A Columbine Father Speaks Out

[canadianblue]

A few occupation in Canada carry firearms for work. We expect these people to use their judgement and only use these firearms when necessary. People Warriors who everyday put their life at risk, because they have answered the call of protecting the herd. Somehow, these people are not to be trusted with that responsibility once they take the uniform off.

I guess the uniform is magical and imbues the persons who wears it with knowledge and wisdom not attainable by mere human beings.

I obtained my firearms licence last year, however I fail to see how the regulations are all that strict. My brother was still able to buy five seperate firearms, as far as I'm concerned are current firearms policies work fine up here, and I'm happy as hell knowing that we don't live in a society which believes one must constantly be armed with a firearm in order to feel safe.

In my uneducated opinion, if everyone was armed, and everyone KNEW that everyone else was armed, there would be less massacres. There may be more crimes of passion, spur of the moment type thing, but I am not well versed enough to say if it would be worth the tradeoff or not.

America has a large amount of firearms per-capita as compared to the developed world yet has one of the highest rates of gun related deaths. Personally, I think if more people were to carry firearms in their cars for example I wouldn't feel all that safe. As well I don't think I should have to carry a firearm to feel protected.

I figure it works with nuclear arms for the most part, everyone knows others have them, so they won't get used, at least for now.

Yeah, I think thats a different comparison. As well I think for the most part we would be better off without nuclear arms.

They try to promote deterrence to reform criminals, but yet they can't fathom the idea that arming the populace may just be the deterrent needed.

It ain't, the one country that I can think of which has a large amount of firearms ownership is Switzerland, but even then the vast majority of the citizens have military training. I think if every joe sixpack were to be given a gun that would only cause more trouble, and I don't think we need a ton of weapons floating around society.

A Police State is one where only the Gov't has firearms -- and I dont think anyone wants to live in a Police State (unless they are the ones controlling it -- then the rules dont apply to them anyway)

Great Britian, Australia, and Japan, are all far from being "police states".

- Unfortunately, you have to realize that 'political' women in Canada believe that a raped and murdered female found with her pantyhose twisted around her neck makes for far better "sisterhood" optics than if she was found holding a smoking handgun over the dead body of her attacker.

Unless they end up wounding or killing two innocent bystanders as well.

I thank God that I live in the best county in the world too  , but I wonder how we can keep it that way. The only ones with guns are the criminals, this makes us easy targets. Even though we have restricted handguns since the 30's, they are readily available to the criminals. The Dawson College killer had legally registered guns, how did that happen?

You are entitled to your opinion, but have you thought about what other people might be going through? As a female, I am told to hold my car keys in my hand to defend myself, sure, as a small female, I'm going to be able to fight off a 200 pound male with a key? Why can't I have a gun? That would equalize the playing field, and maybe I have a fair chance of not being raped and killed. Just my opinion.

I've never felt the need to be armed with any weapon to feel safe from people. The idea that somebody needs to be armed to be safe is ridiculous.

I myself am somewhat in favour of the Swiss model, however arming a large amount of civilian's with no previous experience with firearms will do nothing to deter crime. I'm sure if one where to once again compare gun related deaths to any other industrialized country in the world the US is still near or on top. For the job that I want to do once I get out of the military I would feel alot safer knowing that their are fewer guns on the street.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Sig Guy. More guns means more trouble.

 

[canadianblue]

It's not necessarily more guns, but in my own view its the idea that people need guns because they are afraid. This notion that you need a gun to protect you from the rapist/murderer/robber/thug/gang member/etc. is ridiculous. I understand the importance of firearms ownership, especially living in a rural area and on a farm before I joined the military, however I don't see the need for every joe sixpack to be carrying around a Glock and Assault Rifle because of their irrational fear that somebody is going to hurt them.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

It's not necessarily more guns, but in my own view its the idea that people need guns because they are afraid. This notion that you need a gun to protect you from the rapist/murderer/robber/thug/gang member/etc. is ridiculous. I understand the importance of firearms ownership, especially living in a rural area and on a farm before I joined the military, however I don't see the need for every joe sixpack to be carrying around a Glock and Assault Rifle because of their irrational fear that somebody is going to hurt them.

Yes I understood what you meant and I totally agree.

