Yes, basically. It’s hand guns that are difficult to obtain and even more difficult to transport in Canada. It’s kinda hard to walk the streets with a rifle or shotgun and not get noticed.
Thanks…my memory is often faulty. I know that a lot of Canadians HAVE guns, and my impression was that the laws varied, with some provinces having more strict controls and some less, but I was an American living in Canada, and never looked too closely (contrary to what is perhaps popular belief, I don’t actually own any guns so it never came up…I was more interested in Canada’s laws regarding Cuban cigars ;)).
Appreciate you fighting my ignorance on this though.
Yep, those handguns are the evilist guns there are- unless of course we’re talking “assault weapons”. :rolleyes:
You might be interested to know that your Department of Justice disagrees with you.
Just like Great Britain, Canada had a very low homicide rate before and after their gun control laws went into effect. Your situation is not the result of your laws.
About 10000 people are murdered every year in the USA by guns. Way too many, I agree. But guns have many legit uses, and are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Second Hand Smoke kills about five times as many. Any legit uses/ Enshrined in the Bill of Rights?
Why not ban smoking instead of guns? We don’t even have to ban tobacco- dip, snuff, etc may be disgusting but it’s solo suicide, not murder.
You seem to be answering your question on your own, but I’ll respond because I’ve often seen this sort of point raised by gun control advocates on this board. It goes along the line of ‘X kills many more people than guns, why don’t you ban X first’. I’ve variously heard X being Ladders, swimming pools etc. This is terrible argumentation for the following reason -
Crime in general, and gun crime in particular has the quality of non-excludability. If you’re studying in your classroom, and someone comes and starts shooting people with a gun, you cannot choose to exclude yourself from being affected. This brings it into the realm of public action. This is the kind of thing government exists for.
Also, I’m skeptical about this “Guns have many uses” bit. The only use guns have is as a weapon to injure/kill another living creature. All you can do is slot that into different buckets - hunting/self defence/ crime. In a modern society, all of those uses should be invalid for citizens.
Target shooting & collecting are the most common. There’s also Cowboy action shooting, a form of target shooting.
And why would hunting be invalid for citizens?:dubious:
Why is self defence invalid for citizens?:dubious:
How does one exclude themselves from other folks having accidents? Stay in the house with the doors locked?
If you’re studying in the quad, and someone comes and smoking a cig, you cannot choose to exclude yourself from being affected.
No they aren’t. Killing isn’t always wrong. If someone is trying to kill me, then at least locally and temporarily the government has failed. I’d rather have a gun to face four attackers with guns, then just a knife or a baseball bat against four people similarly armed. All other things being equal, guns mean that four people are no longer automatically invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person; they allow a beleaguered minority to sell their lives more dearly.
The primary purpose of guns used in self-defense is not killing, it is stopping someone from doing something they are not supposed to be doing. It is unfortunate that the quickest and most reliable way of doing this is often fatal. Someday when we invent Star Trek style phasers on stun, that will change.
Whether the prospect of being stunned and waking up in jail is as effective a deterrent as the prospect of being shot will be debatable, when the time comes.
Shoot targets with air rifles, collect replicas. There’s no reason items(read guns) which make it an order of magnitude easier to kill people should be legal just because ‘collectors’ want to stare at them in their free time.
Hunting is valid for citizens only in the same way recreational use of cocaine is valid for citizens. It’s just entertainment.
Defending you is the job of the police. That job becomes easier, not tougher, if everyone with a gun is a criminal. For those who’re still paranoid about defending themselves? Run away. Defend yourself with a taser (they even have ones you can shoot). Or use pepper spray. Or a dog.
You’re already excluded from other people having accidents. Unless people are forcing you to fall off ladders. And really, if someone doesn’t have the balls to ask a smoker to go smoke somewhere else, I don’t see a gun doing that much for them. Unless, hey maybe a false sense of bravado is why people want guns in the first place. That makes sense.
Is there a whole lot about your life that seems like a scene out of a B-movie? Maybe you should use Chuck Norris to defend yourself.
Colour me skeptical. Easy access to guns makes it much easier for people to die.
