To all the people who want to ban guns.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by wayno

 

Is Canada "civil"? They have guns in the hands of private citizens. Back then moreso than now.

Answer: YES!

I'm in my 60's now. I have never known anyone here in my entire life who owned a gun save my uncle who used to hunt rabbits when I was a kid. My grandmother had a shotgun (I'm guessing what it was) to keep the foxes away from her chickens on the farm.

My older brother started to keep a gun in his motorhome -- but he's lived in Oregon for many, many years and has drunk the cool-aid. I found that incredibly horrible when I learned if it. Sickening, really.

Reply to post by wayno

So on the "Wayno Civility Scale" what are the consequential factors? That you dont know anyone with one? That you look down on a family member who does?

If disarmament is "civil" Canada is not yet "civil." There are plenty of guns going around. You just dont know anybody with one. Or at least know anyone you know owns one.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by thisguyrighthere

According to the United Nations, Canada ranks third among the developed
western coutries (behind the US and Norway) in civilian ownership of
firearms.[40] A 1992 survey sponsored by the UN reported that 26% of
Canadians, over 7,000,000 people, own firearms.[41] A 1991 Justice
Department telephone survey indicated there were an average of 2.67
firearms in one of every four Canadian Households, with 71% having
access to a rifle, 64% to a shotgun, and 12% to a handgun. They
calculated that there are over six million legally owned firearms in
Canada. Other authorities insist that this estimate is much too low and
that there are at least 20,000,000 rifles and shotguns in Canada; as
many, per capita, as in the United States. [1]

Top 3 "least civilized" countries, Canada, Norway and #1 USA?

How many guns are there in Canada?

“The records in this Section now show that 1,727,868 rifles and shotguns have been registered since the requirements of the Defence of Canada Regulations made this necessary. In the Revolvers and Pistols Unit a total of 222,053 weapons have been similarly recorded.” [Page 40]

How many lost, unreported, unregistered guns?

Low Range Estimates

= 2,400,000 firearms owners

= 7,200,000 firearms
Medium Range Estimates

= 3,100,000 firearms owners

= 9,000,000 firearms
High Range Estimates

= 3,800,000 firearms owners

= 11,000,000 firearms

How many guns are in Canada?

More:

#

Over 70% of all guns in Canada are not registered - approximately 20+ million guns in total with approximately 7 million guns registered. Yet the government wants us to believe that there is a 90% compliance rate.

www.lufa.ca...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere
Sure we have lots of guns...but tighter controls.

And our murder rate is exponentially lower than yours, as is our gun crime. That points to the American national psyche, and the rhetoric of the "Keyboard Kommandos with action avatars!! "on this site merely confirms it.
So keep your guns...please, keep them.

One small point...

Um...all you superpatriots who challenge the government to come and take your arms...martial law...cold dead fingers yada, yada...
Has it struck you that:
a) They have bigger guns.
b) You are advertising yourselves on this site and are now on a list.
c) With any luck, you have also told them exactly what you own.
d) The really serious folks take note of the dialogue, but keep their own council for precisely the reasons noted above. You others? Have a fun STHF event and give my greetings to the ATF.

Reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I dont dispute the rates nor do I particularly care about them. Too many variables. And I've never used the "government will kill me" excuse for my collection.

I just want to know how Wayno has structured his "civility scale."

If an accurate and efficient means of gauging civility I will adopt it for daily use.

Oh, regarding the avatar, it happens to be the state motto of NH. It's on all of our license plates too. Guess that makes us all kooks?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I just want to know how Wayno has structured his "civility scale."
If an accurate and efficient means of gauging civility I will adopt it for daily use.

Let's base it on the number of other countries trying to blow our # up.

Oh, regarding the avatar, it happens to be the state motto of NH. It's on all of our license plates too. Guess that makes us all kooks?

Naw...for what it's worth I don't think you're a kook, even though we don't always agree. But as to avatars, you and I can stand here and easily point out a bunch of other guys that sure seem to be all hat, no horse, right?

Reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Sure we could. Chest thumping and posturing is the second most popular use of the internet. Right behind porn.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Those statistics bear absolutely no resemblance to reality. Canada has vast areas that are rural. In the woods and north country there is valid reason for ownership of some sort of rifle to hunt with. I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. For some of those people, that is how they survive and eat. So be it!

Those people have concerns about Canada's gun registry. That is not hard to understand as they are not criminals. Unfortunately, the registry has little to do with those people; except that they aren't excepted by it.

The problem with guns is in the urban setting. There is no hunting in cities. People in cities do not need guns; especially hand guns or the kind that are used in warfare. In cities, the only use for a gun by a civilian is to commit a crime. It is in fact mainly those involved with drug trafficking who feel a need for a gun.

Yes, we are a civil society. There are some legitimate reasons for gun ownership, but those generally do not apply in urban settings. I don't know why you question my statement about not knowing anyone who carries a gun? I have crossed paths with a lot of people in my 62 years and none of them, urban folks, carry guns or would even want to.

reply to post by Rocky Black


Proud Texan here supporting your words.

But people will always be ignorant and never open their own eyes to see the truth.

S&F My first lol

Reply to post by wayno

People in cities do not need guns; especially hand guns or the kind that are used in warfare.

In many American cities they are heavily regulated if not banned outright. Well, the outright bans have been struck down by the SCOTUS but those cities have created a ban by proxy with their requirements, fees and regulations. Some of these areas also have registries. None of these measures have resulted in less crime. Quite the opposite actually. There exists statistically more crime in these areas.

Canada has vast areas that are rural.

And the US doesnt?

Seems to me you're just trying to find some reason to hate the US or blame the US for a thing or just look down on it since none of your claims have any real stand-alone worth. And that's fine. If you just want to have some jingoistic war pride about your country you're welcome to it. The politicians can always use more fodder.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Every time I see one of these OPs I am going to post this as I did to another OP about banning guns in America.
This is FACT not speculation, not based on emotion, but statistics with references.

Banning guns will not do anything to increase your individual safety and will likely result in the opposite.

In a nutshell: Current FBI statistics show that the violent crime rate (murder, robbery, etc) is the LOWEST in 35 years while gun ownership has increased by 4 million average per year. MORE GUNS DOES NOT INCREASE CRIME…IT DECREASES CRIME!

MURDER RATES BY COUNTRY According to www.nationmaster.com...

Rank 1st Columbia = 0.617847 per 1,000 people

Rank 4th Venezuela = 0.316138 per 1,000 people

Rank 5th Russia = 0.201534 per 1,000 people

Rank 6th Mexico = 0.130213 per 1,000 people

Rank 26th United States = 0.042802 per 1,000 people. 2nd Amendment gun rights. Trend has been toward fewer murders per capita for several years. In 2009 that trend continued even as gun ownership increased by 14,033,824 (based on NCIS background checks conducted in 2009). *That is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
*This according to Ammoland.com with NCIS statistics printed there.

Rank 46th United Kingdom = 0.0140633 per 1,000 people. Tight government gun control:

**Murder rates (initially stable round about 1 per 100,000 population have steadily increased since the early 1990’s. In contrast, in the US over the same period homicides have almost halved. Now while homicide rates in the US are still higher than in the UK, the important thing is to realise that in 1980 the US homicide rate was about ten times the rate in England but now the US rate is only three times higher. Clearly the liberal firearms legislation in the US has worked to reduce murders while the legislation passed in the UK appears to have had the perverse effect of increasing the homicide rate. The net effect is that the gap between the UK and US murder rates has narrowed significantly. A similar pattern (a virtual doubling of murder rates since the passage of the 1988 and 1997 firearm laws is seen from Scottish figures.
** Taken from “HOW GOVERNMENTS CREATE CRIME” by Dr. Lech Beltowski as available in pdf format at dvc.org.uk...

Rank 56th Switzerland = 0.00921351 per 1,000 people. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

The following was taken from ActionAmerica.org:

“In a book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" Kleck's research showed that armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). Most of those instances were while the innocent victim was waiting on the police to arrive and many were even waiting for the police to answer the phone.” Emphasis added by me.

