The Right to Bear Arms: A View from Canada

[depakid]

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly-placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

Being a Toronto-area lawyer, I certainly can't speak for the average Canadian on the subject of the Second Amendment; few of my countrymen, naturally, would have a clue as to its contents or that of its twenty-six siblings. I'd expect, though, that those of the informed few who read of a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision reacted as I did -- by taking off their mythical toques and scratching their heads.

In late June, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. At issue in the case is D.C.'s handgun ban, the strictest of its kind in America. Struck down by the Appeals Court last year as violating the Second Amendment, the ban will now fly or die based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation and application of these twenty-seven words and three commas: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Opponents in the gun-control debate ascribe very different interpretations to the amendment. To gun-control advocates, it is nothing more than the protection of a state's right to maintain a militia; to the pro-gun gang, it is nothing less than confirmation of an individual's constitutional right to own a gun.

Things certainly are different above the forty-ninth parallel. While we admittedly have our fair share of gun-control issues and controversy in Canada, at least our law-makers aren't faced with an arguable gun-ownership right being inscribed in our constitution in all-but-indelible ink.

Canada's current gun-control legislation -- which the Supreme Court of Canada upheld in 2000 -- contains harsh penalties for crimes involving firearms, and requires licenses to acquire and possess them. All guns must be registered, and handguns can only be owned by police, security officers, and approved target shooters and collectors. As you read this, the mayor of Toronto is waging an internet campaign, entreating Canadians coast-to-coast to sign an on-line petition for an extension of the ban to include the latter two groups.

From time to time north of the border, we, too, hear it argued that the right to bear arms exists, with its supposed provenance being traced all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Fortunately, however, such "right" isn't badly-but-expressly stated in our constitution; its genealogy is fuzzy at best; and, above all, our Supreme Court isn't buying it.

<snip>

A recent Gallup poll asked Americans if they thought that there should be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons. Just under two-thirds said no. Almost two-thirds of Gallup-polled Canadians, on the other hand, did not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun of any sort. Gun-ownership rates north and south of the border correspond fairly closely to such opinions; while the U.S. population is ten times that of that of Canada, the number of privately-owned guns in the U.S. is twenty-five times higher. As opposed to its U.S. meaning, in Canada, "packing heat" is something most often achieved with a thermos.

Currently, the homicide rate in the U.S. is well over twice that of Canada, with the historical difference being much greater still. About half of U.S. homicides are committed with guns, while in only a third of Canadian homicides is a gun the weapon of choice.

While there appears to be a direct correlation between gun-ownership rates and the number of gun-related deaths, predictably, opponents of gun control question the validity of the statistics and the lessons to be learned from them, and they carefully arrange the numbers in such a manner as to suggest that no causal relationship exists. Figures can't lie, but liars can figure.

More: http://www.alternet.org/rights/87042/

[virginia mountainman]

1. I cherish ALL, of my rights...

I will not pick and chose, it is all or nothing...

[Anexio]

19. Thank you, I agree

But I have to wonder why this thread is even here. I couldn't care less what a bunch of Canadians think of our laws and Constitution.

But on the other hand, the very same Constitution that they hate and find "oppressive" gives them the right to come here and say whatever they want.

Jacques Sherock might want to go a little further south and try protesting against Mexican gun laws while actually in Mexico and see how fast he gets arrested, or worse.

[iverglas]

29. I'm amused

That was a cute little joke.

"Jacques Sherock", evidently a parody of a dumb yank who
- can't spell the surname of the former President of France,
- doesn't know that Canada isn't part of France, and
- hasn't figured out that Tim O'Driscoll, the Canadian lawyer in question, who lives in Toronto, probably remembers enough of his high school French to order a beer if he happens to find himself in Trois-Rivières.

Excellent!

[Anexio]

33. Oops I did misspell that

What I meant to say was Blaque Jaque Shellaque the great actor from "Bonanza Bunny".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052641/

I know who Jacques Chirac is, he's the genius who sold Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor.

[iverglas]

30. when you gonna reclaim that other one?

You know, the one that the Thomas Jefferson of your sig line exercised so fully, the one that your people had for nigh on a century after that Bill of Rights thing was written.

You know. The right to own black people.

All or nothing, right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Which amendment is that Iverglas?

I'm not familiar with that one. Perhaps you can enlighten us as you so often try.

David

[iverglas]

60. was somebody talking about amendments?

Do, pleeeease, try to follow the breadcrumbs.

Your friend said:

I cherish ALL, of my rights...
I will not pick and chose, it is all or nothing...

Well, somebody picked and chose for him. Somebody took away that right that Thomas Jefferson obviously cherished: the right to own people of colour.

Somebody fucked with your Constitution and took it away.

I have no doubt that he wants it back. After all, Thomas Jefferson had it, why shouldn't he??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. First line of the post, The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

You really are having a bad day Iverglas. Might want to take a break. You usually represent your side better than this.

David

[iverglas]

70. the entire post to which I replied

virginia mountainman
Thu Jun-05-08 06:30 AM
Response to Original message

1. I cherish ALL, of my rights...

I will not pick and chose, it is all or nothing...


Perhaps your brain needs a rest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Try and follow along.

Virginia Mountainman was responding to the original post which is on an Amendment to the Constitution. Your response is the first time that the topic deviates from the original post. I think we all know who needs a rest here.


David

[iverglas]

82. the entire post to which I responded

virginia mountainman (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jun-05-08 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I cherish ALL, of my rights...

I will not pick and chose, it is all or nothing...
When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny. — THOMAS JEFFERSON


Now, if you think virginia mountainman is willing to give up rights that he has that are not set out in amendments to your Constitution, go ahead and say so.

Meanwhile, why don't you try asking HIM to answer my question?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. So you are saying that Virginia Mountainman thinks he has a right to own slaves?

You wrote, "Now, if you think virginia mountainman is willing to give up rights that he has that are not set out in amendments to your Constitution, go ahead and say so."

Since the original post was about an amendment to our Constitution, and it was to that post that he was responding, I wouldn't presume to know what rights he would include in this discussion. Maybe you should have asked him before accusing him of being a racist.


David

[iverglas]

85. pig shit

Maybe you should have asked him before accusing him of being a racist.

Shit from a pig.

I wouldn't presume to know what rights he would include in this discussion.

I presumed him to mean exactly what he said: ALL rights.

I'm just curious how he decides which ones it's okay to take out of his Constitution and which ones it isn't.

I live in hope that he will tell me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. If you think you have had a stroke call 911 or whatever you call in Canada.

You really aren't making sense.

David

[virginia mountainman]

103. Wow...

I never seen someone take so much time, make so many posts, and use so many words, and in the end say nothing pertinent at all.

Your pulling things out of thin air Iverglas...again....

But I have learned one thing from this thread, and that is why some parents eat their children.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Why the suggestion that hand guns be banned to target shooters and collectors?

I'm just curious. Both categories appear to me to be legitimate reasons for possessing a hand gun. Have there been incidents where people in these two categories have used them to shoot people? I'm trying to understand the motivation for banning these two groups from owning hand guns.

One other question--is the use of rifles and shotguns for hunting a practice that is tolerated, or do many wish hunting to stop as well? Do you think that eventually hunting with firearms will be banned in Canada?

[maxidivine]

6. There have been a small number

of shootings by people who were licensed to own a handgun in canada, and iverglas will soon show up to post their stories. All three of them.

[iverglas]

7. have a read through the threads on the front page of this forum

You'll see several with Toronto in the title, for instance. In them, I have explained the reasons for the proposal to ban handgun possession.

At present, a permit to possess a restricted firearm (which includes handguns) may be obtained by someone who qualifies as a "collector" (which is perfectly simple) or who belongs to an approved gun club.

The main problem is that too many of these people do not secure their firearms against theft. There have been several large thefts of restricted weapons from collectors in the last couple of years, and the weapons stolen have been used in homicides and crimes.

Two recent homicides were committed by people with restricted firearm permits who belonged to gun clubs. One was this winter when a man fired his handgun at a strip club bouncer on the sidewalk of Toronto's main commercial street and killed a bystander. One was a couple of years ago when Kimveer Gill attempted to commit another school massacre, at Dawson College in Montreal (where Marc Lépine killed 14 women engineering students at the Polytechnique in 1989) but was killed by police who were on the scene, having killed only one woman and seriously injured some others.

Theft is a major source of crime guns in Canada, because there is a much smaller underground market -- since legal owners have to register their weapons, and register any transfers, they'd be fools to sell them on illegally and risk having them used in crimes and traced to them. Obviously people who want guns are going to go to considerable effort to identify sources and go after them. The presence of those firearms in private residences in the community is therefore a serious risk to public safety, and is of no significant benefit to the public, particularly in the case of collectors.

My own feeling is that sports shooters could very easily store their firearms at the facility where they use them -- use of the firearms being permitted only at those facilities in any event -- and appropriate security measures on those premises could be required. Collectors, well, they could use bank vaults. Possession, not ownership, is the problem.


One other question--is the use of rifles and shotguns for hunting a practice that is tolerated, or do many wish hunting to stop as well? Do you think that eventually hunting with firearms will be banned in Canada?

Hunting is very common in Canada. When I lived in a small eastern Ontario town one summer, all my (male) lawyer and court employee friends hunted. They could be seen staggering down the street on a Friday after work with armloads of booze, off for a weekend with the boys.

Hunting is a very important part of the traditional First Nations way of life. There are special relaxed firearms rules to accommodate their traditional practices, e.g. for young people to use firearms. Hunting is also an important economic contribution to many remote communities that depend on tourist outfitting and guiding for income. There is no significant public debate about the merits of hunting, other than about specifics like the rules governing black bear hunting in Ontario and polar bear hunting in the north. There's no reasonable possibility of hunting with firearms ever being banned in Canada. Note that firearms are also used for predator/pest control in agriculture and livestock farming and for protection against wild animals, in remote locations.

There are problems associated with the presence of hunting weapons in homes in rural communities. Organizations that work with women at risk find that women report their husbands using the presence of firearms to intimidate them and maintain control of them, keeping them in abusive situations, and this is a particular problem in rural and remote areas because of the women's lack of access to services. Murders of women by the intimate partners and estranged partners are a problem, and in many cases the murders are committed with firearms.

[gorfle]

9. Storing your firearms somewhere else.

My own feeling is that sports shooters could very easily store their firearms at the facility where they use them -- use of the firearms being permitted only at those facilities in any event -- and appropriate security measures on those premises could be required. Collectors, well, they could use bank vaults. Possession, not ownership, is the problem.

