Well, I would question how you intended to use that in a situation requiring you to act promptly, but that’s more a question of ease of use than your rights and intent.

... in fact, the more I think about it, if I take a couple minutes to call the police, and they take another 5-10 minutes to be dispatched to my house, exactly how is time a factor in how I store the gun?  Having no gun would leave me sitting around in my bedroom waiting for the cops to arrive and hoping that we don’t get ourselves dead in the time it takes them to finish their doughnut and drive down.

I’m of the opinion that children should not own guns.  So what?

So a law against children owning guns would be a good law, even if it were broken from time to time.

I don’t know, and I don’t see the relevance because, as evidenced by my question, I don’t agree with the line of reasoning that arises from it.

Nice duck. 

So basically, I would in fact deserve to go to jail?

If you knowingly broke the law, yes.

And don’t talk to me about pipe dreams in a thread where people are imagining a society where there were no more shootings as we all happily fork over our evil guns to the nice policeman.

You are right, no shootings is a pipe dream.  As much as every gun owner being as responsible with their weapon as you described. 

So it’s all right for him to deal crack, as long as he doesn’t shoot anybody?

Now you are just putting words in people mouths.  Possessing the gun, dealing crack, shooting someone ... all should be against the law.

So a law against children owning guns would be a good law, even if it were broken from time to time.

Talking about laws regarding children are very different than talking about laws regarding the general ownership of guns.  Kids can’t drive until a certain age, can’t smoke or drink until a certain age, can’t even VOTE until a certain age, they have very few freedoms in the sense that their parents are legally responsible for a great deal of their social status.  Saying a child should be a certain age before owning a gun (never mind where a kid is going to scrape together enough allowance to go to the candy store and buy an Uzi), is not the same as saying PEOPLE should not be ALLOWED to EVER own guns because they are too dangerous for ANYBODY to handle responsibly.

Nice duck.

It’s not a duck.  I told you straight up I don’t know, and I asked you what the relevance was, what “illegal” (whatever the hell that means) guns have to do with saying guns should not be allowed in society.

If you knowingly broke the law, yes.

Okay, just so long as you’re consistent about punishing people who haven’t actually done anything wrong.

You are right, no shootings is a pipe dream.  As much as every gun owner being as responsible with their weapon as you described.

But I didn’t say every gun owner.  I gave you a singular example.  Please stop lying about my position.

Now you are just putting words in people mouths.  Possessing the gun, dealing crack, shooting someone ... all should be against the law.

Why possessing the gun?  Why MUST that be against the law?  And why are we not trying to outlaw and remove all the other dangerous elements of society that I listed earlier?

Why possessing the gun?

Because even if this kid had done nothing else wrong, no priors, when they find an AK 47 and ammunition in his bedroom, he should be arrested.  Thats my opinion anyway.  I have no problem with that being the law where I live.

Talking about laws regarding children are very different than talking about laws regarding the general ownership of guns.

Ok, so laws regarding children are good even if broken from time to time.  Laws regarding adults are considered “useless” if they dont work 100% of the time.  We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

It’s not a duck.  I told you straight up I don’t know, and I asked you what the relevance was, what “illegal” (whatever the hell that means) guns have to do with saying guns should not be allowed in society.

You think its possible there are more illegal handguns in Canada than the US?  And by “illegal”, I mean guns stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained by criminals.  Ill see if I can find some numbers for you.

Okay, just so long as you’re consistent about punishing people who haven’t actually done anything wrong.

Breaking the law is wrong.  If you dont like the laws where you live, work to get them changed, or move.

But I didn’t say every gun owner.  I gave you a singular example.

I didnt say you did.  I brought up the pipe dream.  I said there would probably be no, or little problem with guns in your country if everyone were like you.

[Part 2]

quez :

This talk about selfdefense and so on listen...you’re not in a action movie,this is not the world were you can jump 180 degree and shot the bad guy in the leg.
I’m 100% sure a lot of the handicapped people or womens doesnt shoot accurate,or they can take up their gun in a second.And im 100% sure that in 95% of all kills off innocent people,the bad guys has been the first one to shot…
To actually belive anyone here or having a gun would be calm enough to handle a gun in a situation like that is just absurd.
Ban guns!!!

See? (see above: “You’re stupid if you think otherwise”). An “action movie” Quez? COME ON. Give us a bit more credit here.

At the risk of raising questions regarding the possession of intellectual integrity, I’m going to point out Quez that the implication that people who own/want guns are somehow basing their choice from an action movie isn’t just patronizing, it’s a dodge.

Listen Quez: the whole point of having a gun for self-defense is to empower the would-be victim to resist an attacker. The fact that a person may be able to defend herself is, in itself, a ward to attack—as we see in the U.S. that where gun ownership is high, crime statistically goes down. Since crooks are looking for a quick and sure thing, the fact that people may have that defense, or can brandish it, can defuse the situation before it even comes to shots.

If it does come to shots, well, as Swissboy pointed out: “with no guns, it is physically imposible to shoot someone.” If I have someone shooting at me, I’d like to have the chance, even the slim one, that I can save my life.
Even taking your “statistics” there, a 5% chance is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than 0%. :)

And at that, responsible gun owners do go through training on the proper way to handle, care for, and use a gun. It’s not sure fire, but it helps when one acts under those circumstances.

Quez:

The only problem with sweden is the rapes,that is being taken care of as i write,putting up cameras that some people observe and then if they see something wron being able to call the police and send them to places that they might think or know someonething bad is happening are a good wait to interfer rapes.
Which its already proven a dozen times so far.

Aside from the fact is scares the living s*** out of me to have a government watching like that, the fact is that if Swedes want to give up their human right of self-defense and trust the government to save them, fine.

However, the idea that “that is being taken care of” (see above: “Nothing bad will happen when guns are removed. It’s the only right decision to make. There is no downside.”), well, there is one bone of contention: That is. if y’all feel that the delay between being attacked and having help arrive is acceptable, fine. That’s your country’s choice to make. But that delay, and anything that happens during that time, is a cost that must be faced and, if being intellectually honest, shouldn’t be glossed over.

Quez:

Actually,i don’t feel like its my holy quest to stop americans to have weapons >_<
However i can’t accept peoples arguments that by implanting weapons to a society would surely lower crimes… Seeing how all weapons are already out in America its hard to get rid of all weapons there…

Quez, with respect, if you’re going to rely on the statistical crime surveys that you have used to make your arguments about ‘deaths in America’, it’s only fair that the other component of that survey--(gun ownership and the statistically significant positive correlation between higher rates of legal gun ownership resulting in lower amounts of crime in those areas)--be cited as well.