In the November 15th 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine George Will reported that police were 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.

The following is from the ActionAmerica.org downloadable widget counter:

*Since January 1, 2010 until Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:24:24 PM GUNS have already been used in the US, in SELF DEFENSE 870,204 times... Think about it. (Visit this site and see any up to date info).

*I cannot vouch for the validity of the above information, as I did not compile the statistics myself.

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by knylon90

 

As someone said when this shooting happened with Jared..... AZ is "gun-state" and why didn't anyone pull out their gun and shoot him the minute he started firing?

Guns make everything safe and great right?


Point is they don't.... and 2-3 UNARMED people tackled him.

Now that you parroted the ultra-liberal American media's spin on this, let me tell you what they don't want you to know. One of the guys being called a "hero" for tackling Laughner ONLY did so because he was carrying a gun himself. Yes, that's right, he was carrying a legal weapon, about which he says "felt like I was a little more prepared to do some good".

Source: Just watch the video


Another fun fact you won't get on CNN: That nutcase Laughner was very well known to the local sheriff, as he had made several death threats in the past as well as other insane acts getting him thrown out of school, among other places. It seems that where ever he went people feared his behavior. So how was he able to buy a gun legally? No, we're not a nation of gun nuts who hand out firearms like candy. It seems that Sheriff Dupnik went out of his way to tell his deputies NOT TO ARREST HIM, because his mother is a member of the Tucson City Council, thereby giving a total nutjob a clean record when a background check was performed during his gun purchase! This explains why this idiot sheriff is all over the airwaves now spewing his liberal politics - it's a CYA move because he knows he didn't do his job.

Source

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Alright, lets look at what the ELITE controlled lawmakers did to the USA "psyche" and what the result was. The key decade is the 1970's


During this decade, the bleeding heart liberals, the favorite pawns of the elite, were used to get laws passed so the Mentally Ill were taken out of hospitals and turned loose on the street. They were SUPPOSED to be treated at "half-way" houses but the funding got cut. Now more recent laws mean nothing can be done if they refuse to take their medication.

End result is a sharp increase in the number of street people and a sharp increase in prison inmates. In the same time frame (the seventies) the bleeding heart liberals gave us desegregation busing. Instead of increasing the education of blacks, it decreased the education nationwide and allowed young drug pushers to enter fresh new territory.

End result is a sharp increase in the number of drug related arrests.

No I am not blowing smoke.
The drug related deaths from 1981 to 1989 GRAPH shows the sharp increase in coc aine related deaths.

This graph is a REAL EYE OPENER Homicide Rates in the United States 1900-1990

Distribution (Percentage) of All Drug Arrests Since 1941 by Decade

Of course theses two bleeding heart causes will NEVER be shown as the real cause of the death of Congressman Gifford. OH no it has to be GUNS!

My man, my man, I wanted to get through this entire thread before making any responses but after reading this misinformed information I had to comment.

You place the blame of funding being cut for the mentally ill on "bleeding heart liberals", but that is a contradiction. Why are they called bleeding hearts in the first place by conservatives? Because liberals are always trying to fund a program to help someone else is the answer. So in actuality, it was conservatives who kicked the mentally ill into the streets. Something along the line of, "Hey make them go get a job and stop mooching off our tax dollars." Does that ring a bell?

As far as you linking desegregration with the increase of drug arrests. That is also incorrect. Firstly as you mentioned, desegregation happened in the 60's, so what, did it take twenty years before anything happened?

The reason drug arrests rose sharply in the 80's is due to the CIA introducing crack into black communities in hopes of furthering the deterioration of the black family. Well, they suceeded to a large part because the black family has been set back at least 30 years. The only thing that wasn't counted upon by the evil people who desired this, was that crack would migrate from Tyrone and Pookie in the hood, to Becky and Bill in Farmland, NE. So they got exactly what they deserved.

Please attempt to be at least partially correct before you post your views because you may unintentionally contribute to the spread of ignorance....with all due respect.

