Should the bobby's pack heaters?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I'm one of lifes brighter pennies. I wouldn't want some of my neighbours having guns. I have chosen to live in a civilsed society, and part of that choice is that I give up defending my property, and allow a paid police force to do the work for me.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are saying that people that own guns and countries that allow it are somehow 'uncivilised'?<span id='postcolor'>

I have to agree with Itchy there. Civilisation is measured by our collective achievements. In a civilised society people work together to solve problems. As a part of that we have a shared governement, military, hospitals and police. You trust your govenment to protect you from external enemies, right? I mean, you are not in the market for buying a nuclear weapon to defend yourself. You have also given up your 'right' to attack other countries. You could argue there in the same case as with the police:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to hide in your house and dial 911 while criminals sweep through it, fine by me. Be like all the other sheep and trust someone else to protect you. I look after me and mine and I would never count on the police to be there when I most needed them because they never are.<span id='postcolor'>

to this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want to hide in your house and wait for the military while the enemy bombs you, fine by me. Be like all the other sheep and trust someone else to protect you. I look after me and mine and I would never count on the military to be there when I most needed them because they never are. I'm getting my own tank.<span id='postcolor'>

So I would say yes. Any country where the citizens are supposed to protect themselves as opposed as the society protecting them, is less civilized then a society where people through agreement have worked out a common solution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As madmedic was saying, some people just choose thier lifestyle. In Canada we give free University to native people, however many of them choose not to go. They would rather stay on the reservation in relative poverty. Natives make up only %3 of our population but account for %25 of our violent crimes. There is a way out but many people choose not to take it.

<span id='postcolor'>

So what are you trying to say? That the native people are genetically more prone to become criminals? If not then you must agree that its their social situation that leads to that. As I said, your freedom to choose is only as good as the social limitations allow it to be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't need a weapon to survive over here, a weapon is there as an insurance policy. So if the worst does happen, then at least you are prepared. People arm themselves in parts of the U.S. for the same reason that people put on thier seatbelts in a car. It's unlikely that you will ever get in an accident but it is good to be safe and put on a seatbelt anyway, just in case.

<span id='postcolor'>

The analogy is flawed since seatbelts don't harm people in general. Guns are made for killing. Killng is bad.

I think the main point of disagreement is that you think it's ok to shoot and possibly kill a criminal, while I don't think it is. You say: they have made their choice and are getting what they deserve. I say: they are the result of their social situation and their choice was in practical terms very limited.

Even if I would agree that shooting criminals is acceptable, there are other costs that I'm not willing to make. Between 17-58% (depending if you use pro-gun or pro-control statistics) of the gun killings in the US is the killing of friends and relatives. These killings are most often accidental - peole shoot what they think is a burglar which proves then to be a family member. Fueled by the media hysteria over the "horrible criminals who will kill you", it is a dangerous situation. Scared hysterical people should simply not have guns, especially not for self defense.

I'm not against guns per se. I think citizens should be allowed to have them for sport shooting after they get proper training. I however strongly disagree with handing out guns for self defense. The gun should be locked up in a gun safe when you are at the range.

[bn880 5]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,135)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if I would agree that shooting criminals is acceptable, there are other costs that I'm not willing to make. Between 17-58% (depending if you use pro-gun or pro-control statistics) of the gun killings in the US is the killing of friends and relatives. These killings are most often accidental - peole shoot what they think is a burglar which proves then to be a family member. Fueled by the media hysteria over the "horrible criminals who will kill you", it is a dangerous situation. Scared hysterical people should simply not have guns, especially not for self defense.

I'm not against guns per se. I think citizens should be allowed to have them for sport shooting after they get proper training. I however strongly disagree with handing out guns for self defense. The gun should be locked up in a gun safe when you are at the range.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes we just had a case of a 7 year old sister blowing her 6-year old brothers brains out... her older adult brother left the gun. Must have been for self defense.

Guns in the hands of civilians are not for self defense, they are usually used after being stolen by criminals or taken by children.