I’m not saying you’re purposefully trying to be intellectually dishonest, but if your opinion of guns in the U.S. comes from action movies and pieces-parts of a statistical crime survey, it’s not going to be as full or robust as one that takes everything into account. Again, it’s all about the numbers.

Finally--what about the CROOKS? They, not the guns, after all, cause these horrible crimes, right?

Ilovecress:

Good point - but leaving aside murders for a second - surely guns also make it easier to commit a robbery/mugging/burlary/assault/rape/coup d’etat. Again, if the only feasible reason someone owns a gun is to cause trouble, isn’t it reasonable to assume that person has nefarious intentions? (Resisting the impulse to link this point to wmds!!  ) …
Ah - now we have an interesting moral question - should you be punished for owning a weapon that is clearly for breaking the law - before you actually break the law. In otherwords - is a pre-emptive strike justified against suspected criminals?  As for the article - ‘gun taken off criminal before he uses it’ sounds to me like it works. I’d rather this person didn’t have a gun.

:) Wow! There’s 7 points to make here:

First, surely the issue isn’t the gun itself. It’s the people. Second, is that the “only feasible reason someone owns a gun” is self-defense: from others, and the government. Third, Crime is a mis-use of a gun, and not a component of legal ownership--this is in play whether gun control is relaxed or not. Fourth, it’s not “reasonable to assume that person has nefarious intentions”. You need evidence of intent. In every-day terms, a criminal record of violence is a pretty good indication of “nefarious intentions”. Minus that, any such assumption is inherently unreasonable. Fifth, guns make it easier to defend against crime (ask the police/would-be robbery victim/would-be rape victim) or dictators (ask the Coalition in Iraq)--again, easiness of action, if a factor at all, is a minor one given the role of free will. Sixth, the fact that the criminals have guns despite gun control is the self-proof of it’s own impotency: the crooks will always have the guns, even if they have to make them.

Seventh, and finally, as for criminals, if a person goes out and says: “I’ve got a gun! I’m gonna use it! I’m gonna use it on so-and-so! I’m gonna finish so-and-so off! I’m gonna use this gun I have on anyone who tries to stop me! (or words to this effect)” This, in and of itself is a cause for law enforcement to go in and, whether the person is armed or not, to try to disarm this person. Any idiot (well, most idiots) know that. This is whether this is a gun or knife or whatever.

Now take this one step further with an example:

We have someone, for example--we’ll call him, I dunno, Saddam :) --who is a known crook. Saddam, has a violent criminal history where he’s killed numerous people with guns. He is tracked down to, say, a farm where is hiding in, say, a hole. Police track him down for making threats against people and for trying to buy guns from known arms dealers. He yells out: “I’ve killed before, and I’ll do it again! I’ve got an AK-47 down here! Don’t make me use it!”

The possee, of course, charge in and find that Sadamm was lying. No gun. However, in such a situation, when one:

A) Has a history of violent crime; AND/OR:

B) Threatens violence,

That person should be dealt with by law enforcement, whether there’s a gun or not.

Either way, whether a knife, gun, or flat-out squat, crooks will be crooks. The way to handle this, however, is with enforcement of laws instead of passing more (resisting urge to make U.N. reference :) ).

Because even if this kid had done nothing else wrong, no priors, when they find an AK 47 and ammunition in his bedroom, he should be arrested.  Thats my opinion anyway.  I have no problem with that being the law where I live.

Me too… BECAUSE HE’S A KID!  or BECAUSE HE’S A CONVICTED CRIMINAL!  NOT JUST BECAUSE IT’S A GUN!

Ok, so laws regarding children are good even if broken from time to time.  Laws regarding adults are considered “useless” if they dont work 100% of the time.  We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

You are lying about my position again, and I’m getting tired of correcting you on the matter.  Just refer back to the last half dozen times I fixed this.

You think its possible there are more illegal handguns in Canada than the US?

I told you, I don’t know.

And by “illegal”, I mean guns stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained by criminals.

Well, if guns are criminalized, there is no distinction made for guns “unlawfully obtained by criminals”.  You already took my 100% pure example and described it as “unlawfully obtained by a criminal”.  So no such distinction exists.

I didnt say you did.  I brought up the pipe dream.  I said there would probably be no, or little problem with guns in your country if everyone were like you.

What is the point of bringing up the pipe dream AT ALL if I am not advocating that, and if you don’t think I’m advocating it?  What is your point?

LOL! It ate part one!
[Part 1]

Whoa, I leave to visit a sister for a couple of days… Got a lot to say, so lemme cut this up in order of argument importance here:

ilovecress :

Stewart:

The Left, however, ignores the reality of its decisions:  Removing guns is a guaranteed quick fix. Violence will end when guns end. Guns are bad, they make people kill people. Nothing bad will happen when guns are removed. It’s the only right decision to make. There is no downside. You’re stupid if you think otherwise.

This si what annoys me - stop characterising the arguments wrong - at least have the intellectual integrity to argue agaisnt the other sides position correctly.

:) Come on now, be fair. How am I supposed to argue against the other side if I can’t present their arguments as made by Moore and the Mooreons? As for intellectual integrity, what annoys me is how the Left’s talking heads say one thing for the cameras/in editorials, while what the grass-roots organizations that push for gun control, the politicians that try to enact it, and their mouth-piece Michael Moore all say is supposed to just be ignored.
Sorry, but I’m not going to give the Left a pass by virtue of them being the Left. :) Either the Left makes it clear that those folks (including Moore) don’t speak for them (and stop using their support) and make it clear what THEIR OWN arguments are, or I use those arguments against the Left. If the Left in general and the Mooreons in particular don’t want these claims put to scrutiny, serious consideration should be given as to whether these are the claims to make.

As for trying to draw parallels between the U.S. and [insert political body here] the whole point of Moorewatch is to examine Moore and his claims. His claims (either outright or through showmanship) is that in places like Canada and the EU, where guns are restricted, that gun violence is non-existent and violence overall is greatly reduced because of the lack of guns.

This, of course, is bumpkiss--

Swissboy:

Nope, to prevent the deaths, statisticaly it works, less deaths than in the US. Hehe, easy, lets take a larger frame, EU as less guns, more laws and less deaths. … Whatever argument the right makes up in order to save that juicy business and keep their precious toys, nothing can counter that.