So the argument by this fringe minority is "banning guns will lead to less gun related deaths" Like most liberal ideas, gun control is not based in reality. Lets take England for an example; in the 2 years following the gun ban violent crime with a gun involved rose by 40%. 1998 through 2005 gun violence rose by 340%, the only people not armed in a country that has banned guns are the law abiding citizens. A study was done of 21 European countries and the results showed that there isn't any correlation between the number of guns in the country and murder or suicide rates. So no, banning guns isn't magically going to make armed criminals vanish, If a criminal is determined to commit murder do you actually think they are going to obey gun laws? However, is a citizen is armed, the would be criminal will move on to an easier unarmed target, making you less likely to be harmed by a criminal.

www.timesonline.co.uk...
the study of the 21 countries come from the Canadian Journal of Criminology 2001 #4 p..429-448

The only way guns should be banned is if they're banned for EVERYBODY and every ENTITY including the Army and police.

Once there's talk that even military and police will have their guns banned, everyone should be glad to throw theirs down.

At the same time arguing that the availability of guns in our country has no effect on our crime and homicide rates is irrational. Of course, because guns are readily available, they will be used in crimes more often. Yes we as a nation are suffering from the availability of guns. It isn't rational to attempt rebuking that fact. Just accept it as a necessary result of our gun ownership.

The same as every freedom we have in America has a negative attached to it. To see this you only need to look at the state of our country and compare it to other countries who do not have the freedoms we have. So yes we may love our freedom but it's dumb to not recognize the negatives that are attached to them. Just to give a small example: The independence of our women. It's a wonderful thing, however some of the results are men slacking on their responsibilities and abandoning families. Which results in kids being raised in one parent households where they have the time and access to trouble. So in this example we have a great positive here in America, unfortunately there is a negative attached to it.

Gun ownership is the same, it's great our citizens are allowed to have guns. The negative is a percentage of these same citizens will use their right to do harm. And no it isn't just criminals and gang members! There are plenty of husbands and wives who have been killed by their partner who is educated and civil, but were angry.

Every freedom we have has a negative attached to it.

I also have to address this claim by many who believe their being armed deters criminal activity from themselves. This is false, and take it from someone who has participated in plenty of criminal activity. I could give two #'s because you have a gun. Criminals treat everyone as if they may have a gun anyway. If you're approached, I should correct this because this is what most people imagine as happening, that they will be approached by some punks giving them a chance to chamber a round.

That isn't how it happens folks! At least with seasoned criminals at any rate. If you've been targeted while out and about the come-up is so quick you don't have time to pull your piece or fire a shot. If anything you will be pistol whipped with your own piece and your piece will be sold for $50-$100.

When I would hit someones door I've yet to find someone who was ready and had their "trusty shotgun" ready. There's always the same look of, "WTF's going on! Who are you?"

Many of the people robbed are actual criminals and drug dealers themselves, reason being they have more cash on them and are less likely to involve the police. These people have fully automatic weapons, grenades and everything else in their possession. Which lends to the claim that having a weapon actually helps very few people and cases.

I'll give a free tip: A bigger deterrent is a dog. Unless you're really in some deep #. In that case your dog will be shot or tased.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


I've been trying to explain this fact to people; if guns were a deterrent to crime, then the US would be pretty much crime-free.

However, you bring this up to the gun nuts, and they all assure you that they are special forces with commando training and can kill you with an eyelash.

Which just goes to confirm that these people are basically hideously insecure and ineffective people who think having a gun makes them tough and capable. Ten to one odds they'd end up shooting themselves by accident in a crisis situation.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Areas of the US are virtually crime free. NH for instance.

In much of the country people either cannot arm themselves or choose not to.

That fact makes your point moot.

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
I don't like the idea of having an armed society. I've grown up in a place where you can't own a gun.

According to this report you are likelier to be killed if you are armed.

www.newscientist.com...

Of course that's what the report says - it's what they wanted the report to say. Reports and polls can be made to show whatever results are desired.

How Great A Man Was
Thomas Jefferson? - Read This
From Judy Andreas
1-12-11

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of the Democratic-Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.