Denoir, you are for guns, for sporting shooting, so I assume you mean handguns. Oops, people take those with them. I would be okay with it if they stayed at the shooting range only. EDIT: I would like to say that I support Iraqi citizens having guns, to fight off any invasion that may occur. They can not trust their government/military to protect them, they will all have to become "soldiers" to have any chance.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you are for guns, for sporting shooting, so I assume you mean handguns.  Oops, people take those with them.  I would be okay with it if they stayed at the shooting range only.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't consider the guns being a problem, but the guns in combination with the social situation. Canda has about the same number of guns/capita yet gun related homicides per capita are much lower. There are a lot of guns in Sweden too and we have little problem with them.

The problem in USA is as I see it the hysterical situation where people feel the need to have a gun for self defense. Scared people shouldn't have guns. It is a question of culture also. While we do have many guns in Sweden people don't consider them as tools for self defense. They don't intend to point them at other people, so to say. If you on the other hand think that the gun is necessary to protect you from other fellow citizens, then the situation is different and shit is bound to happen.

I am also for strict gun control, meaning that you have to have proper training before getting a gun.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,13:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't consider the guns being a problem, but the guns in combination with the social situation. Canda has about the same number of guns/capita yet gun related homicides per capita are much lower. There are a lot of guns in Sweden too and we have little problem with them.

The problem in USA is as I see it the hysterical situation where people feel the need to have a gun for self defense. Scared people shouldn't have guns. It is a question of culture also. While we do have many guns in Sweden people don't consider them as tools for self defense. They don't intend to point them at other people, so to say. If you on the other hand think that the gun is necessary to protect you from other fellow citizens, then the situation is different and shit is bound to happen.

I am also for strict gun control, meaning that you have to have proper training before getting a gun.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I agree with your analysis. I am also for registering guns, which 50% of my fellow Canadians think should be scrapped. (ummmm, no)

[We had our gun registry cost us over 1B dollars and not function properly, natural conclusion here is to scrap it. Also had 60 year old geenies show up with their unregistered 1.5m hunting rifles at parliament hill and expect not to be arrested and charged.]

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The gun should be locked up in a gun safe when you are at the range. <span id='postcolor'>

How would I use it then?

Denoir, I agree whole heartedly that any idiot should not be allowed to carry a gun. So long as that idiot passes a test and a criminal record check, fine. Law abiding and competent citizens should not be kept from owning firearms.

Where we differ in opinion is wether people should be allowed to carry them. I think that they should, with additional training of course. Training that stresses the importance that a gun is a last resort. People should be allowed to defend their families and thier property.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You trust your govenment to protect you from external enemies, right? I mean, you are not in the market for buying a nuclear weapon to defend yourself<span id='postcolor'>

Comparing things that are uncomparable. Armies take time to mobilise, a criminal can ransack my home in a minute or two, taking what he wants. Standard police response time around here is 5-10 minutes. Do the math on that one. By the time the cops get there, the crime is over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what are you trying to say? That the native people are genetically more prone to become criminals? <span id='postcolor'>

I am saying that even with oppertunities, some people don't take them. Once again, people choose to be criminals, no one forces them to go out and shoot people. It is obvious that we agree to disagree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The analogy is flawed since seatbelts don't harm people in general. Guns are made for killing. Killng is bad.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, seatbelts save lives, so can guns. We obviously see weapons as two different things. I see them as a tool to protect my self and my family. You see it and think of it as a tool for killing. The work that a tool does is soley in the hands of the operator.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the main point of disagreement is that you think it's ok to shoot and possibly kill a criminal, while I don't think it is. You say: they have made their choice and are getting what they deserve. I say: they are the result of their social situation and their choice was in practical terms very limited.<span id='postcolor'>

That is true. We agree to disagree, once more.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Between 17-58% (depending if you use pro-gun or pro-control statistics) of the gun killings in the US is the killing of friends and relatives. These killings are most often accidental - peole shoot what they think is a burglar which proves then to be a family member. <span id='postcolor'>

I am willing to bet that most gun crimes are from criminals killing criminals, gang member killing rival gang members. As for the accidental shooting, I only heard of one or two examples of it in the news. 9 times out of 10 in the news it's criminals offing eachother. I say: let them kill eachother, it's less work for the cops. Suicides also make up a large part of gun fatalities.