Nope. :) Sorry pal. Gun restriction in the EU didn’t reduce the number of homicides. There aren’t “less deaths” as a result of gun control in the EU. Only the choice(s) of weapon changed. As for deaths in total/proportion, gun control has no correlative effect whatsoever between the EU and US as it doesn’t reduce death in either political body.

Spend all the time you want on this one, but the numbers will trump claims like that every time.

Now, if you want to make the claim that removing/reducing guns will lower GUN RELATED DEATHS: (Swissboy: “Here is my last though, with no guns, it is physicaly imposible to shoot someone.”) OK, fine: use gun control to end gun deaths. If the purpose of gun laws is to prevent gun deaths, fine.

First, however, that’s not the claim made by Moore and the Mooreons, or even the Left in general. The Left’s claim is that outlawing guns prevents VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. This claim, however, is demonstrably, patently false.

Second, as for removing guns to end gun violence, to do such a thing bears a cost--as I mentioned in a previous post. This cost is rarely, if ever, brought up by the Left save in dismissing it as to avoid serious discussion. If a cost-benefit analysis is made and a democratic country truly feels one side outweighs the other--GREAT. All the posters and most of the commenter agree in self-determination.

However, the criticism is that Moore and those like him gloss over the costs. He doesn’t even mention the cost in his overall political narrative--he portrays the decision as a simple quick fix with no downside, implicitly attacking anyone not agreeing with him.

There are, however, several costs to limiting guns--

The main cost, of course, is the loss of what American Constitutional scholars call tyranny prevention. Without a way to fight back against a tyrannical government, the will of the people becomes just another variable that a government takes into consideration. The arguments detailing how Hitler/Stalin/Mao/[Insert despot here] took away guns may be done to death, but such arguments demonstrate the principal with crystal clarity: without a way to fight back against a tyranny, the people--not to mention the democracy--have no guarantee of safety.

Regarding self-defense against individuals as opposed to the government--

You are more likely to get away with a robbery if armed....
And what is your basis for this brilliant conclusion?

“Hand over the register or I’ll pull a nasty face.”

“Hand over the register or I’ll shoot you in the gonads.”

Or do bank robbers use guns for the aesthetic appeal?

Ah - now we have an interesting moral question - should you be punished for owning a weapon that is clearly for breaking the law - before you actually break the law.
How is it clearly for breaking the law?

I seem to have trouble getting this point across - I apologies if I’m not being clear, let em try again.

If you see someone with a gun, and you know that they are going to use it for a criminal purpose, then I beleive that they should be arrested. Attempting a crime is still an offence. Are you saying this kid shouldn’t have been arrested for possession of cocaine, just becasue he hasn’t taken it yet? Or do you agree that possession and delaing should be crimes too? How do guns differ from drugs in this instance?

As for the article - ‘gun taken off criminal before he uses it’ sounds to me like it works. I’d rather this person didn’t have a gun.
So it’s all right for him to deal crack, as long as he doesn’t shoot anybody?  You do realize the gun charge was only one of 13, right?

Eh? Nope. All I’m saying is that removing a gun from a crack dealer is probably a good idea. As opposed to letting a crack dealer have a gun.

You think its possible there are more illegal handguns in Canada than the US?  And by “illegal”, I mean guns stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained by criminals.  Ill see if I can find some numbers for you.

This is a bullshit argument to try and use anyways.  The population of the US is considerably larger than that of Canada.  Its like asking, are there more cars in the US than Canada, or are there more criminals in the US than Canada.

Why don’t you find the ratio of legal handguns to illegal handguns.  That might actually say something.  Of course that would probably go completely against what you want up4

Stewart - thanks for the considered response.

Come on now, be fair. How am I supposed to argue against the other side if I can’t present their arguments as made by Moore and the Mooreons?

Fair enough. I hope you’ll join me in saying ‘fuck Moore’. I was talking about the more rational liberals.

First, surely the issue isn’t the gun itself. It’s the people. Second, is that the “only feasible reason someone owns a gun” is self-defense: from others, and the government. Third, Crime is a mis-use of a gun, and not a component of legal ownership--this is in play whether gun control is relaxed or not. Fourth, it’s not “reasonable to assume that person has nefarious intentions”. You need evidence of intent. In every-day terms, a criminal record of violence is a pretty good indication of “nefarious intentions”. Minus that, any such assumption is inherently unreasonable. Fifth, guns make it easier to defend against crime (ask the police/would-be robbery victim/would-be rape victim) or dictators (ask the Coalition in Iraq)--again, easiness of action, if a factor at all, is a minor one given the role of free will. Sixth, the fact that the criminals have guns despite gun control is the self-proof of it’s own impotency: the crooks will always have the guns, even if they have to make them.

Seventh, and finally, as for criminals, if a person goes out and says: “I’ve got a gun! I’m gonna use it! I’m gonna use it on so-and-so! I’m gonna finish so-and-so off! I’m gonna use this gun I have on anyone who tries to stop me! (or words to this effect)” This, in and of itself is a cause for law enforcement to go in and, whether the person is armed or not, to try to disarm this person. Any idiot (well, most idiots) know that. This is whether this is a gun or knife or whatever.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed, although not in Europe, and apparently canada. This is my central point. The UK does not have a ‘gun’ culture - so 99.9% of people who right now have a gun aim to use it for some sort of crime. (Not including hunting etc etc)

3. Agreed, although see the point above.

4. I would submit that the intent was in evidence by the possession of a gun. (arging absolutes here for ease of polarity - obviously I don’t see this as a universal rule)

5. Again, the UK police do not agree, and obviously the majority of the UK populace do not agree, or we’d be petitioning for the right to have guns!”!! The government one is not one that really crosses my mind, but that is probably due to cultural background. We tended to oppress people with the cunning use of flags and sharpened fruit slices!!

6. I would guess that as a percentage, less crooks have guns in the UK as to the US. Just a guess though, and I am more than happy to eat my words if anyone has any stats.

7. What about if the person doesn’t do that, but you can see he’s got a gun? Are we allowed to assume that he’s going to use it, and take the sucka down?

The main point that I am trying to make is that law abiding citizens don’t want guns (in the UK) and the criminals do. That is why they are generally not allowed.

As for the ‘intent’ argument, how do you justify the charges of possession of drugs without evidence that the individual is planning to take tehm or sell them?

Once again - thanks for the considered response - I’ll check in tomorrow.

The population of the US is considerably larger than that of Canada.  Its like asking, are there more cars in the US than Canada, or are there more criminals in the US than Canada.

