The Great Gun Control Debate

[Dare]

While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.

It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.

 

[Torlyn]

The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.  That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.  If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?

As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.

The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"??? ) is fine.  Murder rate.  Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.  This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?

I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.

T

P.S. I hate posting from work...  Never have time to google the stats.

 

[Infanteer]

Dig through the last 5-10 pages of this thread and you'll find tons of data that pertains to Canada - it's all been dredged up.

As for a CCW, as I've said before, I'm not a sport shooter or a enthusiast.  I have a PAL that I got by knowing a Sergeant who let us challenge the test and I own four rifles that I inherited (and have never shot).  My interest in this is minimal.

However, my reading of the whole matter, in part spurred by some of the claims I've seen here, has led me to conclude that allowing citizens, after proper vetting and licensing, to carry a sidearm would be an overall beneficial thing for Canada.  The only people who have to lose by such a policy are criminals who know that almost every Canadian is an easy target.

Case in point: I was strolling through Vancouver the other day (downtown, not the skids) and, while waiting at an intersection I witnessed two drug-dealers get into an altercation over who was able to sell crack on that corner (exact words).  These guys just pounded on eachother and moved onto a foot pursuit when one ran away.  Now, witnessing this, I came to the uneasy conclusion that I would be unable to defend myself or others very effectively if:

1) One of the drug dealers got violent with myself or another citizen instead.
2) The altercation involved weapons and was an extreme danger to innocent bystanders.

Canada is a fairly tame and decent society and a CCW (or using a firearm or anything else to defend oneself) isn't going to be necessary for 99.99% of the time - but it's like insurance; it's useless until you need it.  I can think of countless stories I've read in the paper about home-invasions, swarmings in the streets, random assaults, etc, etc where the victim having the means to defend themselves would have probably prevented the crime.  I feel that teaching citizens to defend themselves, of which the ability to carry a weapon is just a part of, would go far in empowering people to take responsibility for their own well-being instead of assuming that someone else will do it for them when crunch-time comes and you're in a dangerous situation.

It is said that guns don't kill people, people kill people - and the evidence clearly supports the idea that violence in society is a social phenomenon that is unrelated to what people are armed with (the most violent societies do it with spears and clubs).  The notion that allowing a CCW would lead to more criminals with guns is stupid - any citizen, with the proper vetting, can go out and buy a gun if they wish; I fail to see the link between legal gun-ownership and illegal gun-ownership.  Rather then leading to more criminals with gun access (which is just silly), allowing Canadians to arm themselves will, I believe, help to introduce a reasonable deterrent value in Canadian society to those who would rob or assault others.

 

[McG]

Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.  It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.  How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?  Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?

National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.  Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?  It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.

I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.

I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.  Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.

 

[rw4th]

My view that self-defense is in effect illegal is based on the fact that the tools for effective self-defense are themselves denied to me. So if someone attacks me using a gun or a knife and I'm a law-abiding citizen, I might be armed with my keys or a flashlight, or in the extreme a pocketknife (and even that is risking jail time in a lot of places). Neither scenario paints a pretty picture for my survival. It's like putting you in the ring with a pro-boxer, telling you're allowed to defend yourself against him, but can't use your arms or hands.

And yes, I am aware of the existing CCW legislation. Outside of the permits for armored car guy, the personal protection permits, what few there are, are issued to people who's lives have already threatened or who have been assaulted (and are presumably not dead). The requirements for them involve proving that â Å“your life is in jeopardy and the police cannot protect youâ ?. Something which should be simple to do by quoting crime statistics, but apparently the government doesn't like admitting it can't protect people until after they have been attacked.

Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.

 

[Torlyn]

Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.

How so?  I agree with the second sentence, but not the first...

T

 

[Infanteer]

And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.  That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.  If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?

You're right - and I fully articulated (some pages back) that the level of gun-ownership is irrelevant in the amount of violent crime.  As the data also shows, crime is based on social probelms, not functional ones (what kinds of armaments are in society).  The whole notion that arming a populace .

I guess the ultimate argument is whether one believes that, as a society, Canada is responsible enough to allow its citizens access to firearms.  Are we a Japan or a Switzerland, which are, as Dare points out, those "that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them", or are we a Somalia or a Pakistan, surviving by some law of the jungle, that need intervention to prevent society from tearing itself apart?

As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.

No, but for some reason, people seem to assume that more guns = more acts of violence with guns.  This is the myth I'm trying to dispel.  What difference does it make on the crime rate if people are aloud to have guns in their home or if they are able to carry one on their belt?