 

[Roy Harding]

...
It ain't, the one country that I can think of which has a large amount of firearms ownership is Switzerland, but even then the vast majority of the citizens have military training. I think if every joe sixpack were to be given a gun that would only cause more trouble, and I don't think we need a ton of weapons floating around society.
...

I myself am somewhat in favour of the Swiss model, however arming a large amount of civilian's with no previous experience with firearms will do nothing to deter crime. I'm sure if one where to once again compare gun related deaths to any other industrialized country in the world the US is still near or on top. For the job that I want to do once I get out of the military I would feel alot safer knowing that their are fewer guns on the street.

I'm cherry picking your quotes here - only because they illustrate my own belief that serving/retired military and LEOs should be allowed to pack.  Their current and/or previous training gives them the required mindset to do so safely, and yet allows them to intercede when it appears necessary.  Should society want these folks (which includes me) given some type of psychological/psychiatric/competence test every pre-determined interim (yearly, every five years, whatever), I'm up for it.

I understand (and agree with) your point: untrained, untested firearm owners don't make the streets safer, they make them more dangerous.  My counterpoint would be that trained, tested firearm owners DO make the streets safer.



Roy

 

[canadianblue]

I'm cherry picking your quotes here - only because they illustrate my own belief that serving/retired military and LEOs should be allowed to pack.  Their current and/or previous training gives them the required mindset to do so safely, and yet allows them to intercede when it appears necessary.  Should society want these folks (which includes me) given some type of psychological/psychiatric/competence test every pre-determined interim (yearly, every five years, whatever), I'm up for it.

Which I somewhat agree with, the Swiss currently ask people to do a mandatory service in the military and then allow member to bring their uniform and assault rifle home with them once they are done. In fact the Swiss claim that they can mobilize most of their nation within 12 hours if required. As for people being allowed to pack in public if they are LEO's or military, I'm a member of blueline and it seems that some members of LE are uncomfortable with that idea, simply because it could lead to liability issues, same with the military.

I understand (and agree with) your point: untrained, untested firearm owners don't make the streets safer, they make them more dangerous.  My counterpoint would be that trained, tested firearm owners DO make the streets safer.

Depends, are streets are already pretty safe. I don't think that we need people carrying guns around to be safer, if we ever need LE then all it would take is a call to the police. The only possible exception I can see is if people were living out in rural areas where it can take a long time for LE to show up.

 

[Dissident]

Even in the city, the police can not guarantee you that they will be there in a timely fashion. I think 4-5 minutes is an average acceptable response time. Thats a pretty long time to be waiting when someone is bringing violence to you or your familly.

I don't need to carry a gun to FEEL safer. Chances are, I could go through life and never have to take my firearm out, if I was allowed ATC. But, if something happens, I would like another option than just turning and running away. You never know when you will run out of running room.

If you are going to quote me higher per capita gun death, bring me a reference. While you are at it, look up total numbers of violent death, rape and other violent assault, between Canada and the USA. It doesn't matter how, or with what you are victimized, all it matter is that you are.

You might be lucky enough to have been spared from the darker side of society and threats of violence. I, for one, grew up knowing how thin the veneer of society can be.

You can deny it all you want. You can "feel" as safe as you want. But once you have all the data, you will see that intellectually there is a chance that you, or a loved one, will be faced with violence. Will you accept it, like a sheep, and let them slit your throath. Or will you be ready?

Denial screams to me:"Baaaaaahhhhhh, Baaaaaaaaahhhh."

 

[Roy Harding]

...

Depends, are streets are already pretty safe. I don't think that we need people carrying guns around to be safer, if we ever need LE then all it would take is a call to the police. The only possible exception I can see is if people were living out in rural areas where it can take a long time for LE to show up.

Fair enough - I do live in a rural area, the police are a good three quarters of an hour away. 

Since living here, I've never felt the need for a firearm (for people, I mean - bears are another question) - the dog, followed up by me (sans weapon) has always been enough to get the occasional drunken ne'er do well on his way.  It's good for me to know, however, that while the dog and I are doing our thing, my wife is doing HER thing, getting the weapons out from the (approved, legal) lockup and loading them.  We've never needed them, but they've always been there - perhaps this proves my point that having been a soldier for most of my life, I understand escalation of force (IE - when you need to escalate, and when you don't).