Part of the pleasure of owning things is to be able to take them out when you feel like it and admire them. I have many knick-knacks, paintings, and other decorations around my home for the pleasure of admiring them. If I were told that I had to store them all down at my local bank, what would be the point of owning them? A collection that had to be kept in a bank vault would be of little value to anyone, and consequently would not only deprive me of their value as objects to admire but also probably their financial value as everyone else would be likely to feel the same way.

Here in the US, there are many public shooting ranges, maintained by the state or federal government, that are basically free to use. Sometimes you must possess a valid hunting license - the fee for the license helps maintain the shooting range. But there is no one at the range to supervise shooters or maintain secure storage of private firearms. Undoubtedly requiring shooters to leave their weapons at shooting ranges would mean increased costs for shooters as they would only be able to go to shooting ranges with staffed, secure facilities for the storage of firearms.

Since only a small percentage of US firearm owners engage in firearm crime, I don't see why we should increase the inconvenience and cost to them because of the misdeeds of the few bad apples.

[iverglas]

10. that's nice

Part of the pleasure of owning things is to be able to take them out when you feel like it and admire them. I have many knick-knacks, paintings, and other decorations around my home for the pleasure of admiring them. If I were told that I had to store them all down at my local bank, what would be the point of owning them? A collection that had to be kept in a bank vault would be of little value to anyone, and consequently would not only deprive me of their value as objects to admire but also probably their financial value as everyone else would be likely to feel the same way.

You choose to place your pleasure at playing with objects you own above the public interest in the safety and lives of members of the community you live in, I guess. Most Canadians don't take that selfish a view of things.

Nobody's going to steal my art to hold up the local 7-11 with, thank you.


Here in the US, there are many public shooting ranges, maintained by the state or federal government, that are basically free to use. Sometimes you must possess a valid hunting license - the fee for the license helps maintain the shooting range. But there is no one at the range to supervise shooters or maintain secure storage of private firearms. Undoubtedly requiring shooters to leave their weapons at shooting ranges would mean increased costs for shooters as they would only be able to go to shooting ranges with staffed, secure facilities for the storage of firearms.

So? At present, the community is bearing the cost of firearms being stored insecurely, in the form of the costs of crimes and deaths. I don't like having the costs of other people's hobbies passed on to me without my consent.

In any event, that's there in the US. That's not here in Canada. I expect that clubs here in Canada already have such facilities, since as I understand it they rent firearms to visitors. Undoubtedly some upgrading would be required, but then the owners of the firearms stored would no longer have the expense of arranging their own secure storage.


Since only a small percentage of US firearm owners engage in firearm crime, I don't see why we should increase the inconvenience and cost to them because of the misdeeds of the few bad apples.

Were we not talking about Canada?

And are you pretending to be unaware of how many firearms are stolen from legal owners in the US each year?

[gorfle]

12. Answers.

You choose to place your pleasure at playing with objects you own above the public interest in the safety and lives of members of the community you live in, I guess. Most Canadians don't take that selfish a view of things.

If I am selfish for taking a personal interest in my several-thousand-dollar, multi-generational firearm collection, so be it. This is precisely why I join with several million other selfish firearm owners and why we work so hard against people who have no regard, and in fact contempt, for our private property. Especially when the vast majority of firearms, like mine, have never been involved in an illegal activity.

Nobody's going to steal my art to hold up the local 7-11 with, thank you.

And the fact is, most firearms will not be stolen and used to hold up local 7-11's either. My family hasn't had a firearm stolen from it in over 100 years.

So? At present, the community is bearing the cost of firearms being stored insecurely, in the form of the costs of crimes and deaths. I don't like having the costs of other people's hobbies passed on to me without my consent.

I consider this not bearing the cost of other people's hobbies but rather bearing the cost of our mutual liberty. Much like sharing the costs of health care and other social programs that benefit everyone. Even though many US citizens choose not to be armed, by living in an armed society they share in the liberty that such armament secures. Like your socialized health care, it protects you whether you use it or not, indeed whether you approve of it or not, because it is there in the event you ever need it, and thus you bear the costs of supporting it.

In any event, that's there in the US. That's not here in Canada. I expect that clubs here in Canada already have such facilities, since as I understand it they rent firearms to visitors. Undoubtedly some upgrading would be required, but then the owners of the firearms stored would no longer have the expense of arranging their own secure storage.

Yes, I understand it is Canada under discussion. I was pointing out how it would be infeasible here.

And are you pretending to be unaware of how many firearms are stolen from legal owners in the US each year?

I don't know how many firearms are stolen from legal owners each year, and I really don't care. I've already demonstrated that in the United States, all firearm crime, let alone stolen firearm crime, is a very small percentage compared to the number of firearms and firearm owners.

[iverglas]

24. ainsi soit-il

If I am selfish for taking a personal interest in my several-thousand-dollar, multi-generational firearm collection, so be it.

Okey dokey. If you say so. No problem for me. And then if you want to address something I've said at some point, so will be that too, I guess.


This is precisely why I join with several million other selfish firearm owners and why we work so hard against people who have no regard, and in fact contempt, for our private property.

What awful people they must be! I'm sure glad there aren't any of them where I'm at. Now, if you want to address something I've said at some point, you go on ahead.


Especially when the vast majority of firearms, like mine, have never been involved in an illegal activity.

And one hundred per cent of people born yesterday have never eaten a banana.

Or committed a crime.

Or stolen a firearm. Or had a firearm stolen.

Isn't life just the funniest thing? One day something is, and then it isn't. One day something isn't, and then it is.


And the fact is, most firearms will not be stolen and used to hold up local 7-11's either.

Yup. And NO Norwood watercolour has ever been stolen and used to hold up a 7-11. Or anything else. Or been used to kill someone. Or to enforce a debt. I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

And you know what? I can tell you with absolute confidence that my Norwood watercolour will NEVER be stolen and used to do any of that stuff.

And you know what else? You can NOT tell me with absolute confidence that none of your firearms will ever be stolen and used to do any of that stuff.


I consider this not bearing the cost of other people's hobbies but rather bearing the cost of our mutual liberty.

Yes, I know, you've made it quite clear. Well, you've made it quite clear that this is what you choose to say, anyway.

You consider other people's deaths and injuries and loss of property and fear and insecurity the cost of your liberty.

Actually, according to what you've said in this thread, you consider those things to be the cost of your hobby and property interests, but whatever.


Even though many US citizens choose not to be armed, by living in an armed society they share in the liberty that such armament secures.

Yeah, and even if they didn't vote for Bush, by living under a Republican head of state they share in the economic prosperity and eternal joy that a Bush administration has secured.

See how you can put words together with punctuation, and yet there's still something that doesn't quite make sense?

Liberty, in the USofA in 2008. Does your lip not curl into even a tiny ironic smirk as you type the words? It's all relative, you know, and you folks are just the poor country cousins on that score these days. Whether you know it or not, you see.


Like your socialized health care, it protects you whether you use it or not, indeed whether you approve of it or not, because it is there in the event you ever need it, and thus you bear the costs of supporting it.

Haha, that's a good one. Yes, somebody stole my OHIP card a couple of years ago, and I have lived on tenterhooks ever since, waiting to see whether it's going to be implicated in a stick-up and or used to kill a kid sitting on a tricycle outside his home, and traced back to me.

I wish we did have socialized health care ...


I was pointing out how it would be infeasible here.

Nobody's arguing with that. Why, there are all kinds of things in the world that are infeasible. Like walking on the moon. Good grief, what will they think of next? Ridiculous.


I don't know how many firearms are stolen from legal owners each year, and I really don't care.

I see. Well, I'll tell you anyway. It's for your own good, and I do this for you whether you want me to or not.

We'll start with some old news:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.

Bof, it looks like nobody's keeping count these days. I'm pretty sure I've posted more recent figures in this forum in the past. I'm not guessing the annual number of stolen firearms has gone down. I'm also guessing there are really quite a few more than that stolen, and not reported for a variety of reasons.

I'll bet they were all valuable antiques, and are at this moment hanging over the mantel of some collector somewhere.


I've already demonstrated that in the United States, all firearm crime, let alone stolen firearm crime, is a very small percentage compared to the number of firearms and firearm owners.

This really is a very interesting new tune being danced to here in the Guns forum. It's been reminding me of when the anti-choice brigade readjusted its aim about a decade ago. "Abortion is murder" wasn't helping, and people were tired of the same old same old. So they hired a guy to do some left-brain study stuff, and they figured out that "abortion is bad for women" was a winning line.

Well, it sounds really good: they really really care about women, they're the ones who really really care about women, they're only wanting to help women, those nasty pro-choicers don't want to help women, "abortion doctors" only want to get rich ...

Until you scratched the surface, and the same ugliness and lies were hiding there all along.

Gun owners are nice. Gun owners are good. Gun owners are big cuddly bears. So?

So, the percentage of firearms owners / firearms involved in crime is reaaally reaallly low. So ... so?

The percentage of speeding cars/drivers involved in car crashes is probably really reeeaaaalllly lower than the percentage of firearms/firearm owners involved in crimes. It's still illegal to speed. Not just to speed unsafely.

Risky behaviour is regulated by society, quite properly in the view of most members of society.

Speeding is regarded risky behaviour. Possessing a firearm is risky behaviour. Both are plainly the precursors to DEATHS and INJURIES and ECONOMIC LOSSES and TRAUMA and GRIEF. A speeding driver may hit a child who, completely illegally, leaps out in front of his/her car. A person in possession of a firearm may transfer that firearm to a criminal who, completely illegally, breaks in a window and steals it. There is not just ONE sine qua non in either case.

But you don't give a shit, so why am I bothering you with any of this? You've got important stuff to be thinking about, like all that liberty you got. Snork.

[gorfle]

41. Gawd what nonsense.

Okey dokey. If you say so. No problem for me. And then if you want to address something I've said at some point, so will be that too, I guess.

This is precisely why I join with several million other selfish firearm owners and why we work so hard against people who have no regard, and in fact contempt, for our private property.

What awful people they must be! I'm sure glad there aren't any of them where I'm at. Now, if you want to address something I've said at some point, you go on ahead.

You do a poor act of playing dumb.

And one hundred per cent of people born yesterday have never eaten a banana.

Or committed a crime.

Or stolen a firearm. Or had a firearm stolen.

Isn't life just the funniest thing? One day something is, and then it isn't. One day something isn't, and then it is.

So what is your point? That some firearms get stolen and used in crime? Wowee Zowee! What a revelation!


And the fact is, most firearms will not be stolen and used to hold up local 7-11's either.

And you know what? I can tell you with absolute confidence that my Norwood watercolour will NEVER be stolen and used to do any of that stuff.