Tyler

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I agree with your analysis.    I am also for registering guns, which 50% of my fellow Canadians think should be scrapped. (ummmm, no)  

[We had our gun registry cost us over 1B dollars and not function properly, natural conclusion here is to scrap it. Also had 60 year old geenies show up with their unregistered 1.5m hunting rifles at parliament hill and expect not to be arrested and charged.]<span id='postcolor'>

heheh, 1 billion dollars. Do you feel safer? I don't. The money should of been used to get more cops on the streets.

Back in 1995, my subway was pretty safe, all day, all night. Now, there's these scummy drug dealers, gang members, taggers, all around low lifes doing they're shit in my one time clean and safe subway. Nope, can't say its safer now.

This pass summer, every night, some other house would get invaded and the owners be kicked to a bloody pulp just for their DVD player and the money in the wallets. And on the hottest nights of the year, we couldn't sleep with our windows open because that's the way they enter the house. And the guys are still on the lose now, cops cant be in every house all the time. Yes, this is money well spent.

And Allen Rock can go fuck himself. J.C. can shut that crooked mouth of his and die, and I still wont pay the $1460 I owe in fed income tax going back to 1999. And if they as much try to take that money from my pay, I'll quit my job and join those low lifes in the subway.

... and I still wont register my guns.

-=Die Alive=-

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Jan. 07 2003,15:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I agree with your analysis. I am also for registering guns, which 50% of my fellow Canadians think should be scrapped. (ummmm, no)

[We had our gun registry cost us over 1B dollars and not function properly, natural conclusion here is to scrap it. Also had 60 year old geenies show up with their unregistered 1.5m hunting rifles at parliament hill and expect not to be arrested and charged.]<span id='postcolor'>

heheh, 1 billion dollars. Do you feel safer? I don't. The money should of been used to get more cops on the streets.

Back in 1995, my subway was pretty safe, all day, all night. Now, there's these scummy drug dealers, gang members, taggers, all around low lifes doing they're shit in my one time clean and safe subway. Nope, can't say its safer now.

This pass summer, every night, some other house would get invaded and the owners be kicked to a bloody pulp just for their DVD player and the money in the wallets. And on the hottest nights of the year, we couldn't sleep with our windows open because that's the way they enter the house. And the guys are still on the lose now, cops cant be in every house all the time. Yes, this is money well spent.

And Allen Rock can go fuck himself. J.C. can shut that crooked mouth of his and die, and I still wont pay the $1460 I owe in fed income tax going back to 1999. And if they as much try to take that money from my pay, I'll quit my job and join those low lifes in the subway.

... and I still wont register my guns.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I feel a little safer that there are now records kept on many weapons. The point is to reform the system and make it work properly and efficiently. All weapons MUST be registered if we are to consider ourselves a civilized nation. It helps with tracking down comitted crimes.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

This reply is for BN880:

Where do I begin?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes we just had a case of a 7 year old sister blowing her 6-year old brothers brains out... her older adult brother left the gun. Must have been for self defense.

<span id='postcolor'>

The 22 year old brother had bought the gun illegaly. Most likely it was smuggled in from the U.S. He is now up on charges of criminal negligence and I hope they put him away for a long time. He was not a licensed gun owner, he was a street thug.

The CFC funds the registry, it also funds programs that help to take smuggled guns off the streets. The government would rather put $1 billion into a useless long gun registry, than put it into the hands of police officers and customs gaurds that take illegal guns off the streets.

BN880, judging by the remarks you make, I can see that you understand little about the registry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am also for registering guns, which 50% of my fellow Canadians think should be scrapped. (ummmm, no) <span id='postcolor'>

Ummm, yes. The long gun registry does nothing other than to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Hand guns have been registered in Canada since 1934, yet handguns are used for crime all of the time. Registration does not prevent firearm deaths, a good licensing system does, which we have had in this country for a long time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also had 60 year old geenies show up with their unregistered 1.5m hunting rifles at parliament hill and expect not to be arrested and charged<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have your facts straight. He was 70, and he brandished a reciever, a small part of a rifle. A receiver is about as deadly as a rock. The police arrested him for brandishing a piece of metal.

The registry does nothing but waste money that would have been better spent on police, health care, or the military.

Here's what Toronto police chief Julian Fantino had to say about the registry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">TORONTO POLICE CHIEF JULIAN FANTINO:

"We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them," said Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino. "None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against

terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Source: Quote from a News Release by Ontario Minister of Public Safety and Security, Bob Runciman, "Eves government urges Ottawa to suspend gun registry" January 3, 2003.