The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"??? ) is fine.  Murder rate.  Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.  This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?

I posted all the stats a few pages back, have a look-see.

-  Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

-  In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.  How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)

As well, the stats that Ghiglieri uses go beyond murder - for example, women who defend themselves (usually with a firearm) are far less likely to be raped by an attacker.  

I'm wondering if using stats of guns used in the commission of a crime is a bit of a tangent - unless the gun is used to kill someone (or attempt to) then what is the point of using the stat as a basis for gun control.  People will respond the same to a robbery whether the criminal has a gun or a knife or a paper that says "I have a bomb in my jacket" - the weapon used seems rather irrelevant, as the end result is the same.

My overall aim with all of this is to show that regardless of whether Canadians have firearms or not, regardless of whether they are allow to carry a pistol around or not, crimes will still be committed in Canada.  But, going under the notion that criminals are (for the most part) rational actors who will commit a crime knowing they can get away with it, I believe that giving law-abiding citizens more liberal access to firearms (with a CCW) will have an impact in the attitude of criminals.

I could care less what criminals use - a crime is a crime and, if targeted, I am affected adversely regardless or how it is commissioned.  If I, as a citzen, am given access and the ability to defend myself, then perhaps it can make a difference.

 

[Infanteer]

Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.  It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.  How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?  Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?

National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.  Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?  It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.

I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:

1)   That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.

2)   That increased access to firearms for law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in a society.

Which one are we arguing for/against here?

I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.  Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.

Unless we plan on getting the US to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, we may have to find our own solution.

 

[dutchie]

Ok, I tried to reply to Infanteer's post (the one where he told me to give my head a shake), but my reply crashed and burned once I hit 'post'. Here are the Cole's Notes from that:

As far as I can tell, they have to go through a vetting process, just as we do in Canada to acquire a ownership and acquisition certificate (and which nobody is arguing against).

Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?

What are you talking about?  Common sense supercedes data?

I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.

If you haven't realized it, Rosko in Mayerthorpe (or the countless other criminals who've used firearms) didn't exactly get them through legal means.

Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in  Alberta either.

I guarantee you that the home-invasion problem that was rampant a while back would have been much less of a problem if the thieves knew there was a good chance of getting two to the center-of-mass.

According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.

Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.

 

[Torlyn]

Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.

They must have access to different studies... 

T

 

[dutchie]

It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.

I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.

 

[muskrat89]

Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in  Alberta either.

Probably not...

The NRA Magazine though (I am not a member) has a section every month dedicated to examples where armed citizens successfully defended themselves, stopped a crime, etc., so it does happen...

 

[Jarnhamar]

Here's an EMAIL I read at work. Pretty interesting read with what seems to be some pretty stupid mistakes on the governments behalf.


Gun Registration- Canadian Tax Dollars At Work

[Canada's billion-dollar gun registry employs 1'800 bureaucrats, who spend their days tracking down duck hunters and farmers. By comparison, Canada hired only 130 additional customs officers to protect our borders after sept 11, 2001. Here are a few more eye-rolling facts about the gun registry, mostly unearthed by MP Garry Breitkreuz from Saskatchewan...]

Internal audits show that government bureaucrats have a 71% error rate in licensing gun owners and a 91% error rate in registering the guns themselves.

The government admits it registered 718.414 guns without serial numbers. That means either the bureaucrats forgot to write them down, or the guns didn't have serial numbers in the first place. That's as useless as registering a vehicle simply as "a blue ford explorer"
To these gun owners, the government has sent little stickers with made-up serial numbers ont hem, that gun owners are suposed to stick on their guns. And everybody at the gun registry is praying that crimals who steal those guns won't peel off the stickers.
Some 222'911 guns were registered with the same make and serial numbers as other guns. That's not just useless thats dangerous. If someone else with "a blue ford explorer" is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP.

Out of 4,114,624 gun registeration certificates, 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries-but the bureaucrats issued them anyways.

In the beginning, the governments firearms licences had photographs on them- just like drivers licences do. But after hundreds of gun owners were sent licences with someone else's photo on them, the government decided to scrap the photos on the licences all together, rather than fix the problem.

Private details about every gun owner in the country are put on one computer database, calleed CPIC. That's valuable information to a peeping tom, or a criminal.  The CPIC computer has been breached 221 times since the mid-1990s, according to the RCMP.

In August of 2002, the  gun registry sen t a letter to Hulbert Orser, demanding he register his guns, and warning himt hat it is a crime not to do so. Orser died in 1981.

Garth Rizzuto is not dead, but he is getting older- he applied for a gun licence 21/2 years ago. He hasn't been rejected. They're still "processing" his application.