And you know what else? You can NOT tell me with absolute confidence that none of your firearms will ever be stolen and used to do any of that stuff.

Golly! Really? Geepers, you mean firearms might be used to kill someone? Gosh, again, what a revelation!


You consider other people's deaths and injuries and loss of property and fear and insecurity the cost of your liberty.

Actually, according to what you've said in this thread, you consider those things to be the cost of your hobby and property interests, but whatever.

You had it right the first time.

See how you can put words together with punctuation, and yet there's still something that doesn't quite make sense?

Oh yes, Iverglas, every time you put fingers to keyboard we all see it with absolute clarity.

Haha, that's a good one. Yes, somebody stole my OHIP card a couple of years ago, and I have lived on tenterhooks ever since, waiting to see whether it's going to be implicated in a stick-up and or used to kill a kid sitting on a tricycle outside his home, and traced back to me.

I wish we did have socialized health care ...

Do you have any idea how tiring reading your posts is? Do you have any idea how hard it is to pick a logic stream out of your endless babble of sarcasm and innuendo? Christ no wonder no one can read a legal document and make any sense out of it.

Nobody's arguing with that. Why, there are all kinds of things in the world that are infeasible. Like walking on the moon. Good grief, what will they think of next? Ridiculous.

I'm sure when our nation supports your notion of gun control as it supported walking on the moon, it will be feasible. Good luck with that.

In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.

Since I've already demonstrated that there are only roughly 800,000 crimes committed annually with firearms, your data confirms what I already assumed - stolen firearms are even less of a problem than firearm crime, which is itself insignificant compared to the number of firearms in circulation and firearms.

This really is a very interesting new tune being danced to here in the Guns forum. It's been reminding me of when the anti-choice brigade readjusted its aim about a decade ago. "Abortion is murder" wasn't helping, and people were tired of the same old same old. So they hired a guy to do some left-brain study stuff, and they figured out that "abortion is bad for women" was a winning line.

Well, it sounds really good: they really really care about women, they're the ones who really really care about women, they're only wanting to help women, those nasty pro-choicers don't want to help women, "abortion doctors" only want to get rich ...

Until you scratched the surface, and the same ugliness and lies were hiding there all along.

Blabedy blah blah. Get back to me when you want to talk about the subject actually at hand.

Gun owners are nice. Gun owners are good. Gun owners are big cuddly bears. So?

So stop pressing for restrictions that negatively affect them. As I've said. Many times.

So, the percentage of firearms owners / firearms involved in crime is reaaally reaallly low. So ... so?

So, as I've said many times as you well know, since over 98% of us aren't involved in crime, there is no reason to enact restrictions that penalize that 98% and will probably do very little to affect the other 2%. But you know this. This is just another attempt at playing dumb.

The percentage of speeding cars/drivers involved in car crashes is probably really reeeaaaalllly lower than the percentage of firearms/firearm owners involved in crimes. It's still illegal to speed. Not just to speed unsafely.

Risky behaviour is regulated by society, quite properly in the view of most members of society.

To sing your song, Iverglas, So?. Use of firearms in public is more heavily regulated than automobile use in public. What's your point?

But you don't give a shit, so why am I bothering you with any of this? You've got important stuff to be thinking about, like all that liberty you got. Snork.

At least I've got the means to do something about it if I feel like it, Iverglas. You'll never find me getting raped.

[DrCory]

50. And Yet...

"Speeding is regarded risky behaviour. Possessing a firearm is risky behaviour. Both are plainly the precursors to DEATHS and INJURIES and ECONOMIC LOSSES and TRAUMA and GRIEF. A speeding driver may hit a child who, completely illegally, leaps out in front of his/her car."

All of this, and yet you admit:

"I speed every time I'm on a highway...

and my speed has never killed anyone, including myself. Just like all those firearms our firearm-owning friends here own: they've never killed anyone, including their owners. My speeding is still illegal though. "Law-abiding citizens" don't get to speed. No matter how safely they can do it. They're subject to the same laws as everybody else."

( www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170992 )

Where is that same respect for the welfare and safety of the community Iverglas which you demand from gun owners? Your excess velocity may very well harm another as you have admitted. Why then should you be permitted to possess a motor vehicle? If, as you seem to believe, I should not be allowed to have continuous possession of a firearm as I might kill my family, you certainly must not be allowed to continuously possess or even operate a car. Surrender you vehicle, and do it today.

Otherwise, so much for your moral "authority", eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. Fantastic response!!

So as long as the liberties Iverglas thinks are important (beating dogs, speeding) are not infringed upon then everything is ok.

David

[DrCory]

21. Don't Bother...

Really, there's no point. She doesn't believe that private possession of a firearm for any purpose other than sport and only in that venue is politically legitimate. If you do, you're either a RW racist/misogynist/facist or the dupe of such.

[iverglas]

25. you guys are such a supportive bunch

Always telling each other how you shouldn't waste your time, you shouldn't get upset.

She doesn't believe that private possession of a firearm for any purpose other than sport and only in that venue is politically legitimate.

You realize that's a lie, don't you? I mean, there isn't any other way to put it. It's about me, and I am me, and I know what I believe, and I know that isn't what I believe, and you have said it is, and you very definitely do not know that what you said is true, and you could not possibly believe that what you said is true. So there's just no other way to put it. You have told a lie about another member of DU the only possible effect and intent of which is to invite contempt for that member.

Gonna delete it yourself? You have time.

[DrCory]

36. How soon you forget...

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.

Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.

My question was clear, as was your answer.

You realize that's a lie, don't you? I mean, there isn't any other way to put it. It's about me, and I am me, and I know what I believe, and I know that isn't what I believe, and you have said it is, and you very definitely do not know that what you said is true, and you could not possibly believe that what you said is true. So there's just no other way to put it. You have told a lie about another member of DU the only possible effect and intent of which is to invite contempt for that member.

Gonna delete it yourself? You have time.

Don't think I will, but thanks for the concern. You have denied that self-defence is politically legitimate. What remains is sporting use. You're the one showing contempt for anyone owning a firearm for any reason other than what you deem appropriate.

[iverglas]

38. how facilely you dissemble

So let's look at your lie again:

She doesn't believe that private possession of a firearm for any purpose other than sport and only in that venue is politically legitimate.

For one thing, it's just plain bizarre. I couldn't have made it plainer in the last week that I OPPOSE the possession of firearms for sport. Christ. Almighty. I do not oppose the USE of firearms for sport, but I do oppose CONTINUOUS POSSESSION of firearms used occasionally for sport.

So you skip to self-defence. Yup, I oppose possession of firearms for self-defence. Not least because there's no such thing. There's possession of firearms. Period. You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?

I think you know the answer.

I oppose possession of handguns. I oppose possession of firearms not ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control. I oppose possession of firearms whose features make them specially useful to / attractive to people who want them for criminal purposes.

I have absolutely no idea how a society could regulate firearms possession according to intended use. The plain fact is that it cannot. It is a ludicrous proposition. And why do you want this handgun, sir? To defend myself! And why do you want this rifle, madam? To hunt bear! And who's to say nay?

I do not oppose possession of firearms ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control. I am troubled by the all to frequent illegal use of such firearms, particularly to intimidate and harm women. But at this point it appears that all we can do is try to reduce those risks by adopting measures to screen owners (licensing) and control transfers (registration), enacting rules governing storage, and disqualifying people whose behaviour makes them bad risks for firearms possession and acting on reports of such behaviour.

It is simply not reasonable to suggest removing them from the hands of members of the public, and I would never consider making such a suggestion, not least because I have no desire to do so.

I will be happy to see firearms ownership rates decline, and I expect that will happen where I'm at. In the increasingly urban and cosmopolitan society that Canada is, fewer and fewer people have any interest in hunting, for instance. Fine with me.

I'd be happy if nobody had firearms here. I'd also be happy if there were no churches and synagogues and temples and ashrams here. A completely secular society, completely devoid of firearms (and loads of other things, like styrofoam and unwanted pregnancies), yup, that would suit me fine. The odds of me advocating public policies to impose any of those conditions (well, maybe aside from styrofoam) are zero.



Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.
Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.

My question was clear, as was your answer.

Yup. And so is the falsehood of the statement you're pretending to think is based on my answer.

[DrCory]

48. Oh My...

One needs guides and porters to navigate through this morass of contradictions.

"Yup, I oppose possession of firearms for self-defence."

And...

"I oppose possession of firearms not ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control."

Okay, but then you say this:

"I have absolutely no idea how a society could regulate firearms possession according to intended use. The plain fact is that it cannot. It is a ludicrous proposition."

That is precisely what you are proposing.

"You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?"

My "varmint" rifle with 5 round magazine will cause as much damage per shot to a person as a coyote.


"I do not oppose possession of firearms ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control. I am troubled by the all to frequent illegal use of such firearms, particularly to intimidate and harm women."

Huh? What about this?:

"I oppose possession of firearms whose features make them specially useful to / attractive to people who want them for criminal purposes"

Intimidating and/or harming woman is an illegal use I believe.

[iverglas]

52. allow me to assist

Me: Yup, I oppose possession of firearms for self-defence.

"Possession of a firearm for self-defence" is possession a firearm that is not securely stored, unloaded and separate from ammunition. I oppose the POSSESSION in question.

If you have a shotgun and store it in an appropriate locked container/location, unloaded and separate from ammunition, and you want to say you possess it for self-defence -- and, according to the rules that are in place where I am and that I support and recommend, you are eligible to possess a firearm -- that's dandy.

I also oppose the possession of the KINDS of firearms that people commonly seek/claim to possess for "self-defence": HANDGUNS. I oppose the posession of handguns for any purpose, anywhere other than a shooting range at which they are in use for sporting purposes.

Clearer now?


Me: I have absolutely no idea how a society could regulate firearms possession according to intended use. The plain fact is that it cannot. It is a ludicrous proposition.

You: That is precisely what you are proposing.

Nope. According to manner of possession and type of firearm.


Me: You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?

You: My "varmint" rifle with 5 round magazine will cause as much damage per shot to a person as a coyote.

Yup. And about all I can do (since where I'm at we already have safe/secure storage laws) is
- advocate public education campaigns regarding safe/secure storage
- advocate public education campaigns to encourage people who know of misuse of firearms to report it (including women harassed or intimidated by partners or former partners)
- ensure that my police services are doing the job of removing firearms from people who misuse them or become bad risks for possession of firearms and revoke their authorization to possess firearms
... and campaign and vote against right-wing assholes who want to remove long arms from the firearms registry and thus make it impossible for situations like these to be addressed.