<span id='postcolor'>

What do you have to say to 8 justice ministers from 10 provinces who have called for an end to the registry?

IIRC, New Zealand had a registry, found it useless, and got rid of it. We should follow suit before more money is wasted.

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All weapons MUST be registered if we are to consider ourselves a civilized nation. <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, what a load of crap.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It helps with tracking down comitted crimes.<span id='postcolor'>

See my refernce above.

Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with sporting rifles. Too bad the Lieberal government didn't realise that in 1994.

Tyler

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The problem about the gun issue is rather the perception than the actual  practicability.

As Die Alives puts it we can see that a great amount of people do not fully trust the police to be able to ensure their security. And this no matter whether the criminals are armed or not.

So many american gun-owner actually perceive it as an insult and punishment to be taken away the tool they think gives them the security the police cant give them. They feel that this then will give a competitive edge to criminals.

However perception does not necerssarily reflect to the truth. Maybe some people are so negative since their  country has such a long long and deep history of gun-ownership and they fear a total insecure and inverted future.

Still, the INITIAL AIM OF GUN-CONTROL is to reduce the amount of arms in the hands of criminals and irresponsable people and not from law-abiding citizens.

If this is the goal, and the goal is good, then you have to find the best way to get there, and the best way is the one that reduces the negative side-effects. The side effect I always hear is: "criminals will still always have arms". This is true, but from european point of view I can assure you that after a decade only the worst mafia-criminals will still be armed, and not the silly DVD-burglar or drug-dealer beneath your window.

Of course, in the beginning it will be the brave people that will give up or register their guns first and of course they will take a risk cause criminals with guns will still be out there. But that is why "sense of responsibility" is a virtue of moral courage cause it asks brave people to take risks. And without moral courage you cant change a society and also have no right to complain about criminality.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,16:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All weapons MUST be registered if we are to consider ourselves a civilized nation. <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, what a load of crap.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It helps with tracking down comitted crimes.<span id='postcolor'>

See my refernce above.

Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with sporting rifles. Too bad the Lieberal government didn't realise that in 1994.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Excuse me? Don't be an asshole.

Why is that a load of CRAP? You have to explain.

WEAPONS ARE STOLEN. You really don't know what you are talking about. 60 or 70 I don't give a hoot.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still, the INITIAL AIM OF GUN-CONTROL is to reduce the amount of arms in the hands of criminals and irresponsable people and not from law-abiding citizens.

<span id='postcolor'>

Too bad it does the opposite of what was intended.

Introducing more laws agaisnt guns only gives criminals more laws to break. If someone was considering robbing a bank, I doubt the thought that they were breaking firearms laws crossed thier mind. What makes you think a criminal will obey the law in the first place? By definition, criminals break laws. Letters on paper won't stop them.

The only people that obey firearms laws are law abiding citizens, so what is the point of introducing new laws that only they will obey?

We don't need laws, we need police programs that will take guns off the street, and as Denoir has been saying, attack the social issues that cause crime in the first place.

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me? Don't be an asshole.

Why is that a load of CRAP? You have to explain.

WEAPONS ARE STOLEN. You really don't know what you are talking about. 60 or 70 I don't give a hoot.

<span id='postcolor'>

What's with all the hostility?

What do I have to explain that I havent said already?

How about you tell me why we should keep the registry, and I will tear your flimsy argument apart piece by piece.

I don't know what I'm talking about?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">TORONTO POLICE CHIEF JULIAN FANTINO:

"We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them," said Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino. "None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against

terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Source: Quote from a News Release by Ontario Minister of Public Safety and Security, Bob Runciman, "Eves government urges Ottawa to suspend gun registry" January 3, 2003.

<span id='postcolor'>

What do you have to say to 8 justice ministers from 10 provinces who have called for an end to the registry?

IIRC, New Zealand had a registry, found it useless, and got rid of it. We should follow suit before more money is wasted.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Well thats Toronto, and where did the other half come from? I guess it was not registered yet. His statement can go against or in favor of the registry.

This is actually this is really silly, because wether I can debate with a prick like you about it or not, I'm still right about the benefits of registering guns. The details of which you speak do not concern me, I am not hired to improve the gun registry.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Too bad it does the opposite of what was intended

Dont say "it does" if all you can know is "it could".

