The Great Gun Control Debate

[TCBF]

"agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.  Storage is when your firearms must be secured.  A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.  So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.

Self defense: The public and police are grossly mis-informed about this.  You know the self defense rules we have on operations? They derive from the fact that you are a CITIZEN, not a soldier.  Life is not the WWF, there is no requirement for a fair fight in good vs evil in your home.  Contrary to what the Commie media feeds you us in Canada, self defense is not vigilante justice.  The police - acting in self defence - aim centre of visible/unprotected mass and fire until the threat is no more. So should you.  

We are the police, and the police are us: they defend society, we defend ourselves.  They have full time jobs doing it, we are very occaisional users.  They get nervous, because they feel you are breaking their rice bowls.

There is no requirement to engage an intruder hand to hand in your own home if you have a gun.  If he still keeps coming - fire.  If he is outside and walking away and the holes are in his back- that's murder.  Inside coming at you or those whom you are responsible for: self defense.

"  During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time."

Practice.  The one you let get away, may murder a ten year old girl next month, then how would you feel?


Tom

 

[rw4th]

According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.

I don't recall this study, got a link?

I will however bet that it groups homicides, suicides and accidents into one whole â Å“firearms deathsâ ? category. I have seen similar statistics from Toronto. Once broken down to exclude suicides and accidents, homicides only represented about 15% of the total firearms deaths listed, and this still did not factor out any case of self-defense.

Bottom line again: the â Å“proofâ ? isn't.

I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.   Storage is when your firearms must be secured.   A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.   So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.

Actually he'd fit right in, in Ontario; â Å“improper storageâ ? is the catch-all thing they charge you with whenever they don't like you.

I have repeatedly read through the arguments on site like guncontrol.ca. Their argument can be summed up as â Å“there are people who die from gunshots, so lets ban all gunsâ ?, or â Å“my brother was shot, let's ban all gunsâ ?. Cars and smoking are responsible for many, many more deaths then firearms, yet I see none of them lobbying for stricter driving or smoking laws. The anti-gun lobby consistently makes my point for me that they are fueled by emotion, fear as opposed to any real desire to preserve life.

 

[TCBF]

Suicide is means independant.  Take away guns - the rate stays the same.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

Suicide is means independant.   Take away guns - the rate stays the same.

From what many of the stats posted here say (Grossman, Ghiglieri, Lott), so is crime.

 

[Zipper]

Sigh.

I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?

If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.

The argument that someone properly trained will not use it, but walk away and call the cops...                  ...maybe. I guess that guy who got shot dead outside the courthouse in the States when he tried to confront that assault rifle toting, bullet vest wearing psycho wasn't trained enough? Ah well. Maybe they should all wear bullet proof vest as well?

The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me.

I'll whistle my happy tune and just not worry...

 

[Infanteer]

I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?

Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?

The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me.

I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?

If people feel they need to wear a suit of chain-mail armour around then, just like acquiring a CCW, that is their prerogative.   The point is that, if it does not harm you and others feel they wish to do it, what's your legitimate complaint?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

....this statement contradicts itself......

 

[TCBF]

An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.

Tom

 

[my72jeep]

[

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.


But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?

 

[Zipper]

Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?

Yep. They can do what they wish. I'm just saying I don't understand it myself.

Oh, and do I agree with the gun registry? No. Not the way they do it. Impractical and a waste of time and money.

I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?

Good for you. Used to do the same myself.

Quote,
If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

....this statement contradicts itself......

Simple. Cops own and use guns for work and are in a dangerous line of work. Most people are not.

An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.

Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?

But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?

Well you go right ahead and walk down that poorly lit alley at night, or through that unlit ravine. If all it takes is an extra hundred steps to go around to avoid trouble, then I wonder who the smarter is? In fact, you go in there and encourage your "self-defense" by instigating the whole thing. :

I think its a little something thats called "street smarts"?

 

[TCBF]

"Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?"

Actually, our common law "right" to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of rights of 1689... Trouble is, we, unlike our friends to the south, neglected to put them on paper.  Also, a piece of paper need not exist to "give" you rights - some rights are God given, the paper merely codifies them.

