[Xort]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I’ve never been one to condone banning anything, but I have always wondered why anyone needs a handgun? It’s only use is to shoot humans, and to be easily concealed so you can carry it around on your person and have it more handy to shoot humans.

Funny I used my handgun for something other than shooting a human last week. So your argument is incorrect from the very start.

But lets pretend that you could only use a handgun to shoot people, if I'm setting out to shoot people anyway, what is someone going to do if they see my non concealed rifle? Use their magic I can see stuff power to stop me before I shoot them? If I use the most common means of transport, a car the size isn't a factor in anyway.

In the USA most people conceal carry because some people get strange when they see someone with a firearm. It's a matter of being polite, but in most states it's harder to conceal carry than open carry. Some twisted logic that being legaly able to cover a firearm from view (as noted above mostly for the comfort of others) requires extra training and taxes.

$1:

Do I support a ban? I don’t think so... But I do support strict rules on ownership, carrying and use. We don’t live in the wild west.

How much more restrictive do you want Canada to be? What don't you like about the current legal requirements and restrictions on handguns in Canada?

Canada has an effective no carry policy, a national licence program, ownership of a handgun requires an active membership in a shooting range, a background check is required for all firearms licences, and a training course with both a practical and writen test.

What more do you want for legal handgun ownership in Canada?

[gonavy47]

Let's ban common sense and agree with the Provincial government.

[BartSimpson]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I’ve never been one to condone banning anything, but I have always wondered why anyone needs a handgun? It’s only use is to shoot humans, and to be easily concealed so you can carry it around on your person and have it more handy to shoot humans.

I carry mine for shooting criminals. Actual humans need not be concerned.

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Do I support a ban? I don’t think so... But I do support strict rules on ownership, carrying and use. We don’t live in the wild west.

First, the 'wild west' was not all that wild. The relatively few serious criminals of the period were few and far between and then they were notorious for committing crimes in a region that was filled with armed citizens.

Second, the jurisdictions with the most gun control tend to have the most crime rates while the jurisdictions with the least gun control have the lowest crime rates. In point of that, in the USA where states have liberalized gun laws crime rates have uniformly declined. The highest crime rates in the USA remain in the four cities that also have the most stringent gun controls: Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, and Detroit.

Toronto would do better to consider issuing carry permits, even on a limited trial basis, to see what effect that would have.

[BartSimpson]

Xort Xort:

In the USA most people conceal carry because some people get strange when they see someone with a firearm.

In Vermont concealed carry and open carry, without a permit, has been legal since 1783. Pretty peaceful place, too.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I carry mine for shooting criminals. Actual humans need not be concerned.

If I could rep you for that I would.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

First, the 'wild west' was not all that wild. The relatively few serious criminals of the period were few and far between and then they were notorious for committing crimes in a region that was filled with armed citizens.

Actually, the Wild, Wild West was pretty wild. But it wasn't wild because of the guns. It was wild because the men who survived the Civil War were suffering from the worst, most widespread case of post traumatic stress disorder in history. The horrors of war, not the guns, were to blame.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Second, the jurisdictions with the most gun control tend to have the most crime rates while the jurisdictions with the least gun control have the lowest crime rates. In point of that, in the USA where states have liberalized gun laws crime rates have uniformly declined. The highest crime rates in the USA remain in the four cities that also have the most stringent gun controls: Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, and Detroit.

You're confusing cause and effect here. Those jurisdictions have enacted those laws because of the gun problems. The gun laws didn't cause them. It could be that DC and Chicago would be even worse without the strict gun laws they have. Who knows. Also, since guns are easily available 50' outside of Chicago, of course the prohibition is unlikely to be effective.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Toronto would do better to consider issuing carry permits, even on a limited trial basis, to see what effect that would have.

That would be a very interesting experiment. I personally don't think it would do anything to improve the situation, but at this point any ideas that might help ought to be considered. Clearly what's being done right now isn't working, but on the other hand, as bad as Toronto is, it's a hell of a lot better than any city in the USA, even ones a tenth the size of Toronto.

[OnTheIce]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Hobby, target shooting. I could easily ask why does anyone need a 500hp car, but we have no issues with them owning one.

Because not only are they used on a day to day basis, unlike the majority of firearms, they serve as a hobby on the side for track or drag racing.

I had a 500+hp Mustang that I drove to work every day and raced on the week-ends.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

First, the 'wild west' was not all that wild. .

Apparently you've read some wildly different history books than me.

[EyeBrock]

It's all about distracting the lemmings who voted Liberal away from all the cash Dalton has wasted on BS projects. The latest billion $'s are being pissed away on a powerplant that wasn't. Our taxes in action

I'm sure somebody voted Liberal, I just can't get anybody to admit it.