As long as your possession of that varmint rifle is subject to the requirements that
- you be licensed to possess it (i.e. not be a person to whom there are grounds to deny permission to possess firearms)
- you register your ownership of it and be subject to penalties for transferring it without registration
- you store it securely and safely in accordance with the rules made for that purpose,
and as long as police services are vigilant about investigating reported or observed violations of any of these, that's about as far as we can go at the moment to minimize the risks associated with your possession of firearms.


It looks like a fairly decent job of reducing the harm associated with possession of long arms is being done in Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

The longer-term trend has been a decline since the mid-1970s in the rate of firearms used to commit homicide. However, trends differ depending on the type of firearm.

Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns. However, since the late 1970s, the use of rifles/shotguns began to decrease, while the use of handguns remained relatively stable. By 1991, the number of handgun homicides surpassed that of rifles/shotguns, and the gap has continued to grow since.

Firearms homicides in Canada have declined, all the while the kinds of homicides associated with organized/gang criminal activity, in particular handgun homicides, have been rising.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.

In total, police reported 104 gang-related homicides in 2006, including both youths and adults. Gang-related homicides accounted for about 1 in every 6 homicides, similar to the previous year.

Three-quarters of gang-related homicides in 2006 were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun, compared with less than one-quarter of non-gang-related homicides.

Look at those numbers: 190 firearms homicides. Multiply that by 9, and you get 1710. The number of firearms homicides the US would have if the rate were similar to Canada's.

190 firearms homicides in a population of 30+ million. It may be possible to get the numbers lower than that, but those are the kinds of numbers where anomalies are just going to get in the way.


Laws don't control behaviour. But laws, law enforcement and other public policies and measures can affect behaviour.



I do not oppose possession of firearms ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control. I am troubled by the all to frequent illegal use of such firearms, particularly to intimidate and harm women.
Huh? What about this?:
I oppose possession of firearms whose features make them specially useful to / attractive to people who want them for criminal purposes
Intimidating and/or harming woman is an illegal use I believe.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you even intended that to make sense.



edited to complete an incomplete sentence

[DrCory]

72. Untenable Position...

I also oppose the possession of the KINDS of firearms that people commonly seek/claim to possess for "self-defence": HANDGUNS. I oppose the posession of handguns for any purpose, anywhere other than a shooting range at which they are in use for sporting purposes.

Any kind of firearm may be used for self defense. Matchlocks to assault rifles, the first round fired can cause a similar range of damage to a human target. My varmint rifle can be used as such, regardless of how much time is necessary to render it operational. Your categorization simply doesn't work.

"Possession of a firearm for self-defence" is possession a firearm that is not securely stored, unloaded and separate from ammunition. I oppose the POSSESSION in question.

That's not what you said earlier. You framed the issue of self defense in political terms. According to you persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such. This suggests to me your opposition is based on political orientation. Which leads me to this:

If you have a shotgun and store it in an appropriate locked container/location, unloaded and separate from ammunition, and you want to say you possess it for self-defence -- and, according to the rules that are in place where I am and that I support and recommend, you are eligible to possess a firearm -- that's dandy.

Do you support the ownership of firearms by right-wingers and their tools?

[iverglas]

73. boring and overwrought

And false.

You framed the issue of self defense in political terms. According to you persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such.

I have never said that persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such. Never. What a blatantly and bizarrely false thing to say.

And I'm really not that interested in pursuing your efforts to take what I did say out of the context and pretend they meant something they didn't mean.


The question was not framed by me:

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

Yup
You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.
Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.

"For the purpose of self defense" obviously refers to the claimed/stated purpose of the person in possession of the firearm.

I believe that every single person who claims to possess a firearm for self-defence is a racist/misogynist/right-winger or a dupe thereof.

And I oppose the possession of firearms for the claimed/stated purpose of "self-defence".

But I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, or advocate anything to be done about that, OTHER THAN
- advocate/support safe/secure storage rules
- advocate/support prohibition of the possession of handguns in particular


That's not what you said earlier. You framed the issue of self defense in political terms.

No, I framed THE CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ASSERT "SELF-DEFENCE" as their reason for possessing firarms in political terms.

What a complete nonsense "You framed the issue of self defense in political terms" is. I assure you, I would not speak and have not spoken such nonsense.

According to you persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such.

You seem to need a proofreader. Either you're leaving out entire parts of your sentences willy-nilly, or you're intentionally saying false things about what I have said.


Do you support the ownership of firearms by right-wingers and their tools?

I neither support nor oppose the ownership of firearms by anyone, other than anyone who exhibits characteristics that make him/her a poor risk for firearms possession, as a matter of public policy.

As a matter of whom I would allow to spend time on my chesterfield or in my bed, i.e. the extent to which I am opposed to the ownership of firearms as a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE, it would all depend on what they got up to with them, and there are narrow categories that I could be satisfied with. Food hunters aren't beyond the pale to my mind.

I'm sure you grasp these distinctions.

As a matter of personal preference, I am (let us pretend) a vegetarian, and would not willingly have intimate associations with people who eat meat. As a matter of public policy, I neither support nor oppose meat-eating and demand only that there be stringent regulations governing the treatment of animals raised for food.

I'm sure you grasp these distinctions. Really, I am.

[DrCory]

74. Yes you did...

I have never said that persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such. Never. What a blatantly and bizarrely false thing to say.

Who is spewing falsehoods? Well, lookie here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=174189&mesg_id=174189

"33. yup (with addition)
Edited on Wed Jun-04-08 01:04 PM by iverglas

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.

Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons."

You still have the time to delete your accusation.

[iverglas]

76. pig shit

You:

According to you persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such.

Me, as quoted by you, answering a question:

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?
Yup
You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.
Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons.


Now, I'm going to do that with emphasis to assist you.


You:

According to you persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such.

Me, as quoted by you, answering a question:

Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?
Yup ...


Your assertion that I said "persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such":

PIG SHIT.

Shit from a pig.


Please don't delete your false statement. It looks good on you.

[DrCory]

86. Once more into the funhouse...

Do you not see the fallacy of your own position? What you obviously fail to understand is that a firearm possessed for any purpose can be used for self defense should the need arise. Defense is a use, not a state of being. Therefore, by extension, any firearm regardless of size, caliber, or feature can be used to kill people. The same weapon which you allow to be continuously possessed for the purpose of pest control can be used for self defense. So, is it your contention that only when a person uses the "pest control" gun for self defense do they become a right-winger or dupe? Are folk who continuously posses firearms for pest control or whatever other reason you regard as legitimate not permitted under any circumstances to use them for self defense? That simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In light of that:

Your assertion that I said "persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such":

PIG SHIT.

Shit from a pig.


It is not an assertion, it is the only logical interpretation. Unless, of course, your position is fatally flawed. Being the self-proclaimed word-smith that you are, I can only assume that you simply don't have a well-crafted intellectual argument. Shit, actually, would be preferable to the the nebulous nonsense that you spew. It, at least, has tangible substance.

[iverglas]

88. sophistry

from a sophomore.

But hey, it's really goooood sophistry.

(with the usual apologies to Firesign Theatre.)

[DrCory]

90. Try Answering the Questions...

Souldn't be hard, being "sophmoric" and all.

[iverglas]

93. when are you going to stop beating that poor dog of yours?

It's a perfectly straightforward question.

I didn't say your post was sophomoric. You just can't/won't speak truthfully and accurately about anything, can/will you?

You're a sophomore. Your posts are sophistry.

[DrCory]

104. You would not be forced...

to fall back on such devices to save face had you not bemired yourself in the philosophical equivalent of Dien Bien Phu. My questions are relevant to the fallacy of your logic. As for being a sophist, should I desire to ever be such a creature, I could only dream of being as proficient and accomplished as you.

[beevul]

92. She must be bored...

Remember, she said " she believes persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such", rather than "persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such".

Its just an opinion. And being such, one need only treat it as any other opinion - by deciding whether or not its based on the wine of reality or the vinegar of hostility bias or ignorance - and treating it accordingly.

[iverglas]

94. pretty much

At least I'm neither unbelievably stupid nor unspeakably dishonest.


Remember, she said "she believes persons who possess firearms are either right-wingers or the dupes of such"

Remember, I said no such thing, so I think you need to be putting those quotation marks back right where you got them, only maybe shoved a little farther up for secure storage.


spelling typo fixed

[iverglas]

95. (this being Friday

I'm not bored while I wait for work, I'm bored while I wait for the evening's lust letter from south of the border ...)

[beevul]

98. Yep. My bad.

"Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?

That was the question asked of you.


"You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.
Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons."

And that was your answer.


So I'll correct it right here:

Remember, she said "she believes persons who possess firearms for self defense are either right-wingers or the dupes of such"

Its still just your opinion, as I said.

Hardly anything anybody should get worked up over.

[iverglas]

99. my Friday chuckle

Hardly anything anybody should get worked up over.

Snort.

[DrCory]

101. It must be one or the other...

Not least because there's no such thing. There's possession of firearms. Period. You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?

Exchange the underlined "self defence" for "pest control", and explain to me how this does not apply to all continuously possessed firearm. Your distinctions between "stated use" are absurd, therefore the only logical interpretation one can make is that you do indeed believe that any private citizen who wishes to continuously posses a firearm for any purpose to be a right-winger.

[DrCory]

75. Political Framing...

"I believe that every single person who claims to possess a firearm for self-defence is a racist/misogynist/right-winger or a dupe thereof."

[iverglas]

77. clarification for the obtuse

or dishonest. I never know which I'm dealing with.

[DrCory]

105. "Right-Winger"...

"I believe that every single person who claims to possess a firearm for self-defence is a racist/misogynist/right-winger or a dupe thereof.

Is generally understood to be a political term. I've not encountered it in my areas of interest such as cosmology, pedology, quantum physics, entomology, or even aviculture (where one might expect it as humor). So, yes, political framing it is.

[iverglas]

107. "framing"

That won't be me doing that.

My statement is straightforward. It is a statement of belief -- an allegation, a claim, whatever you like -- that every single person who claims to possess a firearm for self-defence is one or more of several things, one of which is a right-winger.

You have perceptively noted that "right-winger" is generally understood to be a political term. At least when the conversation is not about hockey.

There ain't no framing going on nowhere in what I said. You're apparently trying to frame my statement as something, but I don't have a clue what. I don't know why you can't just be content with it as it is.

If I said that every single person who voted for George W Bush was a right-winger or a dupe thereof, would that be "framing"?

If I said that every single person who denies that the Holocaust happened was an anti-Semite or a dupe thereof, would that be "framing"?

If I said that every single person who says that Barack Obama is a Muslim (about 15% of the US population believes it, apparently) is a racist or a dupe thereof, would that be "framing"?

