Mickey said:

Little Steven said:

Gives Road Rage a whole new meaning Mick! You may not want to drive into Canada with that puppy in there.

I found a Toyota dealer in Bellingham who will store my Glock in his office safe when I travel in Canada next time. No way in hell would I take that chance. You guys don't play nice when someone brings a gun across the line. 

I don't think it's that big of a deal Mick. If you don't declare it that's another story altogether. I believe the border control holds them in locked storage until you exit.

smokeyw said:

kthacher said:

stlcharcoal said:

kthacher said:

 

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Not sure how your country defines "mass shooting", but here it's 3+.  That means the count is skewed by murder-suicides and gang related killing--not terrorists.  Factor those out, and the stats are incredibly low for the size of country, number of people, and the number of guns......and they have gone DOWN over the last 10 yrs (but media coverage has gone up.)

I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the real ones, but it's not what the media and gun-haters try to make it.  And when Rolling Stone magazine puts one of the shooters on the front cover of their magazine, it just makes other whackos want to follow suit.  If we didn't have "gun violence" in this country, we would have "knife violence", "bomb violence", or "vehicle violence".  The crazies/killers are going to find whatever they can to inflict the most damage on the easiest target......in Germany, that was a truck......In Ohio it was a knife.....in France it was a truck, a bomb, and guns.  Bad people do bad $hit and you're not going to stop it not matter how many laws you pass and how much stuff you take away from the law abiding citizens. 

I was not suggesting new laws or taking anything away from anyone.  I was simply pointing out the fallacy in the quoted post.  That 'gun free zones' increase the incidence of mass shootings.  If that was the case, then countries with stricter gun control should experience more mass shootings.  But they don't.  So the initial argument, which is simply a convenient opinion, is flawed, simplistic and plain wrong.  I am prepared to have my point refuted with facts, but I expect to wait a long time to hear any fact-based argument that people arming themselves reduces mass shootings or gun-based violence.   In fact, the statistics suggest the complete opposite conclusions.  

Let's just take other countries out of the equation. It is not comparing apples and apples since the other countries have far fewer guns than there are in this country. The fact is that most mass shootings (by far) in this country, are in gun free zones.

I think the guns owned per capita number is higher in Canada if I'm not mistaken. That's long guns only. The handguns either come in from the US or are stolen and are only available to criminals.

RRP said:

Little Steven said:

 You may not want to drive into Canada with that puppy in there.

Out of total ignorance here, Steven, what are the laws in Canada about weapons in general and CC?

I think this has been answered already but there is no concealed carry or open carry here except for police and armoured car drivers (maybe a couple of other exceptions there I can't remember). You need an FAC (Firearm Acquisition Card) which means you have had a safety course and you pass a police background check to purchase long guns (muzzle velocity over 500fps if you can believe that). Other than that I don't know. The couple of guns I had I got rid of when the newest legislation became effective.
As I work mainly in the US I generally stay out of these conversations entirely. 

nolaegghead said:

As an advocate of population control and the Darwin Award, I support the 2nd amendment, although I also believe you should lose your rights to it if you are a violent criminal, have a history of domestic violence or are being treated for psychological issues that may result in harming yourself or others.

Not sure how you get population control without depriving someone of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I am pro-death penalty and believe it is not used near often enough. Murderers, Rapist and Pedophiles should be shot on the spot. Save the taxpayers $$$. Ammo is cheap. Maybe that would help with "population control".

re: Darwin award - Ditto  
re: Losing the right - it must be done using Due Process and should never be exercised by anyone but the courts. Way too many "unilateral confiscations" IMO. Especially in states like NY,NJ, MD and CA.  In MD, there is one county that even if you are transporting per the state law specifications, the police will confiscate and destroy your weapon before you even have a chance to go through due process as it seems the "specifications" seem to be interpreted at the officers whim.  

In NJ an elderly gentleman had picked up a civil war-era pistol (no ammo for it) and had errantly stuck it in his glove box.  He was subsequently stopped and when he opened the gb to get his lic/reg/ins, the officer saw the gun, confiscated it and had it destroyed before he could attempt to get it back. It was worth > $1,000.   In this case the officer should have informed him and had it placed in the trunk instead of being such NAZI's about it.  Germany got Hitler because of gun confiscation as it was not in their constitution. It is in ours and states do not have the right to restrict "bearing" arms. The liberal courts have allowed it when they should not have allowed it.

Now I need to go egg something.

kthacher said:

Toxarch said:

kthacher said:

Toxarch said:

You ever notice that pretty much all mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

There were a bunch of people who went to see a movie in a theater in Colorado. They didn't allow guns inside so those with licenses left their guns in their vehicles. A guy came in with a gun and started shooting people. I'm sure lots of people pulled out the cell phones and called 911. The cops did not arrive before a bunch of people died. I'm sure, like some have stated here, many of those people thought they were in a place where they would never need a gun to protect themselves. One licensed legal carrier could have stopped that shooter pretty quick.

I try not to go places where I think I might need a gun. But I have no idea where some lunatic will decide they want to shoot people. I have a LTC. I'll use my gun to protect myself, my family, and a stranger if needed.

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Go look up the incredibly high number of stabbings and death by hammer in those countries. So your flawed theory of "safe zone" countries is invalid.