I have also, however, lived in big cities - where the police may well be physically closer, and yet unable to respond in a timely manner; AND the ne'er do wells are not simply idiotically drunken kids - but evil little retards with mayhem on their minds.  I like the idea of a TRAINED element of society having possession of weapons.

I think you and I are in general agreement - but the devil's in the details.


Roy

 

[canadianblue]

Even in the city, the police can not guarantee you that they will be there in a timely fashion. I think 4-5 minutes is an average acceptable response time. Thats a pretty long time to be waiting when someone is bringing violence to you or your familly.

If your home is being invaded I would assume the police would consider that a high priority. Even then how would you be able to get to your weapon in a timely fashion and what if it fell into the hands of the perp.

If you are going to quote me higher per capita gun death, bring me a reference. While you are at it, look up total numbers of violent death, rape and other violent assault, between Canada and the USA. It doesn't matter how, or with what you are victimized, all it matter is that you are.

If your carrying a firearm out of fear, then chances are that you will use it irrationaly. I'm not afraid of being "victimized", and if I am then I will go to the police. I have a feeling we'd see more innocent bystanders get shot because someone over reacted and thought they were going to be killed, raped, or robbed.

Statistics for the United States.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Total crime per capita in the world- #8
Assaults per capita- #6
Firearms homicide per capita- #8
Overall homicide rate per capita- #14
Murders per capita- #24 [to put this in perspective, Canada was at 44, Australia at 43, and the United Kingdom at 46]
Murders with firearms per capita- #8 [while Canada was at 20, Australia at 27, and the United Kingdom at 32]

Personally I feel safer knowing that people aren't walking around with guns because they think that the person standing next to them is a rapist, thug, or serial killer. It will only lead to trouble.

You can deny it all you want. You can "feel" as safe as you want. But once you have all the data, you will see that intellectually there is a chance that you, or a loved one, will be faced with violence. Will you accept it, like a sheep, and let them slit your throath. Or will you be ready?

Canada has a much lower violent crime rate than the US, despite the fact they have more guns than Canada, same with Great Britian and Australia. As for "being ready", I don't feel like standing guard at my door with a shotgun because I'm afraid of the rapist, serial killer, or thug. But I'll wait a few weeks to see if anybody is about to slit my throat. I've been through most major cities in Canada, including some of the poorer parts of them and have yet to face the kind of danger that you have. Even when people have been confrontational I knew how to handle the situation instead of automatically thinking of a way to maim them, and hell I don't think I would want to kill or shoot someone, even if they were to steal my wallet.

Denial screams to me:"Baaaaaahhhhhh, Baaaaaaaaahhhh."

Unfortunately statistics scream at me as well, so far they don't paint a rosey picture of our neighbours down south who live in so much fear of criminals that they feel the need to buy guns instead of actually dealing with any of the issues which cause crime. Anytime people are motivated by fear they usually end up doing stupid things.

As well while I lived on the family farm we would often have people stealing gas, stealing trucks, stealing equipment, and on the odd occasion burning bales of hay. However despite this we never felt the need to use the firearm to protect us, nor store it under our pillows incase the intruders ever got into the house. If you can the best course of action is to call the police and fine somewhere safe to hide or go to the neighbours, I'm sure that most police officers would agree with that. As well if a criminal does get into your house how will you be able to get to your firearm if it is properly stored away, unless you have it near you it won't do much. You also have to take into account what will happen if the perp gets his hands on the firearm.

It's good for me to know, however, that while the dog and I are doing our thing, my wife is doing HER thing, getting the weapons out from the (approved, legal) lockup and loading them.  We've never needed them, but they've always been there - perhaps this proves my point that having been a soldier for most of my life, I understand escalation of force (IE - when you need to escalate, and when you don't).

Most civilian's don't know about IE, that is my position. Its fine for LE and military personal but for your average civilian who has never used firearms professionally they aren't in the same league. My brother bought some firearms and we went to shoot some of them off, and I found myself constantly correcting him on how to properly use them simply because their isn't enough education out there. Thats the difference between the US and the Swiss with regards to firearms ownership, I have a problem with a system where any person can get their hands on a high powered weapon or handgun.

 

[Dissident]

Your main argument seems to revolve around fear. There is a difference between being afraid and being ready. Police officers carry sidearm, not because they fear something will happen, but because they have to be ready. They do not walk around, pulling their pistols to anyone who gives them lip, or anytime a confrontation happens. I think it is reasonable to assume people outside of the law enforcement and military are capable of the same "restraint".