What's your point?

There there is no politics behind the activities of gun militants?

Hahahahaha!

[DrCory]

110. It is indeed political framing...

As not everyone who possesses a firearm for the purpose of self-defence is a right-winger or dupe thereof, regardless of your belief system. I know folk much farther left on the political spectrum than you who do. Folk who would laugh at your bourgeois, intellectual elitist attitudes. True "revolutionaries" in fact, not pallid, revisionist imitations. What part of that do you not understand?

[iverglas]

111. "What part of that do you not understand?"

Hmm. The part where you pretend that the word "understand" means "believe"?


I know folk much farther left on the political spectrum than you who do. Folk who would laugh at your bourgeois, intellectual elitist attitudes.

Yes, I know ultraleft morons too. Hell, I kind of created one, when I dragged the poor apolitical classical guitarist off to a social democrat weekend retreat ... and next thing I knew, he was out campaigning for Lyndon Larouche for President (back when LL said leftist sounding things) ... in Montreal ...


True "revolutionaries" in fact, not pallid, revisionist imitations.

Yes, I've always had a soft spot for revolutionaries w/o a revolution myself. There's something charmingly waifish about them, they tug at the heartstrings with their big orphan eyes. I hung out with a gaggle of them back in 1969 for a while. (And I can still say: A trotskyist is to a trotsyite as a socialist is to a socialite.) Primary reaction at the time: booooooredom. Increasingly tinged with guffaws as the years have worn on.

[DrCory]

97. Explain the difference...

"I believe that every single person who claims to possess a firearm for self-defence is a racist/misogynist/right-winger or a dupe thereof.

And I oppose the possession of firearms for the claimed/stated purpose of "self-defence".



...between stated purpose and actual use. If I claim to wish to continuously possess a firearm for the purpose of pest control yet use it in self defense, do escape being condemned as a right-winger?

If I state that my dog is a rabbit, does that make him so?

[DrCory]

102. Well then...

Let's try again:

"I do not oppose possession of firearms ordinarily used for hunting and predator/pest control. I am troubled by the all to frequent illegal use of such firearms, particularly to intimidate and harm women.
Huh? What about this?:
I oppose possession of firearms whose features make them specially useful to / attractive to people who want them for criminal purposes
Intimidating and/or harming woman is an illegal use I believe.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you even intended that to make sense."

You do not oppose possession of firearms ordinarily used for hunting, but in the same sentence bemoan their frequent illegal use. You then go on to state opposition to firearms with features attractive to the criminal element. What features might those be? Might not those same hunting weapons which you allow possession of also include features attractive to bad guys? They must, as you said they are frequently used for illegal purposes.

[DrCory]

49. Another gem...

You can tell me your firearm is for self-defence, and I'll say big whup, sez you, and exactly what mechanism is it that prevents this firearm you have for self-defence from being used by you to kill your wife and kids, or being used by your kid to kill you, or being used by your kid to kill 16 schoolmates, or being used by you in trade to a dealer for a nice quantity of cocaine?

Hmmm, let's see: strength of character, basic human decency, desire not to harm the ones I love or those who intend me no harm. Basically I'm a rational, educated, adult who believes in civil order based on self-restraint. A firearm kept responsibly in my home is not some kind of demonic talisman which will cause me to behave monstrously.

You cetainly have a base and cynical view of humanity, don't you?

Thanks, but I'm not buying the elitist, authoritarian shit you are shovelling. I'll rely on my wits, law enforcement, and as a last resort, my firearm to PROTECT my family. That last resort being far more effective than some pseudo-intellectual berating my would-be assasins as being right-wing tools for using firearms.

[gorfle]

43. It's not a lie.

You realize that's a lie, don't you? I mean, there isn't any other way to put it. It's about me, and I am me, and I know what I believe, and I know that isn't what I believe, and you have said it is, and you very definitely do not know that what you said is true, and you could not possibly believe that what you said is true. So there's just no other way to put it. You have told a lie about another member of DU the only possible effect and intent of which is to invite contempt for that member.

It's not a lie, Iverglas, and you know it.

Perhaps if you didn't talk in such an obfuscatory manner people would understand you better, but everyone knows that that is precisely your intent. You've been called on it in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

Your words have told us exactly where you stand. You can pout and say it really isn't true all you like, but we all know your true colors.

But you just keep on wringing your hands and bemoan how misunderstood you are.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

113. I always assumed that Canada was quite gun-friendly

For some reason I grew up thinking of Canada as having basically the same views on guns as the US, but with more liberal attitudes behind the pro-gun views. As in, not so much based out of fear as out of hunting.

[pipoman]

3. Wow

I find this interesting.

...while the U.S. population is ten times that of that of Canada, the number of privately-owned guns in the U.S. is twenty-five times higher. As opposed to its U.S. meaning, in Canada, "packing heat" is something most often achieved with a thermos.

Currently, the homicide rate in the U.S. is well over twice that of Canada, with the historical difference being much greater still. About half of U.S. homicides are committed with guns, while in only a third of Canadian homicides is a gun the weapon of choice.

25x more guns in the USofA yet 1/2 of US homicides occur with firearms and 1/3 of Canadian homicides occur with guns so how does that happen? Shouldn't the gun homicide rate in Canada be a much lower percentage if gun ownership rates has anything to do with homicide rates?

Then there is the gun homicide rate statement, is this due to the homicide rate in Canada increasing recently, say in the time since the bans were enacted? Or is it due to the falling homicide rates in the US, in the time since nearly every state has enacted 'shall issue' concealed carry?

There is also the question of the homicide rate. Isn't it true that the US homicide rate has always been higher than Canada's, even before Canada's gun control measures, when gun laws in the US and Canada were very similar?

Then there is this bit of wisdom in the article itself:

"While the Second Amendment was surely deserving of some serious thought before pen hit paper, it appears that few brain cells were burned on its wording, as it neither means what it says, nor says what it means."

Could the author of this opinion piece possibly meant:

While the Second Amendment was surely deserving of some serious thought before pen hit paper, it appears that few brain cells were burned on its wording, as it neither means what I wish it said, nor says what I wish means.

There is plenty of context written to determine the historical meaning of the 2nd amendment, that context is being considered by the SCOTUS in Heller which is why the DC ban will be struck down.

Interesting...thanks for posting this screed

[iverglas]

8. ah, the opinions of the ignorant, I do love them

Then there is the gun homicide rate statement, is this due to the homicide rate in Canada increasing recently, say in the time since the bans were enacted? Or is it due to the falling homicide rates in the US, in the time since nearly every state has enacted 'shall issue' concealed carry?

Was the earthquake in New York today due to global warming? What, there was no earthquake in New York today?

I guess that's kinda like how the homicide rate in Canada hasn't increased. So how could the rate increasing be due to the "bans" (what bans?) being enacted, when there has been no increase?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

The national homicide rate dropped 10% in 2006, following increases in each of the previous two years. The number of homicides committed with a firearm fell for the first time in four years in 2006, according to a detailed analysis of homicide data.

Canada's police services reported 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than the previous year. As a result, the national homicide rate fell to 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population. However, increases were seen in other serious violent crimes, such as attempted murder, serious assaults and robberies, in both 2005 and 2006.

1978 and 1995 are the dates of the major changes to Canadian firearms legislation. Huh. Interesting correlations there, eh?

The rate rose to 2/100,000 in 2007. There is no indication that this is anything other than a blip.


25x more guns in the USofA yet 1/2 of US homicides occur with firearms and 1/3 of Canadian homicides occur with guns so how does that happen? Shouldn't the gun homicide rate in Canada be a much lower percentage if gun ownership rates has anything to do with homicide rates?

Actually, the author is wrong, if I recall correctly. Just about exactly 2/3 of US homicides are committed with firearms.

From that Statcan link:

Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns. However, since the late 1970s, the use of rifles/shotguns began to decrease, while the use of handguns remained relatively stable. By 1991, the number of handgun homicides surpassed that of rifles/shotguns, and the gap has continued to grow since.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.

Gosh. Handguns seem to be a growing problem -- handguns largely smuggled from the US or stolen from lawful owners in Canaada.

See how it works? A problem emerges, proposals are made to deal with it.

The problem is quite specific. It is the use of handguns in shootings / crimes by gang-involved individuals.

Do please keep in mind, too, that with small numbers like these, blips within a given year can also be significant in terms of numbers, but not significant when it comes to drawing conclusins. Here's an example:

http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=143295&x=articles&s=massacre

THE BANDIDOS MASSACRE: Stepfather's fears realized with arrest
The London Free Press June 18, 2006

Mushey, Marcello Aravena, 30, and Michael Sandham, 36, a former police officer -- all from Winnipeg -- face eight first-degree murder charges in the killing of eight men whose bodies were found April 8 in a field in Shedden.

... In April, the bodies were found in vehicles on Stafford Line in Shedden. Local biker Wayne Kellestine was arrested on Aberdeen Line in Iona Station, about 20 kilometres away.

I'm pretty sure that Wayne is the brother of an old friend of mine ...

We can assume, I think, that these were handgun murders (they were shootings). Eight is a significant number when your total is 605 -- it's over 1% of the total number of murders, all in one incident. So, as in the UK, no conclusions at all should be drawn from any particular year-over-year change; the long-term trend is the only thing that gives any good indication of what's happening.


There is also the question of the homicide rate. Isn't it true that the US homicide rate has always been higher than Canada's, even before Canada's gun control measures, when gun laws in the US and Canada were very similar?

Gun laws in Canada and the US were never very similar.

Access to handguns has been strictly regulated, and limited, for decades. Handguns are the primary weapon of firearms homicide in the US (and of course the primary weapon in the facilitation of other crimes, such as robbery - note that the rate of homicide in the course of robbery is much lower in Canada than in the US).

So there is no "all things being equal" comparison to be made. All things have never been equal in Canada and the US when it comes to access to firearms.

[pipoman]

47. I guess this is a problem

with any opinion piece veiled as news. Exaggeration, embellishment, lies and/or ignorance. I agree that the 1/2 figure is low. This demands the question, where did the author get the numbers? Did he pull them from the ass of the neighbor's dog? Then that leads me to the validity of the rest of the article and the character/credibility of the author...

[krispos42]

51. Do you know of a year-by-year stats table?

I'd be interested in adding Canada to my US/UK homicide chart (with appropriate footnotes, I promise) if there is a 40-year or so historical chart.

[iverglas]

53. well I was just about to call on you

Re my just previous post, I was looking at the rates/trends here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

and comparing them in my mind's eye to the graph here:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm



The trend is actually very similar, in terms of straight rising and falling -- except that there is no marked decline in the US until after 1990.