If youll read back to where this started, it was when I said…

Doesnt it make sense that the more handguns that are in the general population legally, has a direct connect to the number of “illegal” handguns?  Wouldnt it be far easier to find a handgun to steal in the US, than it would in Canada where there arent as many?  Even taking into account the 10:1 population difference.

Where do you think there are more “illegal” handguns, on the streets of the US, or Canada?  Why?

Cool?

You are lying about my position again, and I’m getting tired of correcting you on the matter.

I apologize w0rf.  I thought it was your position that the guns laws where useless in this case, because they obviously were not obeyed.  Ill go back and re-read.

Well, if guns are criminalized, there is no distinction made for guns “unlawfully obtained by criminals”.  You already took my 100% pure example and described it as “unlawfully obtained by a criminal”.  So no such distinction exists.

Guns are not criminalized in the States, correct?  Is there still such a thing as “illegal” handguns?  Those are the ones Im talking about.  What if we use a phrase like “black market” handguns, or handguns “possessed by criminals”.  Do you know what I mean now?

What is the point of bringing up the pipe dream AT ALL if I am not advocating that, and if you don’t think I’m advocating it?  What is your point?

My point is that just because you can be as responsible as you are with your gun, doesnt mean its good for society in general.  It may be good for yours, where it has be ingrained in you, but its not a good enough reason for me to introduce it here.  Your actions (with respect to how you handle your gun) are a perfect example.  Not everyone is like that.

[Part 3]

OK, last part, then I think I’ll call it quits, because this is all getting WAAAAY OT, such that I’m losing my ability to count. :lol:

Lemme try to bring this back and summarize my arguments:

As I’ve said before, I personally dream of a world without violence, but I try to be realistic in terms of acheieving that goal. And where violence occurs, I believe it is the initiator of violence that should bear the risk of harm. I’ve tried to be honest and upfront about that, and I have repeatedly given the Left the BotD.

The point of this entire post is that Moore in particular (and the Left in general) has been intellectually dishonest in terms of the gun control debate.

Contrary to what Moore would portray gun control doesn’t end violence. It doesn’t even end gun violence anywhere it’s tried. It’s not a quick fix. There are costs in terms of securing a nation’s freedom when giving up the means for tyrrany prevention. There is a cost with the loss of self-defense. There is an enforcement cost above and beyond normal police work that makes even American Prohibition look tame.

Further, the statistical surveys Moore and others cite for deaths in the U.S. have consistantly shown that as legal gun ownership in an area, all crime--violent and otherwise--goes down.

But, when the logic fails, Moore and Co. can media-te reality: America is being shot up worse than the Wild West (which wasn’t even that Wild, but why leave a good template?). While Canada, Australia, and the EU are violence free! People who want to own guns are violent (just like in the movies the Left makes). People who want guns have been brainwashed by action movies and think that they’re Bruce Willis (just like in the movies the Left makes)! They are redneck hillbillies. It’s the gun manufacturers fault! It is the guns that are the problem--the people that use them are either addressed secondarily or not at all. Sects of the Left have even gone so far as to blame the gun and gun alone, holding the criminal blameless [under the theory that a personal has no free will but rather is a product of the environment]. Statististical survey shows crime goes down as gun ownership goes up?--It’s not true, it’s just that the 100K+pop city is really a 12-people and a horse hick town, yeah! That’s it! It can’t be true!

In the end, the Left lacks the intellectual integrity to offer a solid, let alone a consistant, argument. The Left in general and Moore in particular paint a rosey picture where eliminating guns is the answer to human violence. The fact is, the promise never pans out. And all the while the monetary cost, and the human cost in terms of life and freedoms, is never shown.

If, however, the Left wants an honest debate, and is willing to denounce Moore and these other BS arguments, that’s great. There are people who do think that guns are so horrific that they are worth the cost of removing, or that removing guns is the first step to a non-violent society. In such a case, let’s have an open and honest debate. And if a country sees the costs and benefits and hears the arguments as to make a decision, great. That’s what a democracy is about.

But when a people makes that choice, folks need to do so with eyes open. There are costs, and it’s not the quick-fix Moore & Co. make it to be.

In the end, I dunno if eliminating weapons will end violence or not, seeing as that’s never come to pass. But if it is, I know it has a 0% chance of working if people aren’t informed and honest about what’s going on and what the effects are.

This is a clear case of them NOT working.  He had a criminal record and STILL got a gun.  No, not a gun, A STASH of guns.

Which he now doesn’t have anymore.  How is that not working?

You further neglect to mention that he was charged with a number of crimes completely unrelated to possession of a firearm.  Even if guns were 100% legal, he still would have been a criminal, who could be charged and hauled off to jail.

And to you that would presumably also be a clear example of the laws not working, since cocaine is illegal - yet he still managed to get some???

“Hand over the register or I’ll pull a nasty face.”
“Hand over the register or I’ll shoot you in the gonads.”
Or do bank robbers use guns for the aesthetic appeal?

That makes it easier for them to FORCE the banker/store clerk to comply, but how does that equate to them GETTING AWAY with the robbery?

Some data from the FBI that might interest you:

The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.

People commit violent crimes with their BARE HANDS more often than they used a gun, and no gun AT ALL was used in 3/4 of the crimes.

If you see someone with a gun, and you know that they are going to use it for a criminal purpose, then I beleive that they should be arrested.

And how exactly do you know?  Do you call Miss Cleo?

Are you saying this kid shouldn’t have been arrested for possession of cocaine, just becasue he hasn’t taken it yet?

No.  Apples and oranges.  You want to outlaw guns because they MIGHT be USED in a crime.  There are only two possible uses for cocaine: you can take it (which is illegal and presents both a personal and a public hazard), or you can sell it to someone else who will take it (which is also illegal for the same reasons).  There are numerous applications for firearms that have nothing to do with breaking the law.

All I’m saying is that removing a gun from a crack dealer is probably a good idea. As opposed to letting a crack dealer have a gun.

Okay, so make it part of the legal sentencing that, along with jail time and fines, a felon, or violent criminal, or someone convicted of a drug crime, cannot own a firearm.  You take guns out of the hands of criminals without impacting the civil liberties of the populace.

I apologize w0rf.  I thought it was your position that the guns laws where useless in this case, because they obviously were not obeyed.  Ill go back and re-read.

Since you were fair about it, I’ll spare you the research.  I have said that if the argument is that the deprivation of civil liberties is offset by the decrease in criminal possession of guns, and the criminals are possessing the guns anyway, then you have to question whether you paid a fair price for surrendering your freedom to protect yourself.  This does not mean that all gun laws are useless or that there should be absolutely no regulations whatsoever, even if a 7yo wants a nuclear bomb.  I was kind of hoping we could move AWAY from the extreme abstractions and focus on reality.