Show me some comparison stats on stabbings and hammer deaths.  I delivered some statistics to help make my point.  You should do the same.    You are making this case, so prove it with numbers.  Until then, this is just more opinion and very likely fabrication to back up a poorly constructed argument.  

"The most common method of killing continues to be by sharp instrument. "
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

nolaegghead said:

Remove Washington DC from the US numbers and that goes down. DC has some of the strictest gun control in the US. You must register all weapons. You can not buy or sell guns in DC without a Federal Firearms License. You can not buy any ammo that is not for a gun in your registered gun list. If you do not live in DC, you can not possess a gun in DC (exception below). All handguns (owned by the public) had to be registered by 1977. No handgun registration was allowed after the registration deadline in 1977. You are allowed to transport a firearm through DC in the trunk of the vehicle only if you do not stop in DC. So why does Washington DC have a murder per 100K population of 16.5 in 2010, a rate that is more than double the highest state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

kthacher said:

Toxarch - you were trying to make the point that these other countries had such high numbers of stabbing and hammer deaths to invalidate my original point on safe zone countries.  The UK's overall homicide rate is around 1/4 that of the US, so your assertion does not hold up. 

My point was that stabbing and blunt object murders were high compared to gun murders in those countries. Murders still happen even when you remove the guns. The only invalid thing is your reading comprehension.

kthacher said:

Toxarch said:

kthacher said:

Toxarch - you were trying to make the point that these other countries had such high numbers of stabbing and hammer deaths to invalidate my original point on safe zone countries.  The UK's overall homicide rate is around 1/4 that of the US, so your assertion does not hold up. 

My point was that stabbing and blunt object murders were high compared to gun murders in those countries. Murders still happen even when you remove the guns. The only invalid thing is your reading comprehension.

Figured it was only a matter of time before you went down the personal insult path.   Guess that is all you have left, huh?  Other than moving the goalposts on your original argument. 

Not an insult but wouldn't surprise me if you read it that way. All I have done is state facts.

Toxarch said:

My point was that stabbing and blunt object murders were high compared to gun murders in those countries. Murders still happen even when you remove the guns. The only invalid thing is your reading comprehension.

When one number goes down, the others go up as a proportion - that is just the way math works. There is violence in all countries. However, violent crimes of all types are higher in the US than in most 1st world countries (certainly higher than in Canada or the UK). While this does not mean that widespread gun ownership increases violent crime rates, this fact certainly does not support the idea that widespread gun ownership decreases the incidence of violent crime.

Widespread gun ownership does increase the number of gun related accidents (child deaths, etc.), and the success rate of suicide attempts.

Look up total homicides for US in, say, 2015, then in DC for the same year.  Take those numbers, divide the DC homicides by the US total, then multiply by 100 to get percent.

nolaegghead said:

Toxarch said:

nolaegghead said:

Toxarch said:

nolaegghead said:

Remove Washington DC from the US numbers and that goes down.

@Toxarch - can you please explain to me how a city of 800k which is 0.25 percent of the US population with a homicide rate that's 4x higher than the U.S. average (of 318 million) will significantly reduce the overall homicide rate given there are two significant figures reported?  Especially since inner cities generally are known to have higher homicide rates because of high population density and gang crime.

Thank you in advance.

That 0.25 percent of the population accounts for 1.2 percent of the total gun murders in the US.

Criminals don't follow the law. Passing more laws does not affect them. I'm pretty sure murder is already illegal.

I can see math is not your strong suit. That's ok.  We all make up for our weaknesses in one way or another.

The math is correct. Feel free to show your work if you think it is wrong and I'll help you find your error.

nolaegghead said:you should lose your rights to it if you are a violent criminal, have a history of domestic violence or are being treated for psychological issues that may result in harming yourself or others.

That was exactly my point in earlier post about using the laws we have.  Today, some laws say precisely what you propose above.  Yet when someone violates those laws and is caught illegally with a firearm, they get a slap on the wrist.  I think if the penalties were harsh for crimes with firearms, the criminals would be targeted instead of the law abiding citizens.  Isn't that what we all want?

SkySaw said:

Toxarch said:

So you are saying that guns are not the problem, people are the problem?

No, I am saying that guns are not the solution. They may very well be a large part of the problem.

James Craig has been a Police Officer for 36 years. He has been the Police Chief in Portland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. Craig had been anti-gun in the past. In late 2013 he urged citizens of Detroit to go buy guns to protect themselves. 
 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/03/detroit-police-chief-james-craig-says-more-citizens-should-be-armed.html

Here is an article from 2014 where he says armed citizens have contributed to the 37% drop (in 1 year) in crime.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/detroit-police-chief-says-armed-citizens-are-curbi/

An article from 2015 where he explained why armed citizens works as a deterrent. This is why shootings happen in "gun free zones". 
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12/01/armed-citizens-deter-terrorist-attacks-in-detroit-police-chief-says/

The reason concealed handguns work is because the bad guys do not know who is armed. It works as a deterrent to thieves and murderers. They aren't going to go into an area where someone might shoot back. They have no idea if someone in that area is armed or not. Everyone there could be unarmed, they don't know. However, in a gun-free zone, everyone following the law is unarmed. It's a target rich environment where nobody will shoot back until lots of targets are hit and the Police show up 20 minutes later.