I'm not sure whether there's an explanation for the apparently anomalous 1991 peak in the Canadian curve.

If you're willing to go with the Statcan graph w/o the raw numbers, you could use the numbers for the US to produce the comparison.

The 2007 homicide rate for Canada is 2.0/100,000, I believe. Statcan won't put out its 2007 crime report until about July, and homicide usually follows in the fall.

Oh, and here:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0090085-002-XIE.pdf


In terms of trends, this is interesting:

Six in ten homicides motivated by anger and despair

As determined by police, the most common motive for committing homicide in 1999 was an argument, quarrel or incident inciting a vengeful or jealous reaction or an act of despair (57% of all homicides). Another 20% were motivated by financial gain or settling of accounts. Six percent of homicides had no apparent motive, and in 13% of cases the motive was unknown. There were three “random” killings in 1999 and no homicides motivated by hate. Between 1991 and 1998 there were 13 homicides that were motivated by hate or bigotry, an average of less than two per year.

Gang-related homicide was not a significant factor at that time, but I assume it would come under "financial gain or settling of accounts".


I'm trying to figure out whether the Air India bombing is counted in Canadian homicides. It can't be, since 329 deaths in 1985 would make the graph look a little different I'd think. Aha, they aren't counted (obviously just because they would make the numbers useless for purposes like these):

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0090185-002-XIE.pdf

You want table 10 for 1961 to 2002 figures: "Excludes 329 victims killed in the Air India incident".

Just for footnote purposes. ;)

Here we are, the full 2006 homicide report:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2007008.pdf

Interestingly, the sharpest declines in homicide rates since 1976 have been in acquaintance and spouse homicides -- both by about half in that period. Stranger and criminal-association homicide rates have remained relatively consistent (both would include gang homicides, since a signficiant proportion of gang-related homicides in Toronto, e.g., have been bystanders shot either "accidentally" or intentionally, and also by mistaken identity).

But for those footnotes, you may have to sort out the Robert Pickford murders -- the Downtown East Side murders of women over several years, counted in stats much later than the occurrences. Statcan should supply appropriate footnotes, I imagine. Google statcan daily homicide for the years 2000 to 2003 or so, and the info should be there.

Have fun!

[maxidivine]

54. hahahaha oh boy

"Six in ten homicides motivated by anger and despair

As determined by police, the most common motive for committing homicide in 1999 was an argument, quarrel or incident inciting a vengeful or jealous reaction or an act of despair (57% of all homicides). Another 20% were motivated by financial gain or settling of accounts. Six percent of homicides had no apparent motive, and in 13% of cases the motive was unknown. There were three “random” killings in 1999 and no homicides motivated by hate. Between 1991 and 1998 there were 13 homicides that were motivated by hate or bigotry, an average of less than two per year."

No homicides motivated by hate? How nice, in Canada you do not have to hate the people you premeditatedly murder.

[iverglas]

55. here's a suggestion

Take your wit over to a forum here for discussion GLBT or African-American or Muslim concerns, and ask for their input on the question of hate-motivated homicide and your clever response to the issue.


edit:

I would just add, for those actually concerned about the issue, that it would have been appropriate for Statcan to note there that while the Air India bombing is not counted in homicide stats for other reasons, it did arguably account for 329 hate-motivated murders.

Or I guess there should be a separate category for terror-motivated murders, since that's what they were.

[maxidivine]

57. since when has hate NOT been a factor in murder?

I'm sure you feel warm and fuzzy about your Canadian murderers because they didn't kill for hate related reasons :eyes:

The poor misunderstood murderers, they didn't hate anyone, they just murdered people to get their drugs, or to clear out competition so their crackshack gets more business, or because that no-good home-owner surprised them while they were burgling the house. Not their fault, some big mean gunowning male or collaborating female made them commit those crimes by forcing them to steal a gun from them.

[iverglas]

64. well, I'd thought better of it ...

I had started to ask you to explain the hate felt by the gang members shooting it out on Yonge Street for Jane Creba, the high school student they killed. I'm pretty sure they'd never heard of her, and in fact didn't even see her until she walked straight into their crossfire. Why did they hate Jane Creba?

Why did the gang members who killed 11-year-old Ephraim Brown outside his apartment building where he'd been at a birthday party hate him?

Why did the guy with the legally-owned handgun who killed James O'Keefe in March as he stood on the sidewalk on Yonge Street hate him? Again, I'm pretty sure he'd never heard of him and likely didn't see him before he shot him.

Why did the guy who killed the recently widowed woman on her first night out at a club since her husband's death, when he fired bullets across the room, hate her?

Why did Hell's Angel hitman who killed a man and his son at a gas station in Quebec, having mistaken their vehicle for the one belonging to the guy he'd been hired to kill, hate them?

Why did the Hell's Angels hate the kid who died when they blew up a car on the streets of Montreal?

Funny thing about guns, and of course bombs. They make it so easy to kill people you've never met, never even heard of, and really and truly just don't hate, eh?


Now, if you want to keep pretending that "hate or bigotry" doesn't mean something, feel free. You may think you're being witty, but you just look witless.

[iverglas]

69. have a word with your gummint, do

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html

"Hate Crime Statistics, 2006"

[krispos42]

56. Okay, thanks

I looked around on the most recent Homicide report on StatCan but only found partial, selective homicide rates (this year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, IIRC).

This is good. I'll work on it at some point, probably over the weekend. It'll make the chart more complicated, but that's okay.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Here let me help explain it for you.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

This is a precise grammatical parallel of the 2nd. Taking away the word Militia, which that author isn't apparently familiar with, does this still seem 'poorly worded'?

[Xela]

5. Excellent point

Agree wholeheartedly.

Regards,

Xela

[gorfle]

11. Generally, no.

While there appears to be a direct correlation between gun-ownership rates and the number of gun-related deaths, predictably, opponents of gun control question the validity of the statistics and the lessons to be learned from them, and they carefully arrange the numbers in such a manner as to suggest that no causal relationship exists. Figures can't lie, but liars can figure.

While I find the statistics actually are enlightening, and demonstrate that here in the United States the overwhelming majority of firearm owners do not engage in crime, the fact of the matter is the fundamental reason for the right to bear arms has nothing to do with crimes committed with firearms.

Either you believe that a people should be armed to protect themselves against oppression or you do not. If you believe that a people should be armed to protect themselves against oppression, it no longer matters what other ill deeds may or may not be done with firearms - this has no bearing on the original premise of firearm ownership.

Anti-gun folks are quick to point at the mayhem caused by a few firearm owners and hold it up as a reason to ban or restrict firearm ownership. Pro-gun folks understand that this is simply a tragic consequence of an armed populace - but does not eliminate the logic behind having and armed populace.

Anti-gun folks would throw the freedom baby out with the crime bathwater. Pro-gun folks understand that we cannot and should not trade essential liberties for temporary safety.

[depakid]

13. "a people should be armed to protect themselves against oppression"

Classic American exceptionalism and paranoia.

Oddly enough, Canadians and Australians- while having very similar backgrounds and frontier histories, never developed an obsession with firearms.

I find that fascinating.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. That's a fairly untrue blanket statement.

I know many Canadians, and at least two native Australians that not only like firearms, they still own them, despite oppressive regulation.

What exactly is your definition of 'obsession'?

[iverglas]

15. and for you

In reply to: "Canadians and Australians- while having very similar backgrounds and frontier histories, never developed an obsession with firearms"

you say:

I know many Canadians, and at least two native Australians that not only like firearms, they still own them

I'm not seeing any conflict between the two statements. Where do you see it?


What exactly is your definition of 'obsession'?

How about: what exactly is your definition of "oppressive regulation"? and the basis on which you apply it, however you define it, to Canada and Australia is ...?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Conflict

I'm not seeing any conflict between the two statements. Where do you see it?

A clear understanding of what that poster meant by "obsessive". Also I take issue with 'never developed' because Australian citizens DID own very similar weapons to Americans until about.. what late 90's? They have Civil Marksmanship, which is analogous to the ORIGINAL intent of the NRA, many on-again-off-again bans throughout the last century, etc. They have at some point been allowed to, and had widespread ownership of the same weapons we debate here in the US, including center-fire semi-automatic rifles sometimes labeled by some parties as 'assault weapons'.

I'm of course questioning it based on my own personal definition of 'obsessive', because the OP has not offered theirs.

How about: what exactly is your definition of "oppressive regulation"? and the basis on which you apply it, however you define it, to Canada and Australia is ...?

I asked first, however, I can approach this two ways, either listing the regulations that I think are appropriate, and or would like to see added here, or I can give examples of what I think is excessive on their books.

To give one example of what I think is excessive there:

Category H weapons, for handguns, you can purchase handguns of .38 caliber or less. .40, .45 etc, are only allowed for certain 'approved' target purposes.

I see no useful purpose for this restriction.

[iverglas]

27. yeah, it would just be pointless, wouldn't it?

You'd refuse to acknowledge that there is nothing remotely similar, in the collective Australian attitude toward firearms, to the USAmerican collective attitude toward firearms, and never has been. And you'd just reject the application of the term "obsessive" to the USAmerican collective attitude, no matter how plainly it was demonstrated.

And then you'd say that prohibiting the keeping (and carrying, I assume) of handguns is "oppressive", no matter how bizarre that characterization is.

And you'd ignore the fact that the US is so blatantly obviously the outlier in every regard in this matter, except for when you felt like saying that was because the US is RIGHT and everybody else is WRONG. And it wouldn't matter to you that outside your borders people have health care and freedom to marry and effective voting rights and all the other good stuff that you don't have, 'cause you've got your guns and we don't, even though we're not remotely interested.

It's just so funny. In Canada, it's the extreme right-wing minority that wants to get rid of universal health care and same-sex marriage and bring back capital punishment (as opposed to allowing inmates to vote, which we do) ... and get rid of those oppressive firearms controls.

Oh, wait. It's the same in the US, except that they've won there.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Well explain to me the cutoff at a .38

This weapon can kill a human. A .45 is more reliable in that regard, but that's it.


I do carry concealed pistols. I have a license for it. The government keeps my fingerprints, and other assorted data on file in exchange for that permit. Police officers know I have the permit as soon as they run my identity. If your restrictions were implemented here I would certainly consider it oppressive. Clearly many Canadians consider it oppressive too, and not just hard-core right wingers.

Lumping in people in Canada who oppose same-sex marriage, support capital punishment, etc, is association fallacy.

[iverglas]

35. well I tried ...

There was a discussion here sometime in the not too distant past about some guy in British Columbia, I think it was, who was convicted in connection with a firearm that fell outside the parameters. It was some complicated thing having to do with a WWII German pistol and how to measure it and if I could remember it, I could find it. But I tried, and tried, and I can't.