[RUEZ]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Xort Xort:

In the USA most people conceal carry because some people get strange when they see someone with a firearm.

In Vermont concealed carry and open carry, without a permit, has been legal since 1783. Pretty peaceful place, too.

I think it has little to do with weapons and more the fact that it's Vermont.

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Actually, the Wild, Wild West was pretty wild. But it wasn't wild because of the guns. It was wild because the men who survived the Civil War were suffering from the worst, most widespread case of post traumatic stress disorder in history. The horrors of war, not the guns, were to blame.

Not to mention that they were all liquored up most of the time on the rotgut shitbrew whiskey of the era that had all the quality control standards of toxic waste. There's no way that the PTSD and other war-related mental illnesses of the time weren't massively amplified by the alcohol of the time that was probably more physically dangerous to the drinker back then than today's crystal meth is to the cheesebrain addicts.

[BeaverFever]

Perhaps its a good time to poke holes in the whole "criminals don't shoot armed people" theory. In fact it's the opposite -- when you know the other guy has a gun, a fist-fight is never an option. Instead you go straight from trading insults to trading bullets and hope to hit the other guy before he hits you. This was the case in the Jane Creba shooting, the Eaton Centre shooting, and this Scarborough BBQ shooting. They were all petty disputes that went straight from words to shots simply because each guy knew the other was armed making a fist-fight impossible.

This is my other problem with handguns -- they're terribly inaccurate in real-word scenarios. Even police officers (arguably better trained than most civilians will ever be)miss their targets more often than they hit them in street combat(one NYPD study I read estimated 8/10 shots fired by NYPD patrol offiers in combat missed the intended target).

[uwish]

my question to all the banners in politics, is what happens when another shooting happens even if a ban is in place? then what??? For all intensive purposes, there is a handgun ban in effect. The laws are so restrictive to legally get one now, you could assume they are banned.

And I don't buy the restrict ammunition argument either, to purchase any ammunition in Canada (legally) you must have a valid firearms license that covers the class of ammunition you are buying.

This is another attempt for politicians to 'appear' to be doing something about the gang violence in their city, happening under their watch.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Perhaps its a good time to poke holes in the whole "criminals don't shoot armed people" theory. In fact it's the opposite -- when you know the other guy has a gun, a fist-fight is never an option. Instead you go straight from trading insults to trading bullets and hope to hit the other guy before he hits you. This was the case in the Jane Creba shooting, the Eaton Centre shooting, and this Scarborough BBQ shooting. They were all petty disputes that went straight from words to shots simply because each guy knew the other was armed making a fist-fight impossible.

There was a recent study out of Harvard IIRC that stated that people that carried guns around with them, were more likely to be shot, than those that didn't.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This is my other problem with handguns -- they're terribly inaccurate in real-word scenarios. Even police officers (arguably better trained than most civilians will ever be)miss their targets more often than they hit them in street combat(one NYPD study I read estimated 8/10 shots fired by NYPD patrol offiers in combat missed the intended target).

No no, you don't get it. Everybody thinks they'd be John-fucking-Wayne in those kinds of scenarios because hey, getting accuracy on someone blazing away in your direction is just like shooting paper targets and tin cans.
Yeah sure, there are some that would perform better than most, but seeing as how most people haven't experienced what it's like to shoot at someone that's shooting at them, I'd seriously question their personal assessment on how they'd perform in such a situation.

[uwish]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I’ve never been one to condone banning anything, but I have always wondered why anyone needs a handgun? It’s only use is to shoot humans, and to be easily concealed so you can carry it around on your person and have it more handy to shoot humans.

Do I support a ban? I don’t think so... But I do support strict rules on ownership, carrying and use. We don’t live in the wild west.

so your saying that personal defense with a handgun is not a reason? tell that to the police who carry. Just because the target is human doesn't mean it should be banned, it's an effective self defense tool. Or do you not believe in self defense?

cause your gonna loose that argument as well...

[uwish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Perhaps its a good time to poke holes in the whole "criminals don't shoot armed people" theory. In fact it's the opposite -- when you know the other guy has a gun, a fist-fight is never an option. Instead you go straight from trading insults to trading bullets and hope to hit the other guy before he hits you. This was the case in the Jane Creba shooting, the Eaton Centre shooting, and this Scarborough BBQ shooting. They were all petty disputes that went straight from words to shots simply because each guy knew the other was armed making a fist-fight impossible.

There was a recent study out of Harvard IIRC that stated that people that carried guns around with them, were more likely to be shot, than those that didn't.

hum, yet police carry everyday and I don't hear of them being shot with their own firearm??? hum....

You can't cheery pick the study and ignore the other finding then either, it also said that gun control laws had no statistical affect on the rates of gun crime but...CCW did have a positive impact in reducing personal violent crime.