Self defense is not - nor has it ever - been linked with the term "discourage".  And it is not interpreted by the courts (I assume that is who you have interpreting the laws for you) usually as lethal or non lethal, but of that reasonably necessary under the circumstances.  You have the right to use force up to and including lethal force.  The courts strongly support lethal force when necessary, especially in one's home.  "A man's home is his castle."  Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.  Continue to delude yourself if you wish, BUT STOP LEADING OTHERS ASTRAY.

We have lots of rights in Canada, people are too afraid to use them.

Remember, the self defense you practisce before going on tour is not provided to you because you are a soldier, but because you are a CITIZEN.  Any citizen in Canada has the same right to self defense as you do on tour,  including that of lethal force. 

Here is a test:  find the most anti-gun 'hood you know, and go around offering free "No Guns Are In This House" signs.  Think they will put them up to morally support Wendykins and her lot in the Coalition For Gun Control.  Think again.

Tom

 

[Torlyn]

Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.

Perhaps you should read it again, Tom.  IN cases of aggression, it's only valid if:

(a) he uses the force
  (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
  (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

Doesn't sound like you can up and shoot, does it?

As for provocation:

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Now, the fun one.  TOM!!  READ THIS!!!

Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

The caveat?  Every time self defence is necessary, it comes down to the objective test of "ordinary person".  Would an ordinary person, given the same set of stimuli, react in the same way?  Do you have the right to defend yourself?  Yes.  However, the defence can only be equal to the provocation.

When was the last time you sat in a courtroom and had sec. 34 used?  How did the judge react?  By carrying a firearm, you are, in effect, committing yourself to using that as a means of defence, which negates subsection 1 "of the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm".  A firearm isn't built to wound, it's built to kill.  Thus, if you have it, you intend to use said force.  You failed section one right there.  As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.  Follow? Semantics, yes, but semantics are the soul of the law.  Speaking of delusional...  :  However, I don't hear the sound of that closed mind opening even a crack, so I'm sure this was wasted. 

T

 

[Infanteer]

As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.

It's good to know what the book says, but that doesn't always pan out in real life.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a case in Northern BC where 4 youths broke into a store/residence out in a sparsely populated area.   What they were intent on doing is beyond me.   Anyways, they got the old fellow who lived their pretty scared, so he took his shotgun and blasted a kid.   The wound was to the back - the old guy didn't know what they were doing and shot in the dark and it seems that he got one while they were taking off.   I can't find the news story to link because Google doesn't seem to want to find the small town stuff. :-\

Anyways, the crown charged him with manslaughter and he was found not guilty - apparently it is not so easy to crack open the law book to ensure that someone who has already broken into your house is "specifically trying to hurt you" while in the middle of a home invasion.   Bottom line - apparently most people (12 jurors at least) don't buy the way the law is layed down, and perhaps it is time to change it into, as Kevin B alluded to, "a more robust ROE for defence of life and property" to ensure that there are stronger reactive measures to crime in our society.

It seems that the truism that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6 holds ground - common sense will prevail over section and sub-section when someone's home (and thus personal safety) has been violated.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):

Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.

Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.

...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones?  

 

[Torlyn]

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):

...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones? 

Frankly, I got tired of banging my head on a wall.  You've got your study, which you believe, and I have mine, which I believe.  We aren't going to find a common ground, I don't think.  I respect your arguments and what you've written, but nothing's convinced me.  One can only play devil's advocate for so long.  That being said, I think I'll go double-check the lock on my weapons locker.  DOn't want the .45 or .22 getting out on me... 

T

 

[Infanteer]

BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!

PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.

 

[Torlyn]

BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!

PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.

Grrr...  They aren't irrelevent.  You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.  If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.  You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...  Argg!  And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.  dammit, I'm going to sleep.  ^-^

T

 

[Infanteer]

Grrr...   They aren't irrelevent.   You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.   If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.   You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...   Argg!   And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.   dammit, I'm going to sleep.    ^-^

I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.

That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.  

You state that I molded your data to conform to my beliefs - you assert (and I'm assuming that your opposition is grounded upon) that an "increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death."   You never made the attempt to prove to me that the presence of more handguns (assuming CCW will bring more into the country) will lead to an increase in the overall rate of violent crime in Canada.   Will people be inspired to commit offences that they normally wouldn't have now that they are packing heat, or would they simply use a pistol instead of a knife or a shotgun?  Sure handgun offenses will rise with more handguns - but will the overall rate of violent crime?