What if we use a phrase like “black market” handguns, or handguns “possessed by criminals”.

If gun ownership is criminalized, then ALL gun owners are AUTOMATICALLY criminals by the mere ACT of possessing the gun AT ALL.  I am already on record asking you what the point is in distinguishing between stolen/smuggled guns and legitimately owned firearms.  While I wait for you to answer that question, I am simply pointing out the effect that criminalization will have on the distinction you are currently trying to make.

My point is that just because you can be as responsible as you are with your gun, doesnt mean its good for society in general.

Just because I can commit criminal activities with my gun, doesn’t mean it’s bad for society in general.  This can go around and around.

It may be good for yours, where it has be ingrained in you, but its not a good enough reason for me to introduce it here.  Your actions (with respect to how you handle your gun) are a perfect example.  Not everyone is like that.

First of all, let me clarify one point, because this seems like the right time to make this clear.  I do not own a gun of any sort.  I have not fired a firearm of any kind since working with target rifles as a Boy Scout, which was like 15 years ago.  There exists the possibility that I will never feel the need to own one, and even if so, that my wife will not allow one in the house.  The point is, that’s not your call to make.  The government should not be deciding for me how I need to protect my family.

My principles about safe firearm handling were things I learned without ever owning a gun or taking a training course (unless you count a merit badge).  These same principles are heavily promoted by the NRA, because they also understand the responsibility involved and are committed to educating their members (which I am not one).  I don’t understand the logic that suggests a 13-year-old boy can be taught about sex, handed a free condom, and expected to be able to conduct adult relationships, but even given that, I definitely don’t understand why education is the right choice for him, but a 30-year-old can’t be taught the proper use of a firearm, therefore they all have to be taken away because we’re too stupid to be trusted with them.  Why is education and proper training not the right answer here, rather than government-imposed “gun abstinence”?

Contrary to what Moore would portray gun control doesn’t end violence.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, but I distinctly remember him saying that the number of guns didn’t seem to be the issue.  So Moore is with you on this one! You should be cheering him on, not hating him.

He actually didn’t come to any final conclusion, other than he thought that ‘fear’ was a factor.  And looking through your posts, he may have a point.  Those of you that want guns seem to all feel threatened, be it by criminals or “the government”.  I really wonder why other nations don’t seem to feel that same fear - or feel the same need to arm themselves to the teeths.  Any thoughts?

Further, the statistical surveys Moore and others cite for deaths in the U.S. have consistantly shown that as legal gun ownership in an area, all crime--violent and otherwise--goes down.

You cant own a gun in NYC (which has stricter laws than Canada btw) so according to the more guns = less crime crowd we should be seeing a big crime wave sweeping over New York.  Mysteriously, that big crime wave has failed to materialize.

Again, are you guys seriously proposing that by returning guns to NYC or adding more guns to Canada they would be better off???

Which he now doesn’t have anymore.  How is that not working?

Because the whole point is to make it a crime for him not to have one.  Not just him, but EVERYBODY.  So the innocent population has nothing, and the criminal has an arsenal.  I might see the argument if you were trading liberties for security, but you’re not even getting the security!  So why continue to deprive the populace to no social benefit?

You could say he shouldn’t have one because he’s too young, you could say he shouldn’t have one because he has a record, but to say that NOBODY should have one to make sure he doesn’t get his hands on them, and he does anyway, and I DON’T SEE THE SUPPLIER BEING PROSECUTED, then what are you ACCOMPLISHING in exchange for your liberties?

And to you that would presumably also be a clear example of the laws not working, since cocaine is illegal - yet he still managed to get some???

Cocaine has no legitimate legal application in society.  Apples and oranges.

If gun ownership is criminalized, then ALL gun owners are AUTOMATICALLY criminals by the mere ACT of possessing the gun AT ALL.

Im not talking about “if”.  Im talking about the way things are right now in your country.  Is there no such thing as “illegal” handguns in the USA?

Fair enough. I hope you’ll join me in saying ‘fuck Moore’. I was talking about the more rational liberals. … The main point that I am trying to make is that law abiding citizens don’t want guns (in the UK) and the criminals do. That is why they are generally not allowed. … As for the ‘intent’ argument, how do you justify the charges of possession of drugs without evidence that the individual is planning to take tehm or sell them?

First, well, I think it’s obvious Moore doesn’t speak for you on this issue. : )

Second, well, I thought your response (to which I was responding) was dealing with American specifics versus Europe and elsewhere. Yes, if the U.K. thinks no one should have guns, fine. . If you cede that legitimate purpose to own a gun, fine That’s the U.K.’s choice, and more power to y’all. And if you guys realize the costs of not having guns v. the benefits of outlawing them, and you folks make that choice--and are willing accept any societal consequences of that social policy--great.

Third, if you, unlike Moore, argue that gun control is to reduce the number of guns and gun-related violence (v. the utopian promise of eliminating guns or violence completely) then yes, gun control as you argue for here is clearly working. No question there.

Fourth, regarding questions of law, well, I’m a lawyer, so you lucked out. :) [but real quick cuz I gotta run]

Now, with a gun in plain view, the situation depends. If this is in the U.K., from what you’ve explained the law there to be, this person brandishing a gun in plain view is in blatant violation of law. But, in the states it’s a tad different. Now, if this is a person who, due to a criminal record, should not have a gun, mere possession is enough to nail him.

However, let’s say I holster two 9mm handguns over my clothes so that they are 100% in plain sight. They are in plain view as I walk down the street in Ohio with them. This is 100% legal, assuming I legally own the guns and don’t enter any restricted building (liquor stores, etc.) or buildings that have signs prohibiting people from entering that have guns. I believe, under my oath to enforce both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, as well as under my belief in human rights (specifically, my human right of self-defense), that I should be allowed to do that.

HOWEVER, let’s say I draw one of those suckers and point it someone without provocation (I.E. This person isn’t threatening me, but rather, I threaten them by pointing it). At that point, I’m making a lethal threat, and I should be gunned down like a dog--by the police, or anyone else who legally has a gun.

Now, given your specific situation out there in the U.K., this may seem nothing short of crazy. However, note that a criminal will not give you such notice, nor will they obey the law: They’ll have it, rightly or wrongly, and they’ll have it under a coat. Given this, as well as the American Constitution’s goal of tyranny prevention, I think it’s crazy NOT to be armed. Thankfully (I am, anyway), in Ohio, we have conceal and carry. Once I can afford it, I am going to take the necessary classes, purchase a 9mm, and carry it beneath my coat--thus evening the odds with the crooks.