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,16:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excuse me? Don't be an asshole.

Why is that a load of CRAP? You have to explain.

WEAPONS ARE STOLEN. You really don't know what you are talking about. 60 or 70 I don't give a hoot.

<span id='postcolor'>

What's with all the hostility?

What do I have to explain that I havent said already?

How about you tell me why we should keep the registry, and I will tear your flimsy argument apart piece by piece.

I don't know what I'm talking about?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.<span id='postcolor'>

The hostility? Well the load of CRAP comment was very unhelpful.

I suppose you are right that you are explaining it. So I feel better now.

As for the above quote: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The details of which you speak do not concern me, I am not hired to improve the gun registry. <span id='postcolor'>

You are saying a gun registry can not work, when it is in place in other countires and it does work. No need to discuss. Same shit different argument from an American or Canadian about things being impossible when Europe has already tried them succesfully.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well thats Toronto, and where did the other half come from? I guess it was not registered yet.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, I knew you'd use that. I havent seen any stats on stolen guns because they probably don't exist. It's hard to track something when you don't know where it is. Does registering your car make it easier for the police to find? I don't think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His statement can go against or in favor of the registry.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, with statements like:

"We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them,"

The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against

terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Sounds pretty damning to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is actually this is really silly, because wether I can debate with a prick like you about it or not, I'm still right about the benefits of registering guns.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I get it, your right and I'm wrong right off the bat? And you are calling me a prick? Boy, Akira was right:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of I don't know when this descended into a "flame war" but your condescending and "holier than thou" attitude is out of place here and borders on immaturity. <span id='postcolor'>

Tyler

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were two places in the "hood" that offered "daily pay, for daily work"...usually it was some form of construction work, and the normal rate was $10.00 per hour cash (all you have to do is show up, and you get $10.00 an hour for a days work)....One of the places had to relocate, because they couldn't get any workers to show up, and the other place is still there...but they also dont get many workers (they have however, been robbed twice)

Now,...on any given day, you can drive through the "hood", and see literally hundreds, of perfectly fit, able bodied young men (who could be out making $10.00 per hour elsewhere) walking the streets, loitering, playing dominoes under the big oak at the corner of 13th St. and Avenue L, and,...yes, even selling drugs on street corners.

What do these able bodied young men do to make money you may ask?....Well, I will let you figure that out for yourself.

Some people in the "hood" are good, and decent folks, who just cant get a good break.

But there are also many people there who are only there because they are lazy, plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but the reason for that is the social environment. People are not born corrupted. They can either be stimulated or corrupted depending on the environment they grow up with.

Solve your social issues and you will solve your crime problem. That's where the focus has to be, not by trying to stop them after they have become socially disfunctional.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said you were wrong about that...Of course the thugs are a product of social issues of one form or another, and fixing those issues (which you seem to think is some easily achieved task) would surely diminish tha amount of violent criminals.

However, what does that have to do with one defending himself if one of those thugs chooses to get violent.

All of your talk about "fear", and "hysteria" makes me think that everything you ever learned about the U.S....you learned on television, or the movies.

There is not rampant "fear", or "hysteria" about guns in the U.S.

Like I said before, taking the responsibility to protect your loved ones, and yourself is not "fear".

Your argument comparing the military protecting you from invading armies, to the police protecting you from crime...is completely absurd man.

In order for police to protect you from anything, they would have to be there before it happened.

They are not, it is humanly impossible for them to be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the main point of disagreement is that you think it's ok to shoot and possibly kill a criminal, while I don't think it is. You say: they have made their choice and are getting what they deserve. I say: they are the result of their social situation and their choice was in practical terms very limited.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it is NOT okay to shoot a "criminal"...it is only justified to use deadly force in a situation where yourself, or another person is in immediate danger of death, or serious bodily harm.

If you shoot someone in any other circumstance, you will go to jail.

You have a duty (by law) to retreat if at all possible before resulting to deadly force.

Your home is exempt from the duty to retreat, you do not have to retreat from an attacker in your own home before resorting to deadly force, but the threat to life, and limb must still be there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

(denoir)

Between 17-58% (depending if you use pro-gun or pro-control statistics) of the gun killings in the US is the killing of friends and relatives. These killings are most often accidental - peole shoot what they think is a burglar which proves then to be a family member.

