Liberals want Handgun Ban

[midgetcop]

Really?  What is "senseless" killing?  How does a gun make it *far* easier?  Is senseless based on a matter of distance?  Handguns aren't that effective from anything but a very close range and the human
body is quite fragile.  I would think that it would be *far* easier for me to acquire a knife for a couple of bucks at a hardware store and stick it between somebodies ribs to kill them.

Are you just making stuff up for the sake of posting here?

Are you freakin kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??

Let's take for example a shooting that happened in Mississauga as Square One Shopping Mall, where the driver of an SUV was gunned down while parked outside the front entrance. Now, please explain to me how easily that could have happened WITHOUT the firearm in the same scenario.

Maybe it's different in Vancouver, but a LOT of hits out here have been specifically targeted.

Don't make an appeal to authority to cover up for your shitty argument.  I've lived in right in the heart of Vancouver and have seen a guy gunned down right below my window, so I don't need a lecture on how big-city folks know everything.  As I said above, if guns make homicide easier, prove it; logically, your statement doesn't hold any water.  The crimes we are dealing with are not "hits" by cold-killers with assault rifles, they are outbreaks of violence that occur between groups of young men at point-blank range.  This is all covered in Ghiglieri's research.

You sensationalizing and are guilty of the points that R0B just pointed out.  If you look up the statistics on stabbings, beatings, and petty robbery, you'll find a greater number of crimes and more victims and innocent bystanders.  Let it sink in - it is not how these acts are being committed, rather it is who is doing them and for what reasons.

You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno.

I know that it has a multitide of factors. You're trying to pidgeonhole me into an extreme to further your opinion, but it's not going to work.

You're using me as a scapegoat to show off your quotes and research in regards to this topic.

I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by. That has nothing to do with my opinions of those individuals who are themselves committing these offences. 

 

[Slim]

Are you just making stuff up for the sake of posting here?


Are you freakin kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??

I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance

I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by.

Sorry..I don't buy that. How many times have we heard about people being hurt with knives, bottle and whatever else people can get their hands on!

 

[midgetcop]

I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance


Sorry..I don't buy that. How many times have we heard about people being hurt with knives, bottle and whatever else people can get their hands on!

Oh dear lord!

Of course they get hurt by knives, bottles, and etc!

But try working in a city housing complex where youths shoot their new gun through the stairwell in order to impress their girlfriend....

...imagine young males shooting their new handgun into the bushes on the first floor of their bldg. in order to test it....

...imagine shooting and killing another tenant for a reason you don't understand and being in the middle of it...

.. imagine shooting and paralyzing an innocent whilst trying to kill another...

(all *true* situations purely through experience)

Try working in this situation and then trying to make sense of it.  Yes, thank GOD these people are a crappy shot, but does that mean we shouldn't try and take the guns out of THEIR HANDS??

Do we not want to keep the guns in the hand so of the LAWFUL??

For the LAST TIME, I'm not trying to say that guns are THE ONE AND ONLY ENEMY, but they ARE worth trying to stop, in terms of illegal handguns.

 

[Slim]

Of course we should...But now you're doing the same things that the Libs do when they say take the legal guns away and the illigal ones will soon follow.

That is a load of crap! All the Libs are doing is law-abiding citizens guns away. Cause if they were'nt law abiding the law wouldn't know about their guns in the first place.

 

[Infanteer]

Are you freaking kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance??

I'm trained to use a handgun as part of my profession.  Trust me, they are not that effective unless someone is really good with them (which most criminals are not)

Let's take for example a shooting that happened in Mississauga as Square One Shopping Mall, where the driver of an SUV was gunned down while parked outside the front entrance. Now, please explain to me how easily that could have happened WITHOUT the firearm in the same scenario.

Well, if you want to pull anecdotes out (I just ripped this one off google):

http://www.alternatives.com/crime/vvannedhHTML|_

It is just as easy to pull the guy out, stab him 54 times, and throw him into a ditch.

You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno.

I know that it has a multitide of factors. You're trying to ppigeonholeme into an extreme to further your opinion, but it's not going to work.

You're using me as a scapegoat to show off your quotes and research in regards to this topic.

Again, if you read the thread, you'll see that I specifically say that this is a gang problem with socio-economic ties.  As I pointed out, Ghiglieri's research into male violence shows why young, urban males in certain circumstances tend to have homicide rates approaching those of the most violent societies on the planet.  Targeting guns is really irrelevant to addressing this problem, as the root causes can just as easily allow these individuals to pick up a knife, bat, or simply use their fists.  Gang-members kill eachother for reasons; I can assure you they do not say "Gee, look at this gun I've got; maybe I should go kill someone".

I said that illegal guns made it easier for gangs to commit murder and harm innocent bystanders, and that is what I stand by.