As for intent to sell being implied from the amount, this is a facts and circumstances thing. While I don’t know Canadian law, I know under U.S. law that it takes certain evidence to make a charge--for purpose of charges, it’s alright to assume intent. However, even with the charge, a jury has to believe it, so it is not a done deal by any means. With drugs, while amounts vary state to state, it’s assumed that once you are carrying so much drugs--let’s say it’s like this kid and he has enough to OD a couple of times--police can infer, for charging, that this wasn’t just for him to use.

A quick, real life counter-example is Cheech Marrin.Whenever he’s busted for possession, they never get him for distribution because, due to his celebrity as a drug-user, it’s assumed he intent to smoke the dope himself.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, but I distinctly remember him saying that the number of guns didn’t seem to be the issue.  So Moore is with you on this one! You should be cheering him on, not hating him.

He actually didn’t come to any final conclusion, other than he thought that ‘fear’ was a factor.  And looking through your posts, he may have a point.  Those of you that want guns seem to all feel threatened, be it by criminals or “the government”.  I really wonder why other nations don’t seem to feel that same fear - or feel the same need to arm themselves to the teeths.  Any thoughts?

Moore is on record saying he wants to see all guns that go “brrrrt” banned (hint: they have been for 70 years), and all handguns banned.  Try to keep up.

I do not feel “threatened” to the extent that my life is in danger, but I don’t see the logic in just letting the government be in control of anything that I don’t feel is personally important to me at any given point in time.  There’s nothing along the lines of “feeling threatened” in safeguarding one’s own liberties, and having the government stay out of your business.

You cant own a gun in NYC (which has stricter laws than Canada btw) so according to the more guns = less crime crowd we should be seeing a big crime wave sweeping over New York.  Mysteriously, that big crime wave has failed to materialize.

Violent crime in the US has gone down across the board for the last 20-odd years, so the more guns = more crime crowd don’t have a leg to stand on.  Legislation which is not necessary to secure liberty and/or safety should not exist.

Im not talking about “if”.  Im talking about the way things are right now in your country.  Is there no such thing as “illegal” handguns in the USA?

I wrote a whole paragraph explaining why I stated this, and asked you to get to your point about stolen weapons.

I wrote a whole paragraph explaining why I stated this, and asked you to get to your point about stolen weapons.

Ok.  It just felt kind of difficult to get to my point when your only response was that ALL guns are illegal if they are banned. 

So, Im guessing this is what you meant…

If gun ownership is criminalized, then ALL gun owners are AUTOMATICALLY criminals by the mere ACT of possessing the gun AT ALL.  I am already on record asking you what the point is in distinguishing between stolen/smuggled guns and legitimately owned firearms.  While I wait for you to answer that question, I am simply pointing out the effect that criminalization will have on the distinction you are currently trying to make.

My point is that overall, the number of legitimately owned firearms has an effect on the number of stolen guns.  (Good call, stolen guns is a better way to put it, rather than my “illegal” guns.  But that is what I meant, I thought maybe you would pick up on that).  Stolen guns seem to be a bigger problem in violent crime than legitimately owned firearms.  We could bring more guns into Canada, but we would have to accept that it would also feed the blackmarket of stolen guns.  I dont have a gun, dont feel a need for a gun, do not believe most of the innocent people shot and killed in Toronto this year would still be alive if they had a gun, so I dont see it as being worth the cost (of feeding the blackmarket).

I think in the US, even if you forget about the importance you as individuals place on the right to gun ownership, its too late for this way of thinking.  The market (supply side) of stolen guns is already there.  As someone said before, it would take generations to significantly reduce it.  The costs there would be too great.  So it wont work for you. 

And dont get me wrong, Im not saying someone could not get a stolen handgun in Canada.  Obviously that is not the case.  But my guy tells me its a little easier in the big cities of the US.  Plus, the idea of getting a gun is still largely taboo here, Id like to keep it that way.  For a ciminal to use a gun, he is really crossing a line.

People commit violent crimes with their BARE HANDS more often than they used a gun, and no gun AT ALL was used in 3/4 of the crimes.

Yes, for violent crimes.  I wonder what the numbers are for homicides, bare hands vs. guns.  Id rather take my chances against bare hands.  And im sure the parents of the 15yo girl that was killed in Toronto on boxing day wish the 2 gangs were using bare hands to fight each other.  Or bats, or chains.  I know, a gun is just a tool though, like any other.

… in fact, the more I think about it, if I take a couple minutes to call the police, and they take another 5-10 minutes to be dispatched to my house, exactly how is time a factor in how I store the gun?

Whoa, calm down there, Mr. Worf. I’m in favor of you getting to it FASTER. I agree that it’s a responsibility to own the things, I just think it’s also possible to take responsibility too far. Keeping the ammo locked in an entirely different cabinet just seems a little excessive, since as you said, it takes a couple of minutes to call the police and 5-10 minutes for them to be dispatched. I personally would want to be ready to deal with the intruder in less than a minute, if possible.
Why not just keep a loaded clip in another drawer of the same cabinet? Or get a trigger lock, that seems like it would be much faster and just as safe as keeping the ammo in an entirely different cabinet.

My point is that overall, the number of legitimately owned firearms has an effect on the number of stolen guns.

Well, again, that’s obvious.  If no firearms CAN be legitimately owned, then they are ALL acquired by illegal means.  It might be more fair to look at it in terms of percentages than raw numbers.

I dont have a gun, dont feel a need for a gun, do not believe most of the innocent people shot and killed in Toronto this year would still be alive if they had a gun, so I dont see it as being worth the cost (of feeding the blackmarket).

By not owning a gun, am I not also refusing to “feed the black market”?  Therefore, wouldn’t this wealth of Canadians reticent to own a weapon sort of belie the idea that the market will be flooded?  Why don’t you just make it illegal to steal a gun?  Oh, wait, it already is.

Yes, for violent crimes.  I wonder what the numbers are for homicides, bare hands vs. guns.

Well, that sort of skews the statistics because by the time it becomes a homicide, the gun has already been used and the person has already died.  About 70% of homicides were committed with a gun, but only about 20% of aggravated assaults.  But murder only accounts for about 1% (I repeat, ONE PERCENT) of all violent crimes reported in the US.  It’s outpaced by rape by about 6:1, robbery by 25:1, and aggravated assault by over 50:1.