Maybe somebody else here remembers better and can find it?

It has to do with what firearms are recognized for international competition, as I recall.



Lumping in people in Canada who oppose same-sex marriage, support capital punishment, etc, is association fallacy.

Actually, it's one of those bizarre coincidence things. I mean, unless maybe it isn't coincidence at all, eh?

There is very little overlap between the two sets:

The first:
- support equal marriage rights
- support existing universal health care system
- support reproductive rights
- oppose capital punishment

The second:
- oppose existing firearms legislation/regulations

They are virtually mutually exclusive. I mean, some in the second set might be on board with one or two of the first set positions, but, generally, they're just non-overlapping sets. Where you might see overlap is in western NDP voters, who are basically yahoos but are economically left, thus support universal health care, e.g. Socially, they're right-wing, which is why Svend Robinson, an out gay man committed to all progressive ideals, was defeated as leader of the party and we got stuck with a non-leader for the next several years.

And the situation isn't really any different in the US. The blue-collar gun-lovin' crowd, them as hasn't completely drunk the koolaid, are economically left, but socially as right-wing as any Republican.

In both places, the economically left positions are really just reflections of the same self-interested motivations as the firearms policy positions are. In both places, the opposition to policies that reflect the values of equality and diversity -- that reflect respect for the dignity and worth of other people and concern for other people's well-being -- are rejected by that group.

So, no association fallacy at all. An observation of a phenomenon for which there is a very clear explanation.

[depakid]

16. "Oppressive" regulation?

:rofl:

Protecting society from senseless and preventable gun violence and, consequently, the world's largest and most expensive prison system is oppressive?

Yes, with a proper shooter's license one can own hunting rifles and shotguns (and target pistols)- but (at least in Oz) NOT high capacity handguns or rifles, pump action shotguns or assault weapons. And they must be securely stored.

My definition of obsession? Feeling the need or compulsion to own any of the latter things- along with the notion that one's right to do so should be unfettered by most any responsible regulations.

I'd probably make an exception for bona fide collectors (who are very few in the scheme of things) but I also understand the difficulties in implementing such a policy.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Well

Any hunting weapon for game much bigger than a dingo can reliably kill a human. I own a FN-FAL, like the one used in your Port Aurthur massacre. (Mine was purchased legally, that murderer did not) I don't consider this weapon 'excessive'. I use it for target shooting, will soon use it for hunting, as the .308 round is excellent for taking Deer and Elk, and I also own it for historical purposes.

To purchase the weapon, I had to submit to a background check, and there is a transfer on record at the point of sale. I think that's quite enough. (My state does report any involuntary confinement due to mental heath issues, which disqualifies from purchasing firearms).

Storage is my responsibility. I am not interested in subsidizing the cost of the rinky-dink trigger locks they want to require, as I was able to remove one with a rock one time I forgot to bring the key with me.

[depakid]

32. " I am not interested in subsidizing the cost of the rinky-dink trigger locks"

Trigger locks are meant to prevent children and adolescents from being involved in accidental shootings- which people in the states hear about far too often.

Like this one I drew from a recent list:

A sixteen year old boy is recovering at a Pierre hospital after he was accidentally shot by a friend.

Authorities say two sixteen-year-old boys were were taking pictures of each other holding guns when the pistol accidentally went off.

One of the boys was shot in the abdomen.

http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=10120

That a determined person can bust one off with a rock is pretty well irrelevant to that consideration.

Also: since the Port Arthur incident and the 1990's gun buyback & regulations, there have been NO mass shootings in Australia. Contrast that with the states, where- depending on one's definitions, there are at least several per year -or per month -or even every couple of weeks.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. That wasn't an accident.

That was negligence. You see, I put blame where it belongs. Not on the gun, but on the mammal that aimed it at another human and pulled the trigger. And since when are two 16 year olds not resourceful enough to remove a trigger lock, even if it's just to take 'cool pictures' holding it?

Seriously. A rock.

Anyway, if their parents weren't responsible enough to secure the weapon, what makes you think they are responsible enough to install the trigger lock? Maybe they had a trigger lock, and just didn't put it on? I'm willing to explore penalties for people who allow their firearms to fall into criminal hands. It would be a difficult fight here, because in the US we are used to blaming the criminal, not the victim, but I think something SHOULD be done in this regard.


Your mass shootings are down, however, correlation is not causation. Several of your mass shootings were crossfire between two groups of organized crime.. So really, you've been lucky, for the most part. Homicidal nutbags aside. Also, you exaggerate the frequency of 'mass shootings' in the US, though I will admit if you slap ours and yours together on a graph, ours would be massively higher. I can cherry pick forms of crime that are much higher in your country, so to each his own. In fact, for total crime victimization, the US, Canada, and Australia are literally right next to each other on the list, each within each other nation's margin of error. Congrats neighbor, you're just like us, in the grand scheme of things. (I use 'neighbor' in a relative way)
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/publications.php

[iverglas]

37. this kind of thing does you no service

That was negligence. You see, I put blame where it belongs. Not on the gun, but on the mammal that aimed it at another human and pulled the trigger.

You seem to have missed the point somehow.

A 16-year-old is dead.

A 16-year-old who would be alive if someone had not allowed him access to firearms, or if, despite best efforts, there had been a trigger lock on the firearm.

You're right about one thing, though. You folks sure do love to finger-point and blame. It's something I've been saying for years and years. It stretches all the way from the Puritans to Jerry Springer. It's beyond being a national pastime. It's a national religion.

There's a problem illustrated by the fact that a 16-year-old is dead. I mean, really, even you folks would agree there's some problem here, if a 16-year-old is dead, eh?

So what shall we do? All stand in a circle and point fingers. At the parents, at the kids, it doesn't really matter, as long as it keeps everybody's gaze away from the elephant in the room. The body. The dead 16-year-old.

If parents aren't "responsible" enough to keep their kids out of harm's way, then we often step in and do it for them. Or we at least apply consequences for failing to be "responsible", in the hope that fear of consequences will deter unacceptable behaviour. If tacking five years onto a sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a crime is supposed to deter criminals from using firearms, why would legislating a five-year sentence for allowing a child access to a firearm not deter at least some parents from doing it? Not just if a kid shoots somebody or him/herself. If the firearm is accessible to the kid, period.

You want to spend your time and energy assigning blame. Many people find that just kind of pointless, when they're looking at a dead 16-year-old. Or five-year-old, or two-year-old, as we have seen here recently. Many people think that tackling the problem that led to that death, and thus reducing the risk of more such deaths, would just be a really smart and, y'know, moral thing to do.

But then, it might involve them agreeing to forego some of that precious liberty. Liberty that a rational person not only would not regard as essential, but would regard as trivial. In fact, would regard the interference in liberty as being in the nature of a very minor inconvenience.

And this is just one more of the kinds of things that make it apparent that there's just something else going on. Because really, no rational, decent person would put his/her convenience above the lives of other people, of any age, on the scale of what is important and valuable and worthy of fighting to protect.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. What?

He didn't die. Shot != Dead. He is still alive.


In any case, I understand your core point, other kids have died in this manner, but the one that pulled the trigger is responsible. The owner of the firearm shares some of the blame. The reason we hold people responsible for their actions is to reduce recurrence, and discourage others.

Taking away all guns MIGHT prevent this sort of thing, but kids do stupid stunts all the time. Shall we take away all cars since some teenagers do irresponsible things with automobiles, and kill people? No, we train them best we can to be responsible, do the right thing. Do we do that with guns? Hell no. We buy them games that glorify violence and irresponsible behavior, and we close firearms and archery classes in public schools that at least had a chance to equip those kids with the correct attitudes and safety rules towards firearms and other weapons.

My High School had it's own gun range. Used to have a class, it taught firearms safety, and marksmanship. We never once had a school shooting. Never, in the nearly 100 year history of the school. The range and the class is closed now. No more safety training. Gone. I can't imagine why some young adults act so terribly irresponsible when we equip them with the knowledge they need for the world. :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

40. let's pretend

Let's pretend we're talking about the five-year-old who did kill her little brother recently.

Point that finger. That damned negligent five-year-old.


but the one that pulled the trigger is responsible.

WHO THE FUCK CARES??? Someone is DEAD. A human being. A human being who doesn't give a shit how big a finger you point at the person who did it, s/he is DEAD.

What do you imagine you are accomplishing by assigning blame, regardless of whom you assign it to?

Do retail outlets where you are just wait until someone drops the item they're shoplifting and then nab them? Or do they install electronic detectors and video cameras, and lock up the valuable stuff, and control access/egress routes?

If all that mattered was assigning blame for shoplifting, they wouldn't bother with any of that expense. They seem to think preventing shoplifting is a good idea.

You dont' seem to think preventing DEATHS is a good idea.

Is WalMart more moral than you??


Taking away all guns MIGHT prevent this sort of thing, but kids do stupid stunts all the time. Shall we take away all cars since some teenagers do irresponsible things with automobiles, and kill people?

Well pardner, let me just get all that straw out of my nose, and we'll try to start over here.

If you're hearing somebody talking about "taking away all guns", I think you may be having problems that require medication.

My post was about making and enforcing rules about allowing access to firearms by children. Were you meaning to say something about that, and just got sidetracked by the voices?

C'mon. This is appalling.


No, we train them best we can to be responsible, do the right thing. Do we do that with guns? Hell no. We buy them games that glorify violence and irresponsible behavior

Well, maybe you do. I don't. Should you be looking inward?

I don't know about where you're at, but where I'm at we don't teach children how to drive. We allow people who have reached the legal age to begin driving to take driving lessons. If they pass a test, lessons or no, we allow them to drive under very strict conditions (like zero blood alcohol, certain times of day only, etc.) for a period of time. Then they get some of the conditions lifted for another period of time, and then they get the whole hog.

And if they violate any of the conditions of a driver's licence, they, like everybody else, does so in full view of the public and the relevant authorities. They're not doing it in the rec room where nobody can see, and their car isn't invisibly tucked down their pants when they go out in it.

If they're not planning to drive, they don't bother with any of it. I didn't get a driver's licence until I was 27, and my partner has never had one.

How does this translate into teaching children how to use firearms? Not at all, as far as I can see.


The range and the class is closed now. No more safety training. Gone. I can't imagine why some young adults act so terribly irresponsible when we equip them with the knowledge they need for the world.
:sarcasm:

You folks have a really weird idea of what "sarcasm" means, you do. It seems to mean, in your mind, that you can invent some loony thing and say it as if it were coming from somebody else's mouth and you're pretending to believe it, to highlight how loony it is. The problem is, it usually is loony, and nobody has ever said it, so it always just sounds like Yeah, eating brocolli is really gonna make your toenails grow. The reading public is left thinking:
:wtf:

And that's exactly what I'm left thinking here.

