow you to transport the gun from the store to your home. No where else. The permit is valid for that day only and for a limited amount of time.

You then apply for a permanent carry permit to take the gun from your home to your gun club. When you receive that permit you are allowed to carry that gun in a locked box from your home to your gun club and back. You are not allowed to stop anywhere on that route. No stopping for a few drinks after with your friends. No running errands. No detours.

I can't remember where in the process this occurs, probably before you're allowed to purchase your first handgun, but the police come to your home and inspect where and how you intend to store the weapon. Usually this means that the gun and bullets should be stored in different places, a trigger lock must be on the gun with the gun stored in a safe bolted to the floor in the back of a closet. They will also talk to you and may even talk to your neighbours.I understand this part can vary from city to city.

The same restrictions do not apply to shotguns because they are more difficult to conceal but you still need and FAC.

Automatic weapons owned by private individuals are illegal in Canada. This includes weapons that can be modified to go full auto. Also, clips that hold more than a certain number of bullets, I believe it's 10, are also illegal.

By the way, I know a number of people who have handguns and are members of gun clubs. None of them have a problem with the rules. They may be annoying and inconvenient at times but if it saves one person from an accidental shooting or keeps one gun out of the hands of a criminal then it's worth it. Contrary to what the NRA says, most responsible gun owners in Canada understand why the rules are there and accept it as a necessary precaution.
 

luckyjackson

Active member
Aug 19, 2001
1,505
2
38
I hope this doesn't sink into 'America bashing'. I am not one of those Canadians that is forever moaning about the big bad U.S. Sure America gets a lot of things wrong, but overall I believe America does more good than bad.

Kbear, I agree with your statement regarding the cause for the crime drop. That's what I was alluding to.

Senhor Samaritano (Good Samiritan?), your comments prove the point I was making about how confused the debate about guns has become in the U.S. You are arguing about the cause of handgun deaths, (i.e. gang related as opposed to other kinds). Don't you think the basic argument should be about whether the presence of guns facilitates the deaths? Doesn't it seem obvious to you that an attempt to kill with a handgun is going to succeed more often than an attempt to kill with a knife a baseball bat or a chair?

Perspective is everything, and I believe this is one issue many Americans no longer see clearly because of the historical and political forces at play.

By the way, your argument about demographics strikes me as bordering on the absurd. Obviously there are differences between even similar sized American and Canadian cities, but to propose that those differences are so great as to make comparisons meaningless - is ridiculous. Where could you possibly find a more similar urban culture to the U.S. than Canada? As to your need to remind us that the U.S. is bigger and more powerful than Canada, well I hope you feel better now that you got that off your chest. I have a feeling it won't bother us much up here, because we so recently beat the shit out of your hockey team, and haven't even begun to exhaust the mileage we'll get out of that event. ;)
 

mrbtrain

New member
Nov 21, 2001
7
0
0
GTA
Clarification

In response to what Average Joe's latest post. Some things should be clarified.

It is relatively easy to buy firearms in Canada, to buy any firearm in Canada you need a PAL(Posession and aquisition licence), there is three levels, non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Non restricted is for long-guns(shotguns and rifles generally), restricted for hanguns( with barrels longer than 4"), and prohibited are short hanguns and full autos. Generally speaking, there are exceptions.

These days the police don't even get involved when you buy a handgun. You get your permits to carry through the canadian firearms centre. You will not get a permit unless you belong to an approved gun club. They have never came to my home, or anyone else I know. The rules don't vary from city to city, or province to province for that matter, it is all under federal law.

Automatic weapons are not illegal in Canada. Those who hold a Prohibited PAL can purchase and posess and use these firearms in a safe manner as long as they have them. This licence is only available to people who already posess these firearms.

And Gun owners may have to understand and accept the rules as you say, But very few agree with what the goverment is currently doing with regards to the long - gun registry. Criminals don't register firearms, they use illegal ones.


Nuff said.
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
Under the previous licensing system (FAC), for people looking to own handguns the police definitely did come to your home. They inspected your home, storage, chatted you up, and took your wife aside and chatted her up too. The police do not seem to be as “hands on” involved under the new licensing system (PAL), as mrbtrain noted.

When I said > “Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too).” < I meant 20 - 25 years ago.

I do not really have a problem with registering guns, as it can be done quickly and easily online. With people realizing that if there gun goes missing, and latter shows up at a crime seen, they will be more likely to store there guns properly knowing that the gun can be traced back to them if stolen.