Also, given the number of guns in the US, the ratio to violent crimes (of ANY KIND) committed is about 200:1.  Factor in the low incidence of firearm use, and it climbs to 800:1.  EIGHT HUNDRED legitimate, safe firearms for every ONE used in a violent crime.

The raio to gun-related deaths is over 6500:1, and the ratio to firearm homicides is over 13,000:1.  For every gun that kills another person, there are thirteen thousand that do absolutely nothing to you.  And that’s assuming that a different gun is used in every homicide, which is already confounded by instances of multiple homicides and gang-related violence.  I can think of worse things in the world than an object that is 99.995% safe even accounting for the seedier aspects of our society.

Why not just keep a loaded clip in another drawer of the same cabinet? Or get a trigger lock, that seems like it would be much faster and just as safe as keeping the ammo in an entirely different cabinet.

It would depend on the circumstances, but if you asked me right now, then I would have to say that if I did this, and if I had children in the house at that time, this point would be non-negotiable.

w0rf-

Just so I understand, is your point that, considering the large number of guns in the US, the number of gun homicides is really quite low?

w0rf-

do you have a link for those numbers?  im not questioning you, i would just be interested in reading more about those stats.  if not, dont worry about it.

Just so I understand, is your point that, considering the large number of guns in the US, the number of gun homicides is really quite low?

That’s about the size of it.  It belies the notion that guns are a looming dangerous for society due to the tens of thousands that are never used on another human being for every one that is.

All crime statistics were taken from the FBI’s website, I calculated the ratio to ownership on the premise that there are about 200 million guns in America.

How many gun homicides are you using?  What year?

Apples and oranges.

No, apples and apples.  I can just as easily (more easily, in fact!) make the argument that I can eat, drink and smoke whatever I feel like. If I want smoke pot, who is the government to tell me otherwise?

Both laws (anti gun, anti drug) have the same intent, to keep the population safe from harm.  Neither law can prevent the crime from happening.  Either both are wrong, or both are right.

Violent crime in the US has gone down across the board for the last 20-odd years

Yes, and we have abortions to thank for that, if you believe the statistitians!

so the more guns = more crime crowd don’t have a leg to stand on

actually they do, since crime in NYC decreased from above the national average to one of the safest cities in the US.  How can one of the safest city in the US also be the one with the strictest gun laws?  Shouldn’t it be the least safe, according to more guns=less crime?

Legislation which is not necessary to secure liberty and/or safety should not exist.

And guns are definitly a safety issue (people can die when using them). Same with drugs. Same reason for legislating either.

Because the whole point is to make it a crime for him not to have one.  Not just him, but EVERYBODY.

I think you mean “a crime for him to have one”.  Yes, in Canada owning certain types of weapons is a crime.  Same as here.  What is your point?

So the innocent population has nothing

They can own guns.  Just not AK-47s, or machine guns etc.

I might see the argument if you were trading liberties for security, but you’re not even getting the security! 

Canadian death rate is much lower. That seems worth trading for!

So why continue to deprive the populace to no social benefit?

You would have to assume that the populace feels deprived, which it largely does not (based on this board).  I just think they dont feel the need to arm themselves, especially not with heavy weaponry.  I dont even know what the point would be of owning an AK-47 in Toronto.  Should the population walk around with rifles slung over their shoulders?

Again, is anyone here saying that loosening the gun laws in Canada would decrease crime?  If not, then why post the article?

Why is education and proper training not the right answer here, rather than government-imposed “gun abstinence”?

Sounds reasonable, but you’ll get angry responses from the pro-gun crowd.  As soon as you make training mandatory or in any way limit what types of guns can be owned, they will feel it’s an infringement of their rights (go to the end of the discussion thread of Snow Snow Bang Bang for an example). 

I do not believe that taking guns away is feasible in the US, but I do think that training and licencing could be improved.  So I’m definitely with you on that one.  Owning a gun without a license and basic training should be an offence, just like a an unlicended (novice) driver taking a car out on the interstate.  Both for the same reasons.

That’s about the size of it.

The scarey thing is, it almost seems like you think your country is doing pretty good as far as gun murders are concerned.  The numbers are very low, considering…

Thats one way to look at it I guess.

How many gun homicides are you using?  What year?

2004, the last year with hard numbers.

If I want smoke pot, who is the government to tell me otherwise?

Cocaine is not pot.  Learn the difference.

Both laws (anti gun, anti drug) have the same intent, to keep the population safe from harm.  Neither law can prevent the crime from happening.  Either both are wrong, or both are right.

Incorrect.  Drugs are recreational/mind-altering substances.  They cannot be used for protection, for hunting of for any other myriad applications.  ORANGES.

Yes, and we have abortions to thank for that, if you believe the statistitians!

Nothing like killing a million babies to save a couple thousand adults.

actually they do, since crime in NYC decreased from above the national average to one of the safest cities in the US.  How can one of the safest city in the US also be the one with the strictest gun laws?  Shouldn’t it be the least safe, according to more guns=less crime?

New York is nowhere to be found among the 25 safest cities in the US.  Washington DC and Baltimore are both found to be among the 15 most dangerous.  So when are we going to stop tying quantity to incidence?

They can own guns.  Just not AK-47s, or machine guns etc.

What a relief to know that the other 6 guns in his room were legal.  Of course, not I’m confused, I thought your argument was “guns are dangerous and bad”, not “(semi) automatic weapons are dangerous and bad”.  Which is it?

Canadian death rate is much lower. That seems worth trading for!

Only if you can tie the murder rate to gun ownership.  YOU CAN’T.

I dont even know what the point would be of owning an AK-47 in Toronto.  Should the population walk around with rifles slung over their shoulders?

Hooray for missing the point.

Only if you can tie the murder rate to gun ownership.  YOU CAN’T.

But you are saying the US murder rate is remarkably low considering the number of guns owned in the US.  No?

Sounds reasonable, but you’ll get angry responses from the pro-gun crowd.  As soon as you make training mandatory or in any way limit what types of guns can be owned, they will feel it’s an infringement of their rights (go to the end of the discussion thread of Snow Snow Bang Bang for an example)

Because again you are making it about government nannying rather than about proper education.  And for what it’s worth, most conceal-carry states do in fact have a required training course for certification, which is NOT in fact decried by gun advocates because most of them believe in responsible ownership.