Some 304,375 people were allowed to register guns even though they didn't have a licence permitting them to own a gun.

On march 1, 2002, bureaucrats registered Richard Buckley's soldering "gun" - thats right, a "heat gun" used for soldering tin and lead. No word yet on Buckley's staple guns or glue guns.

Some 15,381 gun owners were licenced with no indication of having taken the gun saftey courses - one of the main arguments for licensing.

the government has spent $29 million on advertising for the gun registry - including $4.5 million to Group-Action, the Liberal ad firm now under RCMP investigation.

end


Regardless if you think registering firearms is a good idea or not, those are some pretty big  fuck ups by the government.

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?

What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?  Nothing at all.  "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.  Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.

I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.

Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument  :.  If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?

Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in  Alberta either.

No.  But you seem to be arguing that prohibiting a CCW will save us from "Wackos" - clearly, they can get all the firepower they want.

According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.

Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.

Mind you, the town I'm from up North had a case where a senior citzen who blasted a home invader (1 of 4 youth) who broke into his house with a 12-gauge.  Age doesn't seem to be a determining factor in who will use a firearm (among other things) to defend themselves.  Remember the senior in the Lower Mainland (Langley, IIRC) who bludgeoned a crack-head who broke into his home with a pistol - he could have turned the thing around if he wanted, couldn't he have?

Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.

Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.  I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.

Ultimately, the facts must be relied on.  Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?  I don't get how you see a CCW as a way of increasing the crime rate.  Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?

 

[dutchie]

What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?   Nothing at all.   "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.   Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.

ok, I'll go step by step:

1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?

2- If you concede #1, then by allowing concealed weapons, you allow some people to carry weapons who really shouldn't. Those people now have the means to inflict great harm on the general population. Yes, one could beat someone to death with a chair, and I don't propose we all stand, but firearms are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

3- I don't see that there is a great need to allow concealed weapons. If we had an epidemic of violent crime in Canada, then I could see the argument, but we don't. You might be able to convince me that allowing concealed weapons wouldn't be terrible, but you won't be able to convince me that it would be beneficial. That's the difference.

Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument :.   If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that data can be misconstrued. The fact is we don't have data that illustrates what impact allowing concealed weapons will have on Canadaian society, because we have no data that relates exactly to that. Stats and data measure what has happended, not what will happen. Extrapolating what will happen in Canada based on data from other countries takes a leap of faith. I feel that Canada's society is unique, and that allowing CCW et all would be detrimental at worst or a 'push' at best.

Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.

The threat of armed invasion into your home is extremely low. Besides, firearms are legal, I'm refering to concealed weapons, not legally obtained firearms. If you shoot an intruder, the law may come down on you, but I won't.

Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.   I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.

I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?

Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?  

No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.

Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?

Sure they were, but how is allowing you to carry a firearm going to protect us from a gun wielding criminal? Are we to now rely on Joe Citizen to gun down criminals? I thought we had a police force here in Canada? If you feel so threatened by roving bands of armed criminals to necessitate arming yourself, then that's another issue. I don't see how arming ourselves will improve things. We have a pretty low violent crime rate, and in most cases, unless you involve yourself in criminal activity, you are not likely to fall victim to violent crime. Again, you might be able to convince me that we would not be drastically worse off by allowing concealed weapons, but I fail to see how it will improve things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.

If a right not to be deprived of life without due process and compelling reason is to have any meaning, the right must be inseparable from the right of self-defence.

I frankly do not care what the opinions of police are regarding ownership of firearms.  I pay taxes toward police forces to contribute toward safeguarding my rights, but I do not (pragmatism compels that I should not) yield unto them exclusive powers to safeguard my rights.  If one wishes to be a police officer, one accepts the risks.  If one desires to be a soldier, one accepts the risks.  No private or government agency can or will guarantee to have Johnny-on-the-spot at the exact moment my rights are threatened.

I also do not care whether anyone fears an armed populace.  If someone fears excitable boys, it is his responsibility to arm himself or not.  To assume the power to deny me a reasonable tool of self-defence because of vague worries is both arrogant, and immoral from the perspective of respect of the cornerstone human right.

 

[rw4th]

Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.

I own a pistol and a rifle, and regardless of the law there is nothing stopping me from going out, getting a case of ammo, and going on rampage. According to you any government designed vetting process would be flawed. So I might be wacko then, and while we're at it why not just take away all my legally owned guns to make you feel safer.