[gorfle]

45. Preventing deaths.

You dont' seem to think preventing DEATHS is a good idea.

Preventing deaths is a great idea. So long as such preventative measures do not restrict the right to keep and bear arms as our founding fathers intended.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. People die.

Happens every day. Sucks. We do what we can. The number of kids that die in accidents in this country to guns, versus all other accidental causes is pretty miniscule. It's a bad thing. Sure. But there are much worse and more prevalent dangers out there to be worried about.

Perhaps you missed something I posted two levels up.

"Anyway, if their parents weren't responsible enough to secure the weapon, what makes you think they are responsible enough to install the trigger lock? Maybe they had a trigger lock, and just didn't put it on? I'm willing to explore penalties for people who allow their firearms to fall into criminal hands. It would be a difficult fight here, because in the US we are used to blaming the criminal, not the victim, but I think something SHOULD be done in this regard."

You ignored that, so I assumed the next level of control, which is pretty much prohibition. If that's not your position, I apologize, and ask what exactly your position is.

Edit: I think you just clarified your position in a post above. I will refrain from assuming you wish to prohibit. I think I understand where you are coming from now.

[gorfle]

44. Oh, the poor, poor 16 year olds.

There's a problem illustrated by the fact that a 16-year-old is dead. I mean, really, even you folks would agree there's some problem here, if a 16-year-old is dead, eh?

So what shall we do? All stand in a circle and point fingers. At the parents, at the kids, it doesn't really matter, as long as it keeps everybody's gaze away from the elephant in the room. The body. The dead 16-year-old.

How many children die from firearms each year again? How many firearm owners are there again?

Problem? I don't think so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Reading comprehension would do you some service.

Where do you get dead out of this statement?

A sixteen year old boy is recovering at a Pierre hospital after he was accidentally shot by a friend.

Feel free to go on with your pointless rant though, as you have stated before facts aren't important.

David

[iverglas]

65. yes, yes, yes; I know

It only counts if somebody's dead. If somebody gets shot and isn't dead, it doesn't count.

I'll remember that. I promise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. I would certainly hope so.

You aren't that old, your memory should be good enough to hang on to that tidbit.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. One problem and it's a huge one for you.

The restrictions you list have never been shown to protect society from senseless and preventable gun violence.

David

[iverglas]

68. wah wah wah

Cover those ears.

Homicide rate in Canada 2007: 2.0/100,000




Introduction of new firearms legislation/regulations: 1975, 1993.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080220/d080220b.htm

2006

The 2006 rate of violent crime involving the use of firearms in Canada remained stable for the fourth consecutive year, according to a new study examining trends in gun violence.

Canadian police services reported just over 8,100 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide, accounting for 2.4% of all victims of violence. Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

Violent crimes were more often committed with other types of weapons than guns. Knives accounted for 6.2% of violent victimizations and clubs or other blunt instruments were used against 3.0% of victims.

Police-reported data showed that among young people, the use of guns in violent crime is increasing. The rate of youth aged 12 to 17 accused of a firearm-related offence has risen in three of the past four years, increasing 32% since 2002. The overall firearm-related crime rates for youth were driven primarily by robberies.

In 2006, 1,287 young people were accused of a violent offence in which a gun was used. They accounted for 2.8% of all youth accused of violence; in contrast, 1.8% of adults accused of a violent offence had used a firearm.

For comparison:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

In 2006, firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the Nations murders, in 42.2 percent of the robbery offenses, and in 21.9 percent of the aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.)

Who would even consider the possibility of cause and effect?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. That's funny I thought we were talking about the United States.

Why not put up the stats for DC and Chicago and compare those cities to Anchorage, Alaska where guns are prevelant? That would be almost as fair as comparing two different countries. I could put up the stats about decreased crime in states which allow concealed carry for the law abiding citizen, but you would just ignore it. So you consider the cause and effect of that and I'll just sit here and drool over my new assault rifle, like the blood thirsty obsessed gun nut that I am.

David

[iverglas]

84. try to follow along, now

Your statement:

The restrictions you list have never been shown to protect society from senseless and preventable gun violence.

Maybe the voice in your head was talking about the United States. You don't appear to have been listening.


Why not put up the stats for DC and Chicago and compare those cities to Anchorage, Alaska where guns are prevelant?

I don't know. Why not put up the stats for Canada and Australia compare them to the US, where guns are prevalent?

I didn't do either, of course. I provided a meaningful comparison showing changes over time in a single society where various factors changed, one of those factors being the legislation/regulations governing firearms possession.


Just for you:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/akcrime.htm

US homicide rate 2006: 5.7/100,000
Illinois homicide rate 2006: 6.1/100,000
Alaska homicide rate 2006: 5.4/100,000

Huh.

And here's a rather particulalry interesting one:

US forcible rape rate 2006: 30.9/100,000
Illinois forcible rape rate 2006: 31.8/100,000
Alaska forcible rape rate 2006: 76.0/100,000

Huh. Surely the women in Alaska have gunz too ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. You do realize that Canada and the United States have different histories right?

I never said anything about comparing the states of Illinois and Alaska, nice try though.

David

[iverglas]

91. you do realize that has zip to do with zilch, right?

depakid's statement:

Yes, with a proper shooter's license one can own hunting rifles and shotguns (and target pistols)- but (at least in Oz) NOT high capacity handguns or rifles, pump action shotguns or assault weapons. And they must be securely stored.

Your reply:

The restrictions you list have never been shown to protect society from senseless and preventable gun violence.

My reply:

Data showing that in Canada, a sharp decline in homicide rates has accompanied increasingly stringent legislation/regulations of the type described by depakid. (Declines in other types of "senseless and preventable gun violence", like accidental deaths/injuries by firearm and robberies by firearm, also occurred.)

Your subsequent claim:

That's funny I thought we were talking about the United States.

Your problem:

We weren't.

The restrictions depakid cited have never applied in the United States, and depakid referred specifically to Australia.

So I have no clue what would have inspired you to say you thought we were talking about the Untied States.

However, they do, generally speaking, apply in Canada.

And if you think anybody with a brain would consider data from a small jurisdiction like a city within the sea of firearms that is the US as indicative of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any measures at preventing firearms violence, you're wrong.

But perhaps I could just remind you of this other recent exchange:

Me:

If banning crime doesn't work, why bother?

You:

So we can punish those who perpetrate it.

Me:

Fuckin' duh.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. I would say the histories and the relative number of guns in each society make quite a difference.

Maybe not, you usually argue differently though.

David

[maxidivine]

106. I love my "assault" rifle

CMMG 16" M4 profile. Really happy with it.

[gorfle]

17. "Classic American exceptionalism and paranoia."

Classic American exceptionalism and paranoia.

Oddly enough, Canadians and Australians- while having very similar backgrounds and frontier histories, never developed an obsession with firearms.

I find that fascinating.

The facts of the matter are these:

1) Our founding fathers distrusted a powerful centralized government and codified a form of government that decentralized its military power and put it into the hands of the people. This was done to deny a tyrannical centralized government the means to enforce a tyranny by force of arms.

2) All of us, from the people of civilized nations to the savage ones, live at the mercy of those who govern us. The question is, what do you do if your government ceases to be a benevolent entity? Our founding fathers' answer to that question was to insure that the people always had the means to violently resist such an entity.

Whether this is "classic", "American", "exceptionalism", or "paranoia", these are facts.

In my opinion, anyone who trusts that the ballot box will forever more be sufficient to protect their liberties is naive.

[depakid]

18. I guess Canadians, Australians, Britons, New Zealanders, et al. are naive

But hey, they have universal healthcare, so maybe they feel somewhat more secure than Americans, many of whom end up bankrupt if a family member is ill or injured, even if they have insurance.

(Another bit of exceptionalism there).

[gorfle]

20. Indeed they are.

I guess Canadians, Australians, Britons, New Zealanders, et al. are naive

Indeed they are. No nation in recorded history has survived forever. It is ludicrous to believe that somehow one's own government has reached the pinnacle of benign governance and will forevermore be beholden to the will of its people.

Our founding fathers, people far wiser than you or I - people who fought and sacrificed and forged a new nation - thought the same thing. They feared that even the nation that they created, with all its checks and balances, might someday be brought low by the forces of tyranny, and sought to preserve recourse for the people in that eventuality. In my opinion, people who shrug off this eventuality are indeed naive.

[iverglas]

28. hey gorfle

If banning crime doesn't work, why bother?

[gorfle]

42. Sheesh.

If banning crime doesn't work, why bother?

So that those who commit crimes can be prosecuted. Doesn't stop crime though, does it?

[iverglas]

79. a good student

If banning guns works, why not just ban crime?

If banning crime doesn't work, why bother?

So that those who commit crimes can be prosecuted. Doesn't stop crime though, does it?


Who said it did?

[gorfle]

100. Glad we agree. n/t.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. So we can punish those who perpetrate it.

Not a difficult concept.


David

[iverglas]

71. and here is where I say:

fuckin duh


Now see whether you can figure it out.

Hint, since you may not know what we're talking about: read gorfle's sig line.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Nothing to figure out I just answered your question.

I thought it was kind of a silly question, but even silly questions deserve answers. After all we wouldn't want anyone to be misinformed.

David

[DrCory]

22. Ummm...Relevance? N/T

[WWFZD]

108. Wait, wait, wait,

I love these.

"The Right to Bear Arms: A View from Canada"

And another; "The right to use Windows Vista: A view from that recently discovered aboriginal tribe in the remotest Amazon whose members emerged from grass huts in red war paint and shook fists and shot arrows at the overflying plane."

[iverglas]

109. I love these too!

Let me help!

"The right to free speech: the right of ignorant right-wing bigots everywhere to spew their ignorant right-wing bigotry anywhere and anytime!"

And hey, you'll defend their right to do that to the death, right?

[WWFZD]

112. ?

"Let me help!
"The right to free speech: the right of ignorant right-wing bigots everywhere to spew their ignorant right-wing bigotry anywhere and anytime!"
And hey, you'll defend their right to do that to the death, right?"


How very odd. A question regarding death, rights and defense in response to;

I love these.
"The Right to Bear Arms: A View from Canada"
And another; "The right to use Windows Vista: A view from that recently discovered aboriginal tribe in the remotest Amazon whose members emerged from grass huts in red war paint and shook fists and shot arrows at the overflying plane."

But I still think that you, like I, will defend to the death the right of cats to chase string, right? :)