No one (at least no one I know) is arguing that people should settle every dispute and resolve any assault by shooting your assailant. There are varying degrees of force that can be used and before you get to force, you should try to use every means to build time and distance. Answering violence with violence or force should be a last resort when faced with serious or deadly bodily harm.

If you take a look at how many people decide to CCW in the USA, you will see that it is a small number of people. This small number of people has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate of state where CCW is allowed. (Deployed DWAN Internet is slow, so as I write this, the site you gave me hasn't uploaded yet. But let me venture that the numbers on there are not broken down by individual states. I bet it would show that states with CCW have a much lower crime rate than the ones that don't, who hence raise the national average. Edit: Also, I am weary of stats that have been compiled. There is no source attached on the website you gave us. AFAIK, these might just be a bunch of random numbers pulled out of someone’s ass.)

The civilians in Canada, who aspire to be allowed to ATC, that I have met, are rational individual, who spend an inordinate amount of time making sure they are ready. These people will use all means at their disposition, including neighbours, police and everything else they can. But in the end, they want to be ready and self-reliant.

It is not like I am arguing for everyone to carry concealed weapons. What I am looking for is something like a month long course, with yearly qualification shoot and 3 year course refresher on use of force, that would allow you the privilege to ATC.

Indeed, education is the key. Fear of weapons, banning them and marginalizing its owners, is not the way to educate the population at large. Thinking I would shoot someone for stealing is right out of her, it goes to show more about your irrational fear of your law abiding citizen/neighbour, than my implied paranoia.


Edit: Spelling

 

[I_Drive_Planes]

Personally I feel safer knowing that people aren't walking around with guns because they think that the person standing next to them is a rapist, thug, or serial killer. It will only lead to trouble.

Do you know that people aren't walking around with guns?  It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?  What if he is?  What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?

You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.  But we don't hear that, do we?  Perhaps your average CCW holder is just a normal, law abiding citizen, something like yourself.  I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse people who carry and who wish to be able to carry (i.e. me) of being paranoid, and suspicious of everyone around them, yet your tone seems to indicate that you are paranoid and suspicious of any law abiding citizen who would want to carry a concealed weapon.  It's not the law abiding folks that you should be worried about, it's the ones that don't care about the law, the ones that you don't think are walking around with guns.

Planes

 

[Bobby Rico]

Here's my dollar-fifty on the original topic.

Religion in schools- No. 

Why not?  Simply because, we live in a diverse society, a society made up of literally hundreds of religions, and people of no religion.  To enforce or at the very least reinforce religious beliefs alienate those people who are non-believers or believers of a different faith.  All you're doing in that instance is creating a different problem.  Does it not occur to those of you who believe religion should be in schools will potentially create only more problems?  If your response to this is to create schools of individual relgion (christian schools, muslim schools etc)- that's segrigation, people.  You might as well be proponents of racial segrigation then, in which I ask that you please get yourself a time machine, and go back to the 1940's deep south where you belong.  Religion in schools is NOT the answer.  Tolerance is.  And frankly, you cannot reinforce tolerence by putting emphasis on the things that differentiate people, and religion is one of those big things in society that still differentiates people and keeps peoples divided into their 'cliques'.  Hell, we're only now beginning to understand racial tolerance, and how long did that take us?  And it's STILL a big problem in certain parts of the country and world.

Religion DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE NON-VIOLENT!  Believe it or not, it's the bare-simple truth.  I don't mean to bash any individual religion, but how many wars have been fought due to religious dogma?  It's still going on.  Religion, even Christian religion, even BUDDHIST religion has sparked violence throughout history.  People are violent man, you can't change that.  Believing in god isn't going to change that.  How many soldiers do you think believe in God and consider themselves devout christians when their very EXISTENCE as soldiers make them utter hypocrites.  Thou shall not kill people, it's in the bible.  Yet a soldier's life is in killing.  Contradiction much?  And you can defend it all you want, soldiers are killers- we don't do the work of god, we do the work of our country and government because it's asked of us to do it.  Killing in the name of god is the biggest load of crap.  Yet soldiers throughout history have done it.  They still do it.  Well, so what if those two boys from Columbine were Christians and were killing in the name of god- Would that somehow legitimize their actions, or even make it understandable?  If you said yes to the above question, you fail as a human being.  But at the same time, if you say no to that question, and you're a soldier, and you're religious, then you're a hypocrite. 

The bottom line is, Religion and killing have absolutely no bearing on one or the other.  Christians kill, Catholics kill, Muslims kill, Hindu kill, Buddhists kill.  Believing in God won't stop the killing.  People kill because we're a naturally aggressive species.  Columbine was tragic, but it was simply an expression of humanity.  An illustration of human behavior if you will.  Putting more guns into the hands of people won't stop people from killing, nor will taking them all away.  Humanity needs to wake up and realize we're going to keep killing ourselves until there's none of us left or until we evolve as a species---it's just that simple.  The real answer to the problem, is no answer.

(one further note- I'm a Nihilist if that makes my beliefs more clear to people.)

 

[canadianblue]

Your main argument seems to revolve around fear. There is a difference between being afraid and being ready. Police officers carry sidearm, not because they fear something will happen, but because they have to be ready. They do not walk around, pulling their pistols to anyone who gives them lip, or anytime a confrontation happens.

Because they are trained fully in how to use force when necessary and its their job to keep the peace.

I think it is reasonable to assume people outside of the law enforcement and military are capable of the same "restraint".

Not really, they don't have the same training, and when people are gripped by fear they'll do stupid stuff, especially if they have easy access to firearms.

http://www.africanaonline.com/rosewood.htm

If you take a look at how many people decide to CCW in the USA, you will see that it is a small number of people. This small number of people has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate of state where CCW is allowed. (Deployed DWAN Internet is slow, so as I write this, the site you gave me hasn't uploaded yet. But let me venture that the numbers on there are not broken down by individual states. I bet it would show that states with CCW have a much lower crime rate than the ones that don't, who hence raise the national average. Edit: Also, I am weary of stats that have been compiled. There is no source attached on the website you gave us. AFAIK, these might just be a bunch of random numbers pulled out of someone’s ***.)

If you want the website again, by all means check the statistics provided, just click on the link and go to the corresponding fact sheet. I highly doubt they are random numbers and if you want provide your own source. The states that have lenient gun laws are places like Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, etc. Unfortunately its easy for anyone to buy a gun in Minnesota and transport it to Detroit. It really isn't rocket science. Once again compare the countries with a lower amount of gun ownership as compared to the US and these countries fare better overall than our neighbours to the south.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

The civilians in Canada, who aspire to be allowed to ATC, that I have met, are rational individual, who spend an inordinate amount of time making sure they are ready. These people will use all means at their disposition, including neighbours, police and everything else they can. But in the end, they want to be ready and self-reliant.

The problem being what if a kid gets a hold of a gun and takes it to school, or for that matter some right wing militia types decide to stock up on assault rifles for the coming "race wars," or to fight off the government. In the end its better that some firearms are restricted from public use.

People shouldn't carry guns around acting like the police. As for being ready, if a person is that scared they shouldn't be allowed a gun, period. I don't think giving someone who is that paranoid a weapon is ever a good idea.

It is not like I am arguing for everyone to carry concealed weapons. What I am looking for is something like a month long course, with yearly qualification shoot and 3 year course refresher on use of force, that would allow you the privilege to ATC.

I'd argue more education is the key as well, however I disagree with the belief that people need guns to cut down on crime as that simply is never the case.

Indeed, education is the key. Fear of weapons, banning them and marginalizing its owners, is not the way to educate the population at large. Thinking I would shoot someone for stealing is right out of her, it goes to show more about your irrational fear of your law abiding citizen/neighbour, than my implied paranoia.

My fear is that people carrying around more guns thinking they need it to fail safe will probably make the more likely to use it on innocent bystander or someone they fear MAY do something. Once again the statistics show that countries with lax gun laws are more prone to violent crime and more guns rarely ever brings down the crime rate. Around 11,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US, now compare that to the amount of guns per capita in the US and you can see a trend develop. Going state by state is fairly useless as you can't stop a gun from Minnesota coming into Detriot.

Do you know that people aren't walking around with guns?

Luckily we don't have people constantly walking around with guns, and apparently our crime rate has actually gone down.

It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?

No, but how would it help if I had a Glock with me. What if somebody were to come up behind me and take my weapon.

What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?

If he decides to act their isn't much I can do since I probably won't be holding my gun in my hand.

You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.

Lets look at another statistic, how many people were killed by guns.

5    people in New Zealand
37  people in Sweden
56  people in Australian 
73  people in England and Wales
184 people in Canada
11,344 people in the United States.

Seven out of ten states with the highest rate of violent crime issued CCW permits. Even when there was a decline their is no evidence to suggest that CCW makes people safer compared to nations where handguns are restricted.

 

[TCBF]

"Unless they end up wounding or killing two innocent bystanders as well."

- Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.

The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?

 

[canadianblue]

- Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.

Yes because it probably won't end up saving her life. This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend. When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well.

As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless.

The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?

Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes.

While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun.

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.

The following is a good article which attempts to try to and get into the issues of guns more indepth. It also shows the problems with trying to find a science so to speak of figuring out whether more guns cause crime. But in the end though I think it's somewhat clear that high firearms ownership in the US has done little to prevent firearms homicide.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759

Sam Walker was not your average American gun owner. For one thing, he had no interest whatsoever in hunting. And whereas the average gun owner owns at least three guns, Walker owned only one, a .38-caliber revolver, which friends persuaded him to buy for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his family in their suburban Houston home. Walker didn’t even particularly like guns. He still hadn’t gotten around to acquainting himself with his new weapon when his burglar alarm went off one weekday morning last December. Notified by his security company of the intrusion, Walker rushed home from work, quietly entered the house, took the gun out from the spot where he had left it for safekeeping, and, hearing a noise, moved stealthily up the stairs and opened a closet door. He saw a movement, a figure, and in a split second fired. The smoothly oiled gun worked perfectly, and Walker’s aim was true. A body fell to the floor. It was his 16-year-old daughter. She had cut school that day and had hidden in the closet to avoid her father. It wound up costing her her life.

After the new laws were passed, permits to carry concealed handguns rose enormously —in Florida the number of licenses soared from 17,000 before the law was passed in 1987 to 141,000 seven years later. After studying five cities, McDowall found that the rate of firearms homicides increased overall by 26 percent. Although this would seem to support the arms-race hypothesis, the results were inconsistent. Whereas McDowall had expected the effects of the liberalized laws to be greatest in Miami, the biggest city in the study and the one with the highest crime rate, the rise in homicides there was too small to be statistically significant. However, McDowall believes his evidence is strong enough to show that armed citizens do not decrease the number of firearms-related deaths.

Even a firearms trainer for the NYPD and lifetime NRA member finds that allowing every person to carry gun is problematic.

Given that purging guns from the population is problematic, would the world be safer if each law-abiding citizen carried a gun? Alessandro Veralli hesitates before answering this question. For most of his adult life, he has carried a concealed handgun almost everywhere he goes, whether it’s out to the movies with his wife or to the local hardware store on a Saturday afternoon. Yet Veralli, a Master Firearms Instructor for the New York City Police Department and an NRA life member, admits that as a civilian he has had very little opportunity to use his gun. If he ever found himself a customer at a liquor store that was being held up, in most cases his training and common sense would tell him to lie low rather than start a shoot-out. If he was out with his wife and a thief demanded his wallet, he would probably hand it over. “In a robbery, there’s not much you can do except maybe shoot at the guy as he’s walking away,” he says. “But what if he shoots back? I’d be putting my wife in danger, and for what?” He carries a gun for the hypothetical extreme case when having it might mean the difference between life and death. “Personally I’d hate to get into a bad situation and think that I might have been able to do something if I had had a gun,” he says.

But should other citizens carry guns? “I’m tempted to say yes,” he says, but then he demurs. “Maybe it makes sense in other parts of the country where they have more space. New York, though, is too crowded. There’s something about all these people being confined in a small space. People can fly off the handle over little things. I don’t think I’d want to see each and every one of them carrying a gun.”

 

[Roy Harding]

Yes because it probably (emphasis added) won't end up saving her life.

So you invalidate TCBF's "someone else MIGHT get hurt" with your own "probably won't end up saving her life"?  I'll take a chance on TCBF's "might" before your "probably" any time.

This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend.

I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?

When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well.

I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.

As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless.

As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.

Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes.

What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.

While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun.

I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

The following is a good article which attempts to try to and get into the issues of guns more indepth. It also shows the problems with trying to find a science so to speak of figuring out whether more guns cause crime. But in the end though I think it's somewhat clear that high firearms ownership in the US has done little to prevent firearms homicide.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759

Even a firearms trainer for the NYPD and lifetime NRA member finds that allowing every person to carry gun is problematic.

Sigs Guy - I'll be honest - I have not (yet) read the links you provide above, and therefore have no comment to make on them - with the exception of your final sentence - I don't recall anyone on this thread (but I stand ready to be corrected) advocating "allowing every person to carry a gun" - I know I certainly presented no such view. 

I WILL read the links within the next couple of days and get back to this thread.

Take care,


Roy

 

[Dissident]

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.

This reminds me of the red light camera study. The study "proved" that cameras were decreasing accidents at intersections, because the number of crashes “in” the intersection were down after installing them. What the study did not say was that the amount of rear end collision leading up to the intersection had increase and surpassed the pre-camera figures.

The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones? Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members? Does it matter if someone shoot themselves or hang themselves? And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted, or the situation was resolved because the intended victim manage to deal with the situation.

Food for thought.

 

[canadianblue]

I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?

Unless you have your firearms in your hand at the moment you are being attacked their really isn't much you can do. My point was about the misconception about rapes being occured by the creeps in bushes.

I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.

Follow the links which show that their the addition of a firearm to a situation can make it more dangerous. I was at a lecture at EPS, and a detective was asked if more woman were armed with guns would they be safer, the answer was a strong no.

As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.

I highly doubt professionals in either social work or law enforcement suggest that a victim should use a firearm on the abuser, their are better solutions to any problem than turning to a gun.

What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.

A gun is the most effective and easiest way of killing any person.

I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.

Few societies allow their citizens to freely carry around handguns simply because they are afraid, as I stated before even in Switzerland they have handgun regulations and they don't hand out handguns permits to every person who feels afraid. The firearms floating around the streets in the hands of criminals and lunatics usually always started out being legally bought.

The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones?

As was stated in the links many criminal firearms started off being legal. As well those that bought a firearm to protect themselves from intruders actually increased their risk of getting killed by a firearm.

Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members?

Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs.

And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted,

The United States is one the most armed countries in the developed world yet still has an extroadinarily high rate of crime.

 

[Dissident]

Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs.

What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well? 

Your logic is flawed.

Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.

No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker. He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist. Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional and will not make an overall safer society. Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause.

Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?

 

[canadianblue]

What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well? 

Cars and prescription drugs serve a useful purpose, handguns serve no purpose beyond killing people and is the most efficient and effective way to kill someone. I'd agree that prescription drugs can be potentially harmful, and perhaps we should find new regulations when distributing and selling them.

Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.

Their is crime in other developed nations as well, however they don't see the need to give guns to people who are afraid because they watched too much TV, their is always a better solution to preventing crime.

No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker.

Agreed, which is why we should throw repeat violent offenders in jail for life after a third offense. On justice issues you'll find that I'm usually fairly conservative and not as liberal when it comes to violent or repeat offenders.

He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist.

Yes...

Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional

Some kids also bring guns to school to protect themselves, I wouldn't argue that I'm taking away their constitutional rights if I believe we shouldn't have an abundance of guns in a school. Once again I've been the victim of crime but I use common sense and call law enforcement which is what a responsible adult does.

Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause.

I agree, however at the same time a society should find a middle ground between rehabilitation and punishment. I think we are too lenient myself, and have stated above that I support stronger sentences against violent criminals. 

Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?

Probably, if taken to the "extreme". A liberal democracy doesn't need an armed populace to function, and the nations of Great Britian, Japan, and Australia, have all shown that fewer firearms will not result in a police state or a complete breakdown of society. However once again as I have stated their are more factors then firearms involved in making the world a better place, but we don't need to be armed to the teeth in order to feel safe. I feel perfectly safe when I'm in Canada, and I'm glad we don't have such a prevalent culture of fear.

Just to clarify I'm not 100% against allowing people to carry CCW permits, I think they should only be allowed in rare cases when a person has been directly threatened or for certain professional's if needed. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible gun policy which is why so few developed nations support it. I prefer our current regulations, they aren't unreasonable, you can still get rifles, shotguns, etc.