Gun Control

[Matt Z]

This thread is for discusion of gun control and related topics. Fire away.

[Jebus]

I don't wanna talk about this anymore

[Jebus]

Is that really something to shoot for ... a society where ordinary people have neither the ability nor the legal right to defend themselves?

People can defend themselves, why does it have to be with a gun? I think that by having so few guns in general, that limits the ability for perpetrators to acquire them.

Also, I have to wonder what the average police response time is in some of the more remote parts of Canada. I'm guessing it would be measured in hours, if not days. That's a very long time to wait for help in a life threatening situation.

In Canada, if a thief comes into your home and falls down the stairs, he can legally sue you. lol I think this topic is pretty black in white, either you try to get rid of the guns, or you allow the people to carry for self defence.

[Matt Z]

"People can defend themselves, why does it have to be with a gun? I think that by having so few guns in general, that limits the ability for perpetrators to acquire them." - Jebus

Even if this were true, criminals tend to target people who are smaller and weaker than themselves, or use numbers to shift things in their advantage. Do you really expect a 70-year-old woman who's 5'2" and weighs 100 lbs to successfully fistfight a thug who's 20-years-old, 6' tall and 210 lbs?

However, with a gun, the same little, old lady becomes a formidable oponent. A firearm is a great equilizer.

[Matt Z]

"In Canada, if a thief comes into your home and falls down the stairs, he can legally sue you." - Jebus

The same is true in the US. Likewise, in most states, you can't legally shoot an intruder for merely breaking into a home. He has to pose an immediate threat. Therefore, if you confront an intruder and he reaches for a weapon or tries to rush you, you can shoot him. If however, he runs for the door or freezes like a deer in headlights, you can't shoot. Also, after disabling an attacker, you are generally expected to call him an ambulence.

[Matt Z]

Of course, it's common for people to second-guess any defensive shooting regardless of circumstances. However, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Jebus]

"People can defend themselves, why does it have to be with a gun? I think that by having so few guns in general, that limits the ability for perpetrators to acquire them." - Jebus

Even if this were true, criminals tend to target people who are smaller and weaker than themselves, or use numbers to shift things in their advantage. Do you really expect a 70-year-old woman who's 5'2" and weighs 100 lbs to successfully fistfight a thug who's 20-years-old, 6' tall and 210 lbs?

However, with a gun, the same little, old lady becomes a formidable oponent. A firearm is a great equilizer.

I'd expect her to pepper spray those punks.

Also I wouldn't want a 70 year old women walking around with a gun, what if she forgets to turn the safety on? Or leaves it lying around for some little kid to find?

Also sometimes, while defending yourself you can make mistakes. My great uncle almost killed his daughter because he thought she was a burglar breaking into the house. He didn't keep it locked.

[Ironman]

So what! Is federal prison really a bigger deterent than state prison?

Yea, it scares people. The FBI is intimidating. Usually harsher sentence too.

This actually proves my point. Colonial militias were made up of civilians who provided their own arms and were free to leave at any time. The National Guard is a branch of the federal armed forces, armed and funded by the federal government.

If that is all you mean, then it isn't relevant to my point at all. The militias became the national guard. Similarity doesn't have anything to do with it.

I don't have a problem with requiring background checks....

Without stricter checks for everyone you have loopholes just like now. There is no reason why certain people should get to use guns, but you seem to be for leaving that open which makes no sense.

Licencing could create similar problems. The unlicenced relatives of a dead gun owner might be forced to immediately turn in his/her firearms or risk prosecution on possession charges.

That's a lame excuse. There are probably 10 different way to solve that. Like leave it with the estate, where it will be sold, for one. Get a license if you want them. If you don't have one you probably don't want the guns. If you can't get one, tough $h1t. You can only sell them via the estate.

Firearms licences could also become prohibitively expensive or difficult to aquire.

Cheaper than a drivers license, you pay cost, no fees or taxes. Professional classes would be like a community college course. If you can't afford that, how can you afford to buy guns and ammo?


As for pro-gun, you are forgetting all the additional privileges and relaxed or eliminated regulations once you prove yourself.

I fail to see the rationale behind allowing the very people who cause problems with guns a way to get them. Not only is that something that should be done, but it is the only way to remove all restrictions from responsible adults. There is no reason such people should be restricted in any way. This is the way to separate the two.