...and I've stated that this is simply a poor argument.  Unless you're going to give me anything else besides your SWAG, then quit wasting bandwidth.

 

[48Highlander]

I teach people to shoot handguns...Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance

???

I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.  Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.

 

[midgetcop]

I'm trained to use a handgun as part of my profession.  Trust me, they are not that effective unless someone is really good with them (which most criminals are not)

Well, if you want to pull anecdotes out (I just ripped this one off google):

http://www.alternatives.com/crime/vvannedhHTML|_

It is just as easy to pull the guy out, stab him 54 times, and throw him into a ditch.

Again, if you read the thread, you'll see that I specifically say that this is a gang problem with socio-economic ties.  As I pointed out, Ghiglieri's research into male violence shows why young, urban males in certain circumstances tend to have homicide rates approaching those of the most violent societies on the planet.  Targeting guns is really irrelevant to addressing this problem, as the root causes can just as easily allow these individuals to pick up a knife, bat, or simply use their fists.  Gang-members kill eachother for reasons; I can assure you they do not say "Gee, look at this gun I've got; maybe I should go kill someone".

...and I've stated that this is simply a poor argument.  Unless you're going to give me anything else besides your SWAG, then quit wasting bandwidth.

You're ignoring every single mention I've made where I've said "guns are making it easier, but these guys are still bad".

Nor have I *ever* said that these guys would commit these crimes only if they had a gun.

 

[Slim]

???

I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.   Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.

Yes, thanks very much for your well-informed point. Pardon me if I have trouble believing that as most reservists I know can't shoot properly with a rifle that has optical sights, never mind a Browning Hi-Power pistol.

Also, the fig 11 target is a rather large target and although not easy to score on quite easy to hit.

I teach bank and security guards, as well as select members of the CF how to use handguns and shotguns week in and week out.

How often do you run your DPS-whatever course?

I have also shot CFSAC and been the top first year comptetitor the year that I competed.

So don't start boy.

 

[Infanteer]

???

I don't know man...I don't have your experience with teaching people to shoot handguns, but the last time I instructed on a DP2A course, every individual was able to effectively engage a figure 11 from up to 25 meters.   Granted most of them only got half the rounds on target at that range, but one round out of two still does the job, and at 12 meters almost every round was on target.

That's close range as far as I'm concerned.  You can see the whites of their eyes.  I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.

 

[midgetcop]

...and I've stated that this is simply a poor argument.  Unless you're going to give me anything else besides your SWAG, then quit wasting bandwidth.

What is your qualification then? How is it a poor argument?

I'm just trying to figure out who get to decide what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" argument.

 

[dutchie]

You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that it has *nothing* to do with handguns, and has everything to do with......what? I dunno.

Can't you just accept that some people are just plain bad, and no matter how many tools you give them or take away, that they will not likely stop being bad?

There are a number of reasons WHY people murder:

psychopathy, paranoid delusions, a psychotic break, sociopathy, a slow degredation of one's consciounce, etc. No where, in any psychological study, will you find access to firearms as a REASON to kill. It is a means, not a reason. Banning the means, without addressing the reason, is misdirected and actually counter-productive as it delays resolution.

 

[The_Falcon]

That's close range as far as I'm concerned.  You can see the whites of their eyes.  I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.

25-30 feet away is the safe distance from someone with a knife.  So thats approx 10-11 metres.

 

[48Highlander]

Yes, thanks very much for your well-informed point. Pardon me if I have trouble believing that as most reservists I know can't shoot properly with a rifle that has optical sights, never mind a Browning Hi-Power pistol.

Also, the fig 11 target is a rather large target and although not easy to score on quite easy to hit.

I teach bank and security guards, as well as select members of the CF how to use handguns and shotguns week in and week out.

How often do you run your DPS-whatever course?

I have also shot CFSAC and been the top first year comptetitor the year that I competed.

So don't start boy.

I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.  You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse shit.  I've run about 5 DP2A's, and while I'm sure my experience comes nowhere near yours, I can tell you for a fact that in order to pass the course you have to pass the 9mm shoot, which involves engaging fig 11's out to 25 meters.  Therefore, the individuals on these courses certainly would be able to "hit anyone at 12 meters".  If your experience has been different, perhaps your students need a lesson on which way the pistol's supposed to point?

That's close range as far as I'm concerned. You can see the whites of their eyes. I think the definition of "lethal range" with a knife was desribed on this thread and was somewhere within those distances.

I agree it's close range, pistols are by their nature a close range weapon.  If Slim were to say that only very good and experienced shooters could hit a target from, say, FIFTY meters, that I would agree with.  But saying most people can't hit something at 12 meters, that's just silly.  Especialy with today's nintendo generation - years of duck-hunt and house-of-the-dead have taught them how to hold and fire a pistol pretty well.