I really don’t like the idea of people carrying or having loaded guns stored in the house. However, if I lived in some areas and saw on the news every night that there had been 5 people murdered, 10 home invasions, 10 car jackings etc, my opinion might change.

The best way to survive a gun fight is to avoid it.
 
Last edited:

Average Joe

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2002
363
0
0
KBear said:
Under the previous licensing system (FAC), for people looking to own handguns the police definitely did come to your home. They inspected your home, storage, chatted you up, and took your wife aside and chatted her up too. The police do not seem to be as “hands on” involved under the new licensing system (PAL), as mrbtrain noted.
I didn't realize the policy had changed. That's too bad. I always thought that it was a valuable exercise to have police officers assess potential handgun owners.
 

Master Muse

New member
Oct 7, 2001
293
0
0
Guns & Crime

Whew! I had no intention of opening the debate that has flowered here, comparing the US and Canada in a hosst of ways.

I do, however, take issue with the poster who (violenetly) called me an idiot. High Noon on the High Street? I'll win.

Seriously, this is out of responding control.

As to that lengthy citation from the Center for Handgun Control, the very name tells you of that group's objectivity. It's an anti-gun lobby in D.C. I don't think Mr. Lott is hoping to sell a few more books though. He.'s basically a research professor.

The Yank poster has a real point as to the demographic and volume differences between US and Canada. After all, there are about as many Black Americans as there are Canadians PLUS the Hispanics now outnumber the blacks. Try that in Canada and see what happens. Add, let's see, around 8 million blacks and Hispanics, all concentrated in your 3 or 4 largest cities. In Toronto, that would be around 800,000 to a million blacks and Hispanicx to keep the same ratio, not absolute quantatative parity. Watch the old crime rate then - and, of course, gun sales.



I do think you all will come around someday.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Actually, the GTA is the fourth largest municipality in North America. Now, Toronto proper is 2.5 million people, which puts it behind New York, then LA, then Chicago. Metropolitan Toronto is around 5 million people.

To my uneducated american friend samaritano

Here's a link for you.....

http://www.toronto.com/feature/324/8.html?cslink=cs_generic_4_5

Want back up, try this link.....

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo05.htm[/url]

Now here's the link for the US census for easy comparison....

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t5/tab02.pdf

San Diego falls in around 1.2 million, sorry, you should really do your homework before you spout off.

I hope this allows you to easily compare my uneducated american friend samaritano.


Toronto has about 50 or so murders a year, Washington which is considerably smaller (at around 572,000 people by your own census) has over a thousand murders a year. (See US census link)

Now, I don't know how you can rationalize that one, but knock yourself out.

With regard to my uninformed and uneducated american friend.....

The only country to ever attack this country is your country and you lost. In fact we burned the White House to the ground, and your president Madison ran away in women's clothing and hid.

He he.

But all that aside, in WWI and WW2 combined canadian casualties (however grim that might be) were approximatly 116,000 souls, now combined US casualties were in the area of 180,000 souls. In fact, of all the wars the USA has fought in, the worst casualties were suffered in the american civil war.

Don't believe me, check it out...

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/books/books.htm

If you look at pure population, the USA being 10 x's that of canada, even a fool can see that Canada bore a far higher level of sacrifice than that of the USA.

But when compared to Russia, which in WW2 alone lost over 20 million.....

As far as the Canadian military goes, it has been slowly brought to shamefull levels by our gov't, no doubt about it. But there is a proud tradition there, and most will agree that the few soldiers that we do have are professionals.

American military history is usually one of dubious claim to honour and glory. More often than not, the American military is used to back up American political / financial interests than any noble cause whatsoever.

With regard to my oh so uninformed and uneducated and ignorant american friend....

With respect to the unfortunate deaths of 4 canadian sevicemen in afghanistan, our silly american friend is somewhat misinformed. My understanding of it is that the excercise was approved by American command, and carried out in a designated allied training area. (Night training occurs all the time.) Furthermore, it is my understanding that the pilot was instructed not to fire, but went ahead and did just that. Also the pilot in question is a reserve pilot, not a reg force pilot. Obviously, his training was lacking. I think it far more likely that the American pilot made a collosal mistake that I am sure is haunting him at this very moment, and will most likely haunt him for the rest of his life.

You my friend Samaritano are incredibly disrespectful of those men who died.
 