Did you ever consider that more Americans kill each other (which your stats pointed to) because American society - or at least a significant sub-culture within it - is more violent then that of Canada?   I think the evidence clearly points this out, and yet I've seen nothing to argue against it to date.  

I didn't come into this with any real bias - I have no personal stake in the issue - I'm only applying what the facts seem to support.   I've argued claims and shown (with data) how they fail to point to causality between handguns (or firearms in general) to crime.   All I see in response is obfuscating and claims that "I don't like it".

Ignore me if you want - I guess that is just conceding the match   ^-^.

Sure, it's just a stupid internet thread, but I feel that the basic point that I stated at the top is a valid one and if nobody is willing to dispute it then we can all admit that there is a serious hole in any claim for gun-control.   Get around it, and you can convince me that there is a flaw in my understanding of the issue.

Well, I'm going to unload the Sig under my pillow.

Goodnight   :-*

 

[Zipper]

I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.

That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.  

You state that I molded your data to conform to my beliefs - you assert (and I'm assuming that your opposition is grounded upon) that an "increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death."   You never made the attempt to prove to me that the presence of more handguns (assuming CCW will bring more into the country) will lead to an increase in the overall rate of violent crime in Canada.   Will people be inspired to commit offences that they normally wouldn't have now that they are packing heat, or would they simply use a pistol instead of a knife or a shotgun?   Sure handgun offenses will rise with more handguns - but will the overall rate of violent crime?

Did you ever consider that more Americans kill each other (which your stats pointed to) because American society - or at least a significant sub-culture within it - is more violent then that of Canada?   I think the evidence clearly points this out, and yet I've seen nothing to argue against it to date.  

I think both of you hit something on the head there.

Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!

The Swiss have plenty of access to weapons because their whole society is based on everyone being part of their militia. So the chances of them being trained in said weapons is far higher then us over here or down south.

Also, the Swiss live in a social democratic state that has very little in the way of fear mongering, healthy social programs, etc. As well, the fact that their society has been "neutral" for God knows how long tends to ingrain itself into the Psyche of the people. In other words, they are not as an aggressive a people in general (I'd still hate to attack them though).

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people. The media loves to pump it up as much as possable. As well, being who they are as far as history is concerned and their "American dream", they are a far more aggressive people in general. They also have much less in the way of social programs (its not a void though) and thus those in need of such are not going to get the help they need and are more likely to go postal. So we can say that fear + aggressive nature + access to guns= not a good time.

We up here on the other hand do not have as much of any of those factors and thus are not gunning down whole classrooms.

Simple? Usually.

But it has a point or two.

 

[muskrat89]

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people.

I'm really getting tired of comments like this  :  You live in a dream world

 

[Dare]

I think both of you hit something on the head there.

Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!

The Swiss have plenty of access to weapons because their whole society is based on everyone being part of their militia. So the chances of them being trained in said weapons is far higher then us over here or down south.

Also, the Swiss live in a social democratic state that has very little in the way of fear mongering, healthy social programs, etc. As well, the fact that their society has been "neutral" for God knows how long tends to ingrain itself into the Psyche of the people. In other words, they are not as an aggressive a people in general (I'd still hate to attack them though).

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people. The media loves to pump it up as much as possable. As well, being who they are as far as history is concerned and their "American dream", they are a far more aggressive people in general. They also have much less in the way of social programs (its not a void though) and thus those in need of such are not going to get the help they need and are more likely to go postal. So we can say that fear + aggressive nature + access to guns= not a good time.

We up here on the other hand do not have as much of any of those factors and thus are not gunning down whole classrooms.

Simple? Usually.

But it has a point or two.

All of what you have just said does not prove your point, it proves our point. It is society and culture that creates gun violence. Not guns. I certainly disagree, as well, with the idea that Americans live in a constant state of fear or that they are significantly more aggressive than we are. In being the most prosperous country in the world, they have attracted far more organized criminals than we have and as a result have a much greater gang problem. Americans are more aware of the threats they face. While many other societies (that shall remain nameless) choose to slink their heads into the sand, others take action. Don't like that Swiss model? How about the Israeli model? They have plenty of guns, and a low homicide rate. Their teachers are armed even. There is no one gunning down whole classrooms. The point of this exchange is to recognize that guns are not causation for violence. Violent behavior will occur if law abiding citizens have access to guns or not. The criminals always will have this access.