(bn880)

Guns in the hands of civilians are not for self defense, they are usually used after being stolen by criminals or taken by children.<span id='postcolor'>

I am assuming these two quotes come directly from the famous cliche' that is waved like a flag by the gun gontrol groups in the U.S. :..."A gun in the home is "X"% more likely to kill a family member, than to be used against an intruder"...

WELL,...the problem with that quote is that it is absolutely, statistically false (the gun control groups still tout it, because people tend to believe things if they hear it enough times, and they never check the scources)

The quote comes from the "Kellerman study"...that was done in (I believe) 1984,...and very shortly afterward proven to be wrong by several institutions INCLUDING KELLERMAN, HIMSELF

And....I will re-state what I said in an earlier post in this thread: It is a statistical FACT that the cities in the U.S. with the worst violent crime rates, are the same ones that outlaw, or heavily restrict firearm ownership.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are saying a gun registry can not work, when it is in place in other countires and it does work.<span id='postcolor'>

Proof?

If it worked so well in New Zealand, why did they get rid of it?

And if handguns have been registered since 1934 and registration works, why do we have hand gun crimes, especially in the GTA?

Alot of people support the registry because they think that we are getting a bunch of new laws that we didn't have before. That couldn't be farther from the truth. We have had a licencing system in place in Canada for a long time.

I will say it again, the licensing system is what weeds out bad gun owners, not the registry. The registry is a database for legal gun owners and does nothing to prevent crime.

When will people understand that?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

okay no icecream and no Muppet-show for both of you this evening, you will go straight to bed so you got time to think about what you did wrong. This thread is getting to hot for me and I gonna go into a SOF2 MP session

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,23:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are saying a gun registry can not work, when it is in place in other countires and it does work.<span id='postcolor'>

Proof?

If it worked so well in New Zealand, why did they get rid of it?<span id='postcolor'>

Ohhh!...Ohhh!...(raises hand)....It worked a LOOONG time ago, in Germany.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,23:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A gun in the home is "X"% more likely to kill a family member, than to be used against an intruder"...

WELL,...the problem with that quote is that it is absolutely, statistically false (the gun control groups still tout it, because people tend to believe things if they hear it enough times, and they never check the scources)

The quote comes from the "Kellerman study"...that was done in (I believe) 1984,...and very shortly afterward proven to be wrong by several institutions INCLUDING KELLERMAN, HIMSELF<span id='postcolor'>

The 58% is from a gun control source. The 17% is from a pro-gun source. (Pro Gun source)¨

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates

<span id='postcolor'>

Even if you believe their biased view, 17% is an alarming number. The truth is probably somewhere between 58 and 17 percent. Not that this doesn't include gun related accidents, only homicides.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Denoir, the %17 figure is based soley on the City of Chicago, and is by no means for the entire nation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates<span id='postcolor'>

Notice that the quote never sates wether the shooting was made by accident or by fighting family members/friends. And it only says %17 and gives no total number figure for the murders in Chicago.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,232)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A gun in the home is "X"% more likely to kill a family member, than to be used against an intruder"...

WELL,...the problem with that quote is that it is absolutely, statistically false (the gun control groups still tout it, because people tend to believe things if they hear it enough times, and they never check the scources)

The quote comes from the "Kellerman study"...that was done in (I believe) 1984,...and very shortly afterward proven to be wrong by several institutions INCLUDING KELLERMAN, HIMSELF<span id='postcolor'>

The 58% is from a gun control source. The 17% is from a pro-gun source. (Pro Gun source)¨

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates

<span id='postcolor'>

Even if you believe their biased view, 17% is an alarming number. The truth is probably somewhere between 58 and 17 percent. Not that this doesn't include gun related accidents, only homicides.<span id='postcolor'>

All that says is that between 17%, and 58% of murder victims know their attacker.

And I dont doubt that they do.

Many murders are the result of domestic violence, drug dealers ripping each other off, ect. ect.

It has nothing to to do with "gun statistics",...only "murder".

meaning it includes guns, knives, baseball bats, and any other implement that could be used to kill someone.

[morbid 0]

• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

source : http://www.wmsa.net/pubs/reason/reason_nov02_crime_in_uk.htm