Last edited:

luckyjackson

Active member
Aug 19, 2001
1,505
2
38
Master Muse,

Since I'm the only one who used the word "Idiot", I'm assuming it's me that you're talking about.

If you'll read my post a little more carefully, you'll see I was referring to the author of the article, Mr. Lott. So unless you're him, (which may be since you're having trouble keeping the facts of this argument straight ;) ), I did not insult you.

By the way, nice touch challenging a guy who doesn't own a gun, to a gunfight. Man, do you Americans like to win!
JTK, good post.
 

vidi vici veni

Pedantic Lurker
Aug 17, 2001
287
0
0
Across the Rubicon
Re: Guns & Crime

Master Muse said:
[snip]As to that lengthy citation from the Center for Handgun Control, the very name tells you of that group's objectivity. It's an anti-gun lobby in D.C.[snip]
Nonetheless, an interesting view is expressed and one that is not dispatched by simply noting that that organization (founded by Reagan's former press secretary) is on one side of the argument. The stats are there and ready to be refuted. I wasn't able to find anything that did so. Perhaps you can?!

vvv
 

bear.23

New member
Apr 3, 2002
8
0
0
58
Gun control does not prevent crime...

Having just skimmed through all the posts I figure I'll throw in my two cents....

As a verifier, a firearms training instructor, a competative target shooter and firearms owner...

I can tell you this....

Automatic weapons are not illegal but the 669 people in Canada licensed to posses them are highly regulated and inspected at regular intervals (and for this inspection the police do not need a warrant)

Restricted wepons also cover a number of firearms the Goverment call ugly guns, AKS-47, AR-15s certain shorter barreled guns (like a camp carbine) and other guns they just didn't like the look of...

Our governemnt has admitted to spending nearly $700 million dollars on the "new" registry and has not even implemented the critical phase (long gun registration)... They have registered less then 1/4 of the guns they believe that are out there and they have changed that number downwards 5 times in order to make it look better... The Firearms community feels that the governments numbers are about 70% of the real number.... Is it really worth over a billion dollars to register Grandads duck gun??? If you say that guns are dangerous compare the number of guns out there versus the number of deaths and the number of cars out there and the number of deaths... Maybe we should start to regulate cars they kill 10 times more people and injure 100 times more...

From the governments own numbers the registry is so flawed that it is useless to police... I have friends that have more 5 of six licenses becuase the CFC can't get it right...

I know people who have had wrong pictures on their licenses, wrong firearms registered in their names... Firearms misclassified...

Did you know that their are some 50 air guns that are now classed as firearms and if you haven't registered them you are guilty of a crimes punishable by a minimum of 8 years in jail....

As well the database has been compromised so not only are gun owners stripped of certain rights private information is now in the hands of organized crime... Who knows how many shopping lists are being created....

Think about it this way... Gun control is a myth it cannot ever prevent a crime... By it's nature it will not even help solve a crime... It may solve where the gun came from if it is registered and stolen... but a requirement is to file a police report if the gun is stolen so the registry still serves no purpose....

Criminals do not register their guns ( unless you are "Mom" Boucher and the government gives you a license)

Gun Control is people control... And the Liberals have it in their mind to spend a billion dollars to control the firearms community becuase they feel it is safer and they are brain washing the big city folks that it works...

But in England where guns have effectively been outlawed crimes with guns are up 440%
in Austrailia where guns are again outlawed gun crime is way up...
in Europe (France, Germany and Switzerland) again where there is tight gun control they are having mass murders...

People always say the US is rash with gun crimes... take a look at where.... California (they have the strictest gun control going) Washington???? Same story.. In the states that have CCW(Concealed carry) they have very low crime rates and they rates started to drop once the CCW laws were enacted....
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Dear bear,

Perhaps you could post some links to reputable sites to back up your claims. (And by that I don't mean any site that has anything to do with guns and amo (NRA et al), rather a gov't site with raw data and statistics)

Otherwise, your post, as nice as it is. is just another opinion.

I feel safer walking down a street in Toronto than I do a street in Washington.

Another big part of the equation is accidental shootings, and heat of the moment shootings. If there was no gun in the house, none of these would occur.

Murder has been with us since Caine and Abel, I am not so naive to think that it will disappear by outlawing gun ownership but I see no sense in making it any cleaner or easier.

I see the gun lobby as a bunch of boys who don't want to have their toys taken away. Fine, but you can keep them at a gun club and play with them there.
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts