The Great Gun Control Debate

[P Kaye]

>> Who would he steal it from? First he would need to find a house that has firearms that he knows he can break into, otherwise it's hit and miss

The STORE!   You're missing the whole point of my argument.   I was arguing that if the weapons are legal to purchase with a license in Canada, then there will be stores that stock them.   These stores could be robbed by criminals who want to obtain the weapons without a license.

>> Once again you have just posted your thoughts instead of a fact

So?   Read the posts.   Everybody posts their opinions, and people often make educated guesses or speculate about things.   If I count the number of lines of posts that contain hard facts, vs the number of lines of posts that contain opinions, questions, speculation or postulations, or even insults, I think it's obvious which would come out higher.
Are you telling me if I read all your posts, I will find only cold hard facts in every line?

>> If you have been to a store that sells firearms you will find more than just glass protecting the firearms.

Of course.   But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!   I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.   The problem with stores is that not all of them will be equally security minded.   Some will be very good and very secure, but some will be less so, even in spite of the regulations regarding the security of weapons lockup.   Such regulations would be very hard to enforce continuously.

>> I would also ask you to respond to the hunting rifle/assault rifle disscusion.

I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general).   There were some good questions raised as to why certain weapons are banned and why others aren't, and I honestly have no answer.   It sounds like gun control regulations are not very consistent... I agree that is something that should definitely be examined and fixed!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Where I grew up in the '70s I did not think it unusual to see a rifle in a rack over the back seat of a pickup truck.  There was no evidence of bloodshed in the streets.

I doubt it has gotten any easier since then to steal firearms.  If the use of firearms during commission of crimes is an issue, punish such use severely.  A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension would at least keep the felons out of circulation.

 

[P Kaye]

>> A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension

Absolutely.  I fully endorse more severe penalties for all sorts of crimes, and crimes involving firearms definitely.
BUT... I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.  Does anybody have any cold facts on this?

 

[Farmboy]

  Ok, ok ok,  let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem.

First, the stats in UK prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Second the stats in Switzerland prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

Third, if the supply of guns in Canada drys up you are now looking at the supply and demand factor. Less guns bring higher prices.

If a gun went from costing $1000 on the street to $5000, the risk of smuggling these into the country would be more worth it, for example the problem we had with cigarettes being smuggled across the lake into Ontario by the indians.

And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime.

Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!  I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.

  So it would be easier for them to break into my gun safe than a cops trunk, or even the front windshield for the shotgun stored there.

The weapons in the CF vaults do not stay there all the time, they, along with mags go out into the field quite often. Was there not a thread on this board a while back discussing the "Assault rifle"(full-auto) that was lost at SG04.

I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general). 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws.




 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police! [/quite]

Except, you know, when the police ask people to turn their guns in to be destroyed "To make the streets safer" then turn around and sell those firearms back to people.

 

[P Kaye]

>> let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem

??? READ my posts... I acknowledged that of course the gun control laws will not SOLVE the problems.   But maybe they will do some good...

>> And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime

That's a good point.

>> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws

Absolutely.   But I'm not forming laws here... I'm merely contributing to a discussion to increase my own knowledge, and to hopefully provide new angles of looking at things for other people to consider.

 

[Nemo888]

Commonly a young criminal finds a house with something he wants to steal. Phones and then recce's the house to see that no one is home and then robs it. No need for a gun store. Just your phone number and address. That info is easy to get. I could tell you all the methods but that would be unwise. (Don't worry after your first month in juvi you will know all of them.)

Rifle with pistol grip + hacksaw = concealable firearm.
Pistol grip = CQB
These modded weapons are most often found on teenagers, not hardened criminals. They are often IMO borderline retarded. And I can tell you taking down someone too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions takes all the fun out of catching the bad guy.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm going to respond to the initial comments by PKaye because it is what touched off the debate again:

1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid.  It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon.  These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people.  Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much different than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon.  Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.

That is based merely on your interpretation of what a firearm is.  Look at the Laws of Canada concerning a "weapon" - if you're concealing a knife, an asp, or a stick that all appear to have the intent of being used as a weapon, then it is a weapon; the intent is the important part (legal experts can correct me).  If a firearm is designed primarily to kill people, why is this?  Because it projects rounds at a lethal velocity.  Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.  Almost every legal gun-owner is capable of safely and responsibly owning a firearm as a private citizen, regardless of what you are worried about what they might do with it, and I don't think this will change if you suddenly give them something that holds more rounds or looks mean.

2)  The other arguments that I don't find to be valid are the ones about personal property rights, and that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot do.  One of th cornerstones of civilization is LAWS.  Every law is, by definition, the government (by extension, society) telling you something that you can or cannot do.  Societies need laws (if anybody starts advocating anarcy, I don't even know how to respond).

Government laws (at least here) are based upon consent and grounded upon certain inviolable concepts that are grounded in Common Law (or at least should be).  Habeas Corpus is something that, in domestic laws, cannot be abrogated by the government unless under extreme circumstances (the War Measures Act).  Private property is another one of these.  The Constitution Act of 1982, with its attached Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the "bedrock" of ensuring that LAWS are consistent with our liberal democratic concepts of what is and isn't appropriate to regulate.

Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.  As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable.

nother type of comparison could be made... if you object to the banning of firearms, what do you think about the banning of cocaine and other narcotics?  What business is it of the government what people do in their spare time after all?  If someone wants to mainline in their living room, what right does the government have to say they can't??  To me, the answer is that we as a society ban such things because we don't think they serve society any useful purpose, and they can indeed to damage to society.

Well, if 90% of people who bought guns walked outside, stuck them up there nose and pulled the trigger then I could see the issue in prohibiting them.  Narcotics are, for the most part, highly addictive and destructive substances which harm (often fatally) the user and inflict harm on the society when the user needs to resort crime in order to sustain his habit.  There is an obvious social cost here and it is a strong factor in why we can impede on a person's personal sphere (see the 100KMH to 200KMH analogy).  The only exception is Marijuana, which seems to be for the most part as innocuous as alcohol, which is not very innocuous but not destructive enough to warrant an outright ban (ie: it is probably 150KMH, so we're confused) - but that is the topic for another dead-horse.

3)  The other argument I don't buy is the "you should focus on society's real problems" argument.  On this thread we are arguing about gun control.  Just because I want higher gun control doesn't mean I don't care about any of the other problems.... of course I would love to see a more agressive justice system, bigger and better equipped police forces, etc, etc.  But the issue we are debating here is gun control, not these other things.

The main argument seems to focus on gun control as a measure for curbing crime.  Obviously as the statistics point out, there is no factual basis for correlating low crime and no guns, so the result is that you need to focus on other problems.  Telling you "to focus on societies real problems" is pointing out the absurdity in believing that taking guns away will do away with a good portion of violent crime and homicide.

4)  The final type of argument that I think has no content and is not even worthy of consideration is the "P Kaye, you have your head in the sand", or "wake up".  Make your arguments, provide your evidence, and try to remain civil.  You don't add anything to your arguments with comments like these... some of you have valid points to make, but making childish remarks like this aren't adding any force to your ARGUMENTS.

So I don't buy the arguments based on comparisons between banning guns and banning baseball bats, and I don't buy the anarchist argument that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do.  I also don't buy the arguments that say gun control won't solve crime problems (of course it won't solve them).  I also don't have any patience for the "get your head out of the sand" type comments.

That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again from people who have no knowledge of the subject, you tend to get frustrated.  If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

People should not assume that they can come here and say anything and it will automatically be regarded as well-thought out and considered opinion.

 

[P Kaye]

>> Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

Sure.

>> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.

 

[P Kaye]

>> That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again

Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.

>>  If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

Give me a break.  If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that.  I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions.  I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them.  I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people... I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you.  If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"! 

 

[Farmboy]

>> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.

Wrong. The 5.62 or .223 in the civy world, was designed as a varmint round, not a people killer. The military went to this because of less recoil and ability to carry more ammo for the same wieght.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not.   I'm defining them by the objective of their design.   My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.

Ok, I'll disagree by saying that putting gas-operated weapons on the market obviously means that the objective of the firearm is not to kill people, but rather to allow people who enjoy sport-shooting or collecting.

Again, the argument of design is irrelevant without the intent.  It wouldn't matter if it was designed as a military weapon first or not - which all firearms can be said to have been, dating back to the arquebus - because people are capable of safely and responsibly enjoying its use on their own time.

Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.

We've tried that before - the only result is that the board gets the reputation for being a haven for people to run at the mouth.

Give me a break. If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that. I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions. I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them. I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people...

Again, if you're taking ridicule of your arguments (remember, attack the argument) as some sort of personal attack, then that's your problem.  I never called you an idiot or a moron or told you to shut up, I said that your comments were unfounded and silly when held up to the facts (in colourful terms, because the obvious ones were used 15 pages ago).  We've had alot of "Barracks-Room Lawyer" types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.

I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you. If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"!

I'll take that into consideration.  Thanks for the advice....

 

[P Kaye]

>> Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.   As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable

I think your argument here about the purpose and limit of laws in society is a good one.   The balance between laws to protect our security and laws to grant us basic freedom of choice is a very interesting and complex issue.

I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".   I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".   Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:

1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.   So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.   Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.   But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.

>> types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.

Sure, sprited rivarly and passionate disagreement is great.   I still say we can all speak to each other like gentlemen and accomplish the same thing.   Manners are under-rated, IMO.

 

[my72jeep]

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

.

now this goes against what you have said. You want high powered sniper rifles stored at a range not your neighbours house, ranges have less security then a gun store and are normally located off the beaten path out in the country were nabobnot even the cops are at night. this to me sounds like a smorgsborg for gun thieves.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.

Sure they do.  The longer the criminal is in confinement, the fewer crimes he can commit.

"High-powered sniper rifles".  A hunting rifle is "high-powered".  Most hunters use a scope.  Presto: one high-powered sniper rifle.

As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.  Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.

 

[Infanteer]

I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".  I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".  Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:

Remember, you have to balance what your comfort is with what other people may decide they want to do.  I may feel uncomfortable with people having shit-porn, S&M, and other really explicit stuff in their closet, but it is not up to me to place my comfort levels on someone else's hobbies if those hobbies are harmless and don't present an extremely high degree of risk to others.  
Owning a rifle or handgun, like having explicit pornography, may be something that others don't like,  but neither meet the above criteria that child porn (which is exploitive and harmful and risk our children's health) or high-explosive munitions (which are extremely dangerous if they should fall into the wrong hands, unlike most firearms, which are just as dangerous as a multitude of other implements which are used in violent crime) fall into.

1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.  As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).

That being said, I've seen some interesting statistics (the Ghiglieri book makes an interesting case) concerning the decision of some US states to allow Concealed Carry Permits to be issued to private citizens.  They seem to indicate that crime goes down in these areas.  A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.  I'll post this when I get the chance.

Back to the Canadian context, I'm not sure I'm going to buy into "concealment" as a good indicator for restriction.  I could always put on a trench-coat and conceal much more firepower then a pistol, a la Keanu Reeves in the Matrix.  My thoughts on the matter from what I've read is that if someone wants to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it with what they have at hand; gun or no gun, small gun or big gun (the gaggle of murders with firearms in my community have all been with hunting rifles - the availability of handguns was irrelevant).

2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).

Automatic weapons are prohibited, so the government has got you beat on that one.

Although I'm willing to bet that this is a irrational decision based on fear and emotion as well.  Any soldier worth his salt knows that fully automatic fire is largely ineffective unless it comes from a stable platform like a General Purpose Machine Gun (which I believe fits into the "200KMH" category, so you won't get an argument from me on prohibiting a C-6).  Obviously, since anyone can throw a bipod and a high-capacity ammo drum on almost anything, the ability to convert a automatic rifle into a good Machine Gun is easy, so I can see a good argument in keeping full-auto in the prohibited category.  However, keeping them prohibited definitely doesn't make me feel any "safer", because someone with a bit of skill would be far more deadly with a semi-automatic or leaver action rifle.

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.  There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Again, a belief predicated largely on fear and emotion.  Headlines on snipers aside, what are the qualifying factors for a "high powered sniper rifle"?  Something with a large-calibre round and a scope?  Well, in that case, you are going to have to take almost every hunting rifle on the market.  One doesn't need a scope to be deadly from a distance, an iron site will do.

Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.  So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.  Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.  But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.

You're going to have to make clear and consistent approaches when you make the case to prohibit or control the actions of others.  Case 1 and 3 really don't maintain any consistency and seem to be triggered by irrational fear.  Case 2 has a good claim (which is why they are prohibited) as the risk of allowing someone to set up a C-6 in a busy downtown street is just like allowing people to drive 200KMH through a school-zone - simply too risky and thus done in true public interest (and not for someone's own agenda).  

 

[Farmboy]

) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.  There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Now you have really bought into the media hype on this one and hit a real passion of mine.  :threat:

1) There is no such thing as a "High powered" rifle. There are some "rounds" that are bigger than others, but on a graduated scale.

 There is only the .50 and .408 that I have not heard of being used for hunting, however there are alot of competitions that involve these calibers. (I used calibers here because some rifles are cambered for different calibers)

BUT when was the last time you heard of a crimminal robbing a bank, having a shoot out, or any crime for that matter with a .50 rifle.
 
 IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

2) Define "sniper" rifle.  Go for it I dare you.  

Is this one of mine a sniper, or a hunting rifle??

3) By leaving my "sniper" rifle at a club you are now making it easier for the crimminals who want to do a one stop shopping.

4) Your going to limit when I can access my own property, and who is going to pay for for the storage/security?

Quote
1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.  As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).

That being said, I've seen some interesting statistics (the Ghiglieri book makes an interesting case) concerning the decision of some US states to allow Concealed Carry Permits to be issued to private citizens.  They seem to indicate that crime goes down in these areas.  A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.  I'll post this when I get the chance.

This is quite interesting because there are stats out there that back this up. I"ll look for them as well.

 

[TCBF]

A minor technical point: the .223 Rem cart was designed by Robert Hutton and Eugene Stoner to meet the US Govt specs that the .222 Rem could not.   The  variant - a lengthened .222 Rem -  was at first called .222 Special,  I think.   Stoner, Fremont, and Sullivan scaled down the 7.62mm AR-10 (designed by Stoner) to make the AR-15.   No existing cartridge woulld provide the performance needed (velocity in excess of the speed of sound at 500 yards).   Possibly dictated by wound ballistics?   I don't know.   In any case, Stoner, an arms designer, not a cartridge designer, had to have a new cartridge made.   He died in 1997.

Suicide, by the way, is means independant.

I recommend the Canadian Firearms Digest. An archived one is at  http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v03n700-799/v03-n765.txt    You can join the list (FREE!) and get all the info you need there, just by asking.  References galore.

Tom  

 

[Nemo888]

Give the people in an Urban environment a break. Guns are a real problem here. Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece ;D Can we say Jim Bean! PLEASE lock up your guns properly and keep them secret. I couldn't care less if you register them. Remember that police don't want to shoot some borderline moron with a sawed off shotgun or 22.

>As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.  Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.

Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can't defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it's much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
That's why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they'll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.

TO Marauder and Brad Sallows
If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.  Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels?  Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. I am not going to some parents house to say that their kid was murdered over a home entertainment system. I feel embarrassed for you.

 

[Farmboy]

  No I will not keep my guns a secret like some bad habit. I want people to know that is everyone in every walk of like that enjoys firearms whether hunting or shooting sports.

Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece   Can we say Jim Bean!

This is another media biased view. Hunting and shooting in Canada is the safest sport bar none, and allowing full-auto and 30 round mags will not change this.

If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.

You think if someone breaks into my house when I am sleeping I really want to take the time to figure out whether they want to kill me or take my DVD. Then what? call 911 (government sponsored dial-a-prayer)

PS a bit of CCW info   http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi//nra.html

                              http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi/success.html