The scarey thing is, it almost seems like you think your country is doing pretty good as far as gun murders are concerned.  The numbers are very low, considering…

No, I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense to equate gun ownership to gun violence when the incidence of the two together is statistically negligible, and when people use other means far more often than they use guns to commit their crimes.  If 3/4 of the VIOLENET CRIMINALS do not have a gun on them, then how much of a blight on society is GUN OWNERSHIP?

This isn’t about whether the death rate is thought of as “good” or “bad” because people can ALWAYS do better.  It’s about making a connection that doesn’t exist, when guns are seldom used in violent crimes and the violent crime rate as a whole is dropping.  The two DON’T LINE UP.

But you are saying the US murder rate is remarkably low considering the number of guns owned in the US.  No?

Exactly.  The lack of correlation means they can’t be tied together.

... and I don’t know why you would respond to this anyway, since you were trying to press the point that crimes are committed with STOLEN guns, not legtitimate ones.

and I don’t know why you would respond to this anyway, since you were trying to press the point that crimes are committed with STOLEN guns, not legtitimate ones.

Where are they stolen from?

Exactly.  The lack of correlation means they can’t be tied together.

Ok, so the big question then ... Why so many gun murders in the US?

Where are they stolen from?

How many are stolen?

Ok, so the big question then ... Why so many murders in the US?

Fixed.

How many are stolen?

And by whom?  :)

Fixed.

I do not understand.  End of line.

And by whom?

Gangs?  Time to outlaw gangs?

Incidentally, it may interest you to know that Brazil and Russia have considerably more restrictive gun laws than we do (in Russia, you have to disassemble a longgun before you can even transport it), and both have considerably higher murder rates.  They also have considerably larger black markets for weapons.  So gun liberties also cannot be tied to black market trafficking.

I do not understand.  End of line.

What’s not to understand?  The US has a disproportionately high murder rate.  Not just a gun murder rate, but a murder rate, PERIOD.  So there’s something else that needs to be explored there, not just “well, we all gots too many guns, is all”

The US has a disproportionately high murder rate.  Not just a gun murder rate, but a murder rate, PERIOD.  So there’s something else that needs to be explored there, not just “well, we all gots too many guns, is all”

I definitly agree.  We may disagree that a higher volume of guns contributes to it, but I agree with what you said.

Any ideas why?  Any suggestions for what also needs to be explored.

up4, how do you respond to the FACT (wish I had a link) that in states that pass Concealled Carry laws, crime goes down.

Basically, where there are more guns, crime goes down. How is that possible?

Incidentally, it may interest you to know that Brazil and Russia have considerably more restrictive gun laws than we do

When you start comparing yourselves to Russia and Brazil to look good on crime ... well, you know youre in trouble when....

I definitly agree.  We may disagree that a higher volume of guns contributes to it, but I agree with what you said.

We disagree because there are places with stricter gun laws (Brazil, Russia) with high murder rates, and countries with tons o’ guns (Switzerland, Israel) have low murder rates.  In short, the correlation DOES NOT EXIST.

Any ideas why?  Any suggestions for what also needs to be explored.

There are plenty of contributing factors: gangs, illegal immigration, intra-racial crime (black-on-black crime is a problem here in Columbus that our BLACK DEMOCRAT mayor has failed to address), poverty, lack of education, a little spiritual revival never hurt anyone, there are lots of reasons.  Guns are only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

When you start comparing yourselves to Russia and Brazil to look good on crime ... well, you know youre in trouble when....

Again, you are totally missing the point: the LACK OF CORRELATION in the areas yo uclaim they exist.

up4, how do you respond to the FACT (wish I had a link) that in states that pass Concealled Carry laws, crime goes down.

Basically, where there are more guns, crime goes down. How is that possible?

I believe it, but if you can find numbers, I would appreciate it.  I believe if you think everyone is carrying a gun, most criminals will regard that as a “dont fuck around area”. 

You may have read this in another post, but, I spoke with the president of Citizens for the Right to Bear Arms on the radio, 2 weeks ago I think.  A talk radio show in Toronto, he is based out of Seattle.  He was comparing the two cities.  Saying that with x # of Conceal Carry permits in Seattle, the crime rate is comparable to Toronto.  Toronto just had its worst year ever with 52 murders.  Its a national issue now.  People are talking about it everyday.  Millions of dollars are being thrown at the problem.  Toronto is hiring something like 110 new police officers this year because of it.  They set up 8 new specially trained gang task forces through the Toronto Police. 

With Seattles carry conceal #s, shouldnt their rate be WAY lower than a city in crisis like toronto, where it is completly illegal to carry a gun?  Why did they need carry conceal to bring it down to Torontos level?

Nothing like killing a million babies to save a couple thousand adults.

It’s not a moral judgement, just (seems to be) a fact.

I thought your argument was “guns are dangerous and bad”

Based on what?  I was asking what the point of posting the article was.

Cocaine is not pot.  Learn the difference.

Is pot now legal in all states?  How does that change my argument? Can the government tell me not to smoke pot?

Incorrect.  Drugs are recreational/mind-altering substances.  They cannot be used for protection, for hunting of for any other myriad applications.  ORANGES.

Care to list 10 of those myriad other applications?  :)

Pot can be used for glaucoma treatments.  And MYRIADS of other applications!

I am not arguing that guns and drugs are the same thing. I’m sure you understand that. But both have potential dangers. They are not being regulated because of their potential upsides, but because of their potential downsides. The laws were made for the same reason. APPLES.

Because again you are making it about government nannying rather than about proper education.

Just like getting a drivers licence.  Damn government Nannies!  I’m not a criminal, I believe in safety - so why cant I just get in a car and drive, license or not?  And what’s the deal with speed limits? I know how fast is safe! Don’t try and take my rights away, just because some other idiot doesn’t know how fast he should be going.

Are you contradicting yourself, btw? Weren’t you just for education? Or is this voluntary education?  Then how about voluntary drivers licences?

I dont even know what the point would be of owning an AK-47 in Toronto.  Should the population walk around with rifles slung over their shoulders?

Hooray for missing the point.

In what way? Arent you saying that Canadians should be allowed to own AK-47s?  Without any reasons as to why this would make Canada better?

w0rf-

I think you are being to strict with this “correlation” idea to take in what I am saying.  Try “contributing factor”.  I think in the US, the high volume of hand guns is a contributing factor to the high gun murder rate.

Do you honestly believe, that if the handgun ownership rate in the US was always the same as Canadas, you would still have the same number of murders every year?  Believe me, Im not suggesting taking away peoples guns.  Just illustrating that the number of guns is in fact a contributing factor.