You do see where this has a major flaw don't you? The only people that you can prevent from owning and carrying firearms are the people who would be inclined to respect the law in the first place. To feel safer you are essentially punishing your allies in your quest for the illusion of safety.

You need to get your head out of the sand and realize that the bad people who want to do you harm, do not care about laws. If they want a gun they will get one, it will NOT be registered and they will NOT go out and get a license to carry it. No amount of restricting my right to self-defense to make you fell safer will change that.

As for the opinion of police officers, it's sad to say but police officers are just as misinformed as the average citizens when it comes to legal gun ownership facts. They want to feel safer in their jobs, and they have the same misguided notion that banning private firearms ownership somehow reduces criminal firearms use. They get their information from the same liberal media outlets you do, and are fed the â Å“party lineâ ? by their politically inclined leadership.

Does the though of people with guns make you feel uncomfortable? If it does then I think that there is a deeper issue you need to deal with. You have to come to terms with the fact that the world you live in is NOT safe and that people DO want to hurt you and take your things. The first step is to let go of the illusion that you are safe, the second is to understand how you can actually achieve some measure of personal safety. There is major difference between the society in which we do live and the one in which we wished we lived in.

 

[dutchie]

Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.

This is the basis of your argument, and the rest of your post merely expands on this basic point, so I will respond to this....

I agree. We differ, it seems, only on what is a reasonable threat, and what is a reasonable response to that threat. I contend that, although you have the right to defend your life with as much force as necessary (a belief not necessaritly held by our Government), you do not have the right carry a handgun in public 'just in case'. Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine. As well, if you want to put a double-tap into the centre of mass on some shitrat that threatens you and your family in your home, you'll get no argument from me.

I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do )

 

[Infanteer]

Getting better, Caesar - at least I can see where you are coming from now - but still:

1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?

Your argument is unfounded due to the fact that you are basing it on the assumption on government vetting capabilities.  This is like saying "The government, based upon its track record, can not properly decide who should be a soldier and be given access to military weapons - by letting the government select soldiers, they are letting wacko's into the military and putting me at risk."

As well, I don't think the argument that the government would prove to be inadequate at vetting CCW applicants is a particularly good one.  As the Lott study pointed to, in 25 years of studying CCW holders in the United States, not once was one charged with using a concealed weapon to kill someone.  Unless you feel Canadians will be more prone to committing crime, then your assertion above seems to be proven as groundless.

I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?

I think I do remember it - but I've seen other Law Enforcement studies that point the other way.   They are quoted in the Ghiglieri excerpt I've posted above:

What do police think of this?   Lott cites two major polls showing that more than 93 percent of responding police officers consider private ownership of firearms necessary for the average citizen to protect himself or herself.

 Anyways, as Brad says, who cares what the Police think; we're not discussing criminals here.  We're discussing the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly carry their firearms.

No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.

Again, your basing your assumption on "an increased likelihood of people carrying concealed firearms" which has been shown to be unfounded and groundless.

1)  How does a legal right to carry a weapon (concealed or not) affect those who are doing it illegally anyways?

2)  How does a responsible citzen carrying a firearm decrease YOUR security?  As Ghiglieri has shown, a CCW holder has never been charged (over the 25 years of the study) with using his or her weapon to kill someone and that you are 5 times likely to get shot by a Cop using his pistol in the line of duty then you are by a citzen using one to defend themselves.

Brad has shown that, in a philosophical approach, your argument is invalid.  The facts on CCW ownership seem to indicate that statistically, your argument is invalid as well.  I think you're mistaken by linking legal CCW with criminals - they are two separate issues.

I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do )

Is this for me - I feel I've responded to every response you've posted.

 

[dutchie]

Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.

Actually, I would sum up my position like this:

1-The current Gun Registry is utter shyte and does nothing to increase protection for Canadians.

2- I fully support private gun ownership as it has existed for decades.

3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so. Again, if I felt there was a need for good people to carry handguns due to a high probablity of violent crime being committed against them, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as my dillusions, you are mistaken. I am fully aware that bad guys don't follow the law, and that I am vulnerable to their attacks. But you know what? That's life. I would rather live in a society where people don't have to grab their Glock as their heading out the door to get some milk.....actually I do live in that society. If anyone here is delusional, it's those that feel that they are under such threat that they feel the need to pack heat in public. You want guns in your home? Go ahead - I fully support you. Again, if you shoot some meth freak as he slips into your bedroom at 4 am with a butcher knife, fire away pal. No problem here. Just keep you guns off the street.

No Infanteer, that wasn't directed at you. It was an off the cuff remark at people only reading the last page of a 45 page thread.