 

[dutchie]

I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.   You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.   I've run about 5 DP2A's, and while I'm sure my experience comes nowhere near yours, I can tell you for a fact that in order to pass the course you have to pass the 9mm shoot, which involves engaging fig 11's out to 25 meters.   Therefore, the individuals on these courses certainly would be able to "hit anyone at 12 meters".   If your experience has been different, perhaps your students need a lesson on which way the pistol's supposed to point?

I agree it's close range, pistols are by their nature a close range weapon.   If Slim were to say that only very good and experienced shooters could hit a target from, say, FIFTY meters, that I would agree with.   But saying most people can't hit something at 12 meters, that's just silly.   Especialy with today's nintendo generation - years of duck-hunt and house-of-the-dead have taught them how to hold and fire a pistol pretty well.

A well made argument completely pissed away by the last line.

Seriously, Duck Hunt? C'mon.

 

[Infanteer]

What is your qualification then? How is it a poor argument?

I'm just trying to figure out who get to decide what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" argument.

Guns certainly make people more effective at killing; this is why I advocate their use in self-defence - it gives you a better chance of putting the threat down.  This is also why we've seen more gang-violence become homicides; guns are simply more effective at putting people down.  However, this in no way makes it *easier* to commit murder and target civilians, which you've asserted.  Violence, especially the wide-spread violence in youth-street gangs (which, as I've stated, is similar in scale and scope to intercine violence seen in hunter/gatherer tribes) does not need a firearm introduced to make it easier or more desirable to commit a violent act.  You take the guns out of gangs (which seems to be a pipedream anyways) and you will not see these guys give up and go home; if they are intent on violence, they'll do so.

It is this intent that efforts must be aimed at, not its execution.

 

[TCBF]

It's the basic premise of Gun Control that I find offensive:  That a 105 pound woman should have to fist-fight her 265 pound rapist.  When Wendy Kukier - et al - say Gun Control is a women's health issue, they are right - it is.

Tom

 

[Slim]

I'm not starting anything pops, simply stating facts.  You said that "Only a very good and expeinced shot can actually hit anyone at 12 meters distance", and that, wether you want to admit it or not, is a load of horse crap.

Is it?

Although a figure 11 target is roughly the same size as the upper three quarters of an average human being the critical areas that need to be hit to put someone down are not.

I have trained senior NCO's (including one from your unit) who have had quite a hard time with accurately shooting an automatic pistol and hitting anything of value with it. And, to be honest, I'm having some trouble believing your data about the ranges at which your students were able to score consecutive hits with a 9mm. Because most people can't...Soldiers or not. If you don't believe me that go ask the person who's name I'm going to PM you what he thought of our course and how well he did.

Also bear in mind that we don't teach people to shoot targets...As the military does. We teach them to survive gunfights. And yes I'me very familier with Dave Grossman's work....You're leaving quite a bit out with that sweeping general statment.

 

[midgetcop]

Guns certainly make people more effective at killing; this is why I advocate their use in self-defence - it gives you a better chance of putting the threat down.  This is also why we've seen more gang-violence become homicides; guns are simply more effective at putting people down.  However, this in no way makes it *easier* to commit murder and target civilians, which you've asserted.  Violence, especially the wide-spread violence in youth-street gangs (which, as I've stated, is similar in scale and scope to intercine violence seen in hunter/gatherer tribes) does not need a firearm introduced to make it easier or more desirable to commit a violent act.  You take the guns out of gangs (which seems to be a pipedream anyways) and you will not see these guys give up and go home; if they are intent on violence, they'll do so.

It is this intent that efforts must be aimed at, not its execution.

You contradict yourself in your statements: first be saying that guns make it easier to kill and admitted that it adds to gang-related murder. And then you go off on some tangent that totally implies the opposite. Huh?

I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population.

You really want to take a look at violence-murder in Toronto? Take a look at how much of has been committed by handgun. And then compare it to recent years.

 

[Slim]

I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population.

So how is a handgun ban going to affect gang-related behaviour when all the guns are coming across the border? Solve the roote problem, instead of whinning votes and leaving the problem to get larger.

See since the LIbs have created a govt of special intrest groups who all whine when the cops do try to do something they know that if they ever really tried to clean the problem up they'd be out of office and called racist and whatever else the groups could be thougt of.

 

[TCBF]

"I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those involved in gang-activity. But easy access to illegal handguns makes their business a heckuva lot easier and more dangerous to the general population."

- We have been registering handguns in Canada since 1934.  Now, if people want to BAN guns from coming into the country illegally, all they have to do is stop all of the gun smuggling at the same place they manage to stop all of the illegal drugs and people from being smuggled in.

I mean, that works, right?

Right?

Er, wait a minute...

Tom