**Don’t we have an obligation as a society to look at ways to curb gun violence?
**
We already have it, but the liberals just collectively shit at the thought: CC for everyone, everywhere. I don’t mind requiring a background check and mandatory training, but no governmental entity should prohibit anyone from going armed at any time if they pass both.
Ah yes, this is why coin and stamp collectors collect replicas instead of the real thing.:dubious::rolleyes:
Again the general ignorance shows up, clearly you know nothing about modern wildlife management practices. :dubious:Or the fact that some few people on the backwoods still depend upon hunting for food. 
Defending me may be the job of the police, but SCOTUS has ruled that the police has no duty to do so. And of course, sometimes they fail at their job, so that a back-up is needed.
People may not be forcing me to fall off or even get on a ladder, but how about if someone falls off a ladder on to me? Accidents can’t always be prevented. In any case, banning tobacco smoking would be far easier, more constitutional and save many many times more lives than banning handguns.* Don’t we have an obligation as a society *to curb smoking deaths?
You are aware, I hope, that it is settled case law in this country that the police have no particular duty to defend any given citizen in any given context?
What, hunting is wrong because we’re killing poor widdle Bambi? You do know that there are no retirement homes for old deer? Every deer out there is eventually going to starve, freeze, or get taken by predators.
Let’s see the police arm themselves with only [del]non[/del]less-lethal weapons like tasers. I’m sure they won’t mind at all.
I doubt that guns could be banned any more effectively than heroin or cocaine. But let’s say for the sake of argument that somehow by magic they could. What then? Then we’re back to what was true for most of human history up until the invention of the Colt revolver: one person alone is a helpless victim against a gang of bullies (unless you’re Chuck Norris). If you dare, try reading How Gun Control “Worked” In Jamaica to see what really happens when the authorities try to make the job of the police easier:
Hahaha. You’re not serious. Are you serious? Thanks for the laugh anyway.
Modern wildlife management practices? Are you saying ecosystems are going to collapse without humans going out and shooting their game? That’s almost as weak as “guns are the same as coins and stamps”. If you really think moose are going to overrun the continent, allow hunting with tranquiliser guns. Let the big brave hunters slit the throats of the animals.
I don’t know what the nitty gritty of that ruling is. I find it difficult to believe though, that the police in the US isn’t supposed to protect citizens, and that it doesn’t do so when asked. You’re not a third world country are you? And also, that their job wouldn’t be easier if gun control was a lot stronger than it seems to be.
Is this much of a problem? People falling onto other people from ladders and killing them? Or drowning other people in swimming pools by accident?
Again, you seem to be missing the point. This is something these people are doing to themselves. A society has a responsibility to step in when somebody’s actions have externalities - effects that others cannot exclude themselves from. Which is why second hand smoking is curbed through bans on smoking in public places.
No, I am not. But it is also settled law in your country that people have the right to bear arms. We are discussing changes to settled law. Naturally both should change together.
Eh? If you want to kill animals, go ahead, use a tranquiliser gun and a knife. All I’m saying is, hunting is about as good an argument for widespread gun availability as recreational use of cocaine is for legalising it.
Why should the police not be armed with guns? Their job IS to monopolise force.
And again, you seem to think life is some sort of B movie. Guns don’t serve as some sort of magical liberator of the oppressed, particularly not in what I presume is a modern, first world nation. And really, one person with a gun against a gang of bullies with guns puts you back pretty much where you started, except you’re dead faster.
ETA: I dared to read that horribly written propaganda piece you linked to. I wish I hadn’t been so brave.
I find it hard to believe in the extreme that there will ever be enough police officers to take care of all crime even in the case where gun possession is down to a tenth of what it is now (which I find unlikely even in the case of a total ban). It’s never been the case that there are enough police able to respond to stop all crime.
Case in point, where I grew up, there is exactly one local police officer to cover three towns. He’s in general (if he’s not already busy) 10 minutes away from my parent’s home running a speed trap. The nearest state police and the county sheriff are 20 minutes away. What exactly are they to do if an armed criminal breaks in, even if he’s got a kitchen knife rather than a gun? They’re both in their 60s and slowing down.