The standard NRA line is guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's kind of right in a way, as the gun is the tool. So if the people are the problem, ban the people. I mean do guns kill, do people, invisible goblins? What's doing it?

[Ironman]

"People can defend themselves, why does it have to be with a gun? I think that by having so few guns in general, that limits the ability for perpetrators to acquire them." - Jebus

Even if this were true, criminals tend to target people who are smaller and weaker than themselves, or use numbers to shift things in their advantage. Do you really expect a 70-year-old woman who's 5'2" and weighs 100 lbs to successfully fistfight a thug who's 20-years-old, 6' tall and 210 lbs?

However, with a gun, the same little, old lady becomes a formidable oponent. A firearm is a great equilizer.

I'd expect her to pepper spray those punks.

Also I wouldn't want a 70 year old women walking around with a gun, what if she forgets to turn the safety on? Or leaves it lying around for some little kid to find?

Also sometimes, while defending yourself you can make mistakes. My great uncle almost killed his daughter because he thought she was a burglar breaking into the house. He didn't keep it locked.

Gun owners have to consider that. Frequently people are far to cavalier in their attitude about guns. They don't consider that just because you legally can do something, it doesn't mean you should.

What blows my mind is the idiots that want to defend their home with a gun, but have no security system. That's how people almost kill their relatives, like your uncle. A decent security system is much better than a gun. It also compliments a gun. By the time they get in, the police will be there any second, you know what you are up against, where they are going, and you're standing there with a steady aim. You won't even have to shoot. They walk in to and see a gun in their face, they're going to run, or beg for mercy. That beats the hell out of panic shots at shadows while you're half asleep.

[Matt Z]

"I'd expect her to pepper spray those punks." - Jebus

Having been pepper sprayed, I wouldn't expect it to do more than temporarily blind an attacker. Meanwhile, in rare cases it may have no effect at all.

[Matt Z]

"Also sometimes, while defending yourself you can make mistakes. My great uncle almost killed his daughter because he thought she was a burglar breaking into the house. He didn't keep it locked." - Jebus

A flashlight could solve that problem. I keep two next to my bed. Also, I'm not a big fan of gun-mounted lights, since I'd prefer to identify a target BEFORE pointing a weapon at it.

[Matt Z]

"That's a lame excuse. There are probably 10 different way to solve that." - Ironman

Perhaps, but only if those who introduce such measures are actually interested in solving these kinds of problems in a reasonable manner. That's a big assumption considering that proponents of gun control are often hostile to gun ownership. Either way, these kinds of details would have to be worked out in advance.

"Cheaper than a drivers license, you pay cost, no fees or taxes. Professional classes would be like a community college course." - Ironman

Again, that might be the way YOU would do it, but others may see things differently.

[Matt Z]

"A decent security system is much better than a gun. It also compliments a gun. By the time they get in, the police will be there any second, you know what you are up against, where they are going, and you're standing there with a steady aim. You won't even have to shoot. They walk in to and see a gun in their face, they're going to run, or beg for mercy. That beats the hell out of panic shots at shadows while you're half asleep." - Ironman

Security systems are useful for detecting intrusion, but they generally don't do much to actually keep anyone out.

Meanwhile, police response times vary widely. Expecting the police to arrive in seconds seems more than a little optimistic.

Finally, one shouldn't assume that an intruder will always behave rationally. Often the mere threat of deadly force is enough, but one should be prepared for the worst (mentally and physically).

[Matt Z]

"Also I wouldn't want a 70 year old women walking around with a gun, what if she forgets to turn the safety on? Or leaves it lying around for some little kid to find?" - Jebus

That sounds a little bit like age descrimination to me. There certainly are some seniors who shouldn't have access to firearms, but there are many others who are more than capable of handling a weapon responsibly.

Also, armed self defense isn't limited to concealed carry.

[Matt Z]

"Without stricter checks for everyone you have loopholes just like now. There is no reason why certain people should get to use guns, but you seem to be for leaving that open which makes no sense." - Ironman

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Background checks are already required for all sales by FFL Dealers. Requiring the same background checks for private sales would eliminate loopholes in the existing system.