Most violent crimes in that area, despite the abundance of guns, are committed with bats and fists in any case. Guns, offensively or defensively, are rarely involved despite a high per-capita gun ownership.
In point of fact, we ARE (due to previous over-trapping and over-hunting of predators) in a situation where certain game animals will overwhelm the local ecosystem if not hunted–white-tail deer in particular are like that. In my state, the game commission releases enough hunting licenses and prices them according to the number of deer deaths necessary to reach an equilibrium population (in the absence of coyotes and wolves, both of which are effectively non-existent in the state and are a fair hazard to rural folks where they do exist)
Not to mention the simple fact of the matter that I know more than a dozen people who’ve had a black bear get in through their screen door or window into their kitchen. 300-400lbs of ursine doesn’t leave readily, and animal control is (you guessed it) at least 20 minutes away, if they’re ready right then and there.
It’s clear to me that you haven’t actually thought about the problems of your total-ban stance with regard to the realities of rural America.
Because guns in the hands of the police can be readily “lost” with relatively trivial bribes, given how poorly beat police officers are generally paid. I know of several gun-ban proponents who wish for the only firearms legally allowed in the country to be locked up on military bases, and that includes disarming the police and SWAT-type teams as grave threats to citizens as much as criminals are.
Yes. **Clearly you know nothing about collecting rare firearms. **
Perhaps you can tell these well known museums that they can collect ‘replicas’, not actual rare historical firearms
http://www.hillcountrymagazine.com/issues/summer-2012/273/rare-gun-collection-on-display-at-brownwood-museum-guns-of-the-empire-exhibit-runs-through-december/
http://shelburnemuseum.org/pressroom/shelburne-museum-acquires-rare-vermont-firearms-collection/
http://www.si.edu/ofg/Units/sorsnmah.htm
Yes. **Clearly you know nothing about modern wildlife control. **
The Service recognizes that in many cases, hunting is an important tool for wildlife management. Hunting gives resource managers a valuable tool to control populations of some species that might otherwise exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other wildlife species, and in some instances, that of human health and safety.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20013034441.html;jsessionid=72CCAF84BFF881201144A244D80FB6D6
*We conclude that to control deer populations across broad landscapes, many wildlife agencies will have to adopt hunting regulations that are robust to 3 conditions: decrease in hunter numbers, increase in refugia that limit hunter access to deer, and increase in importance of urban and suburban areas as elements of deer range. To stabilize or reduce the high-density deer populations currently existing across much of white-tailed deer range, regulations need to give hunters incentives to shoot antlerless deer voluntarily or simply require them to do so. It is likely that comprehensive population control programmes of the future will combine general recreational hunting regimes that promote great per-hunter harvests of antlerless deer across broad scales with complementary, site-specific, highly regulated hunts and programs to diminish the effects of refugia created by hunting-access limitations.*http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1305079157/Experts-call-deer-overpopulation-a-growing-problem
Yes. **Clearly you know nothing about court ruling about the duty of the police. **Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia
**Clearly you know nothing about the dangers of secondhand smoke. **
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/
People are not killing THEMSELVES with second hand smoke.
That’s a very modern liberal mantra which has the small defect of being 180-degrees opposed to everything the US was supposedly founded on. A government monopoly on force was held to be the very definition of tyranny. It’s more what Thomas Hobbes advocated than the thinkers of the Enlightenment.
I stand by what I said: even outnumbered four to one with equal weapons, I’d rather we all had guns- an aggressor would have to face the real possibility of getting shot, whereas with any other weapons they can expect to be effectively invulnerable. In fact if we all had full-auto submachine guns the odds against the invaders would be even worse- they can only kill me once, I could conceivably get them all.
Someone relating the truth of what actually happened to them when the country they lived in banned guns is “propaganda”?
More to the point, since life isn’t a B-movie virtually no one would try a home invasion if they thought they might face that level of resistance. Burglars in the US are extraordinarily reluctant to rob houses where they might face as much as a handgun, whereas in Britain they’re known for simply kicking in the door and helping themselves.