Carrying of sidearms

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

understanding the nature of power in the US will illuminate you as to why those three cities have restrictive gun laws and high crime, and why Vermont is not as important to maintain control over the citizenry.

Care to enlighten me on this?

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Wild and free I think what he was getting at is some of these people are afraid of guns due to lack of understanding or ignorance. Even you should be able to agree that people kill people not guns.
People already have guns so are we not a armed society?

Only guns in public are those carried by men and women with a sworn duty to serve and protect and those with nefarious intent. so no we are not an armed society.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Care to enlighten me on this?

Simple, armed citizens can overthrow a government. unarmed citizens not so much.
DC is the center of political power, NYC and Chicago are the financial centers. take over any of those the US has a vacuum of power. restricting the citizens there makes maintaining power easier.

the high crime keeps the citizens less focused on the government and more focused on their own survival.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Only guns in public are those carried by men and women with a sworn duty to serve and protect and those with nefarious intent. so no we are not an armed society.

Your definition?
There is nothing saying me or other gun owners can't be in public with our firearms. Many of us don't parade around town with our guns but I believe we are in every right to do so. That must make us a armed society.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Simple, armed citizens can overthrow a government. unarmed citizens not so much.
DC is the center of political power, NYC and Chicago are the financial centers. take over any of those the US has a vacuum of power. restricting the citizens there makes maintaining power easier.

the high crime keeps the citizens less focused on the government and more focused on their own survival.

Lol thanks. Darn gov't conspiracies. It does make sense though.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Lol thanks. Darn gov't conspiracies. It does make sense though.

Social engineering at its worst really. look into ancient Rome before the fall. 100-300ad

[obsessed1]

This is far less about gun control or cc or oc and more about the rights for each individual to have the right to choose for himself. Carry or dont carry I believe we should all have the right to choose for ourselves in our "free" country. Its been my observation during my lifetime that we are totally free in this country to think and believe whatever we are told to

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Simple, armed citizens can overthrow a government. unarmed citizens not so much.
DC is the center of political power, NYC and Chicago are the financial centers. take over any of those the US has a vacuum of power. restricting the citizens there makes maintaining power easier.

the high crime keeps the citizens less focused on the government and more focused on their own survival.

So is that gun control good or bad.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It is true that guns are the weapon of choice in Canada and the US...it is also true that increase access to firearms in the US mean a dramatically higher murder rate there. I don't want that here.

I call BULLSHOT.

Would you like to compare the laws of Vermont with a murder rate of 4/100,000 to the District of Columbia with a rate of 100/100,000 ?

Do you own a firearm?

Do you squat to pee?

[silver]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

understanding the nature of power in the US will illuminate you as to why those three cities have restrictive gun laws and high crime, and why Vermont is not as important to maintain control over the citizenry.

Understanding the murder rates of the places mentioned will tell you legal fire arm possession has diddly squat to do with the murder rate.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Cool. Another interesting fact.

Lots more guns ...US gun culture translates into...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ted_death_rate

Total firearms related deaths...

In Canada 2.22 people per 100,000
In US 10.3 people per 100,000

Total homicides

In Canada 0.51 per 100,000
In US 2.83 per 100,000

Total suicides

In Canada 1.6 per 100,000
In US 6.30 per 100,000

And really interesting...unintentional or accidental

In Canada 0.04 per 100,000
In US 0.3 per 100,000

Almost 10X more likely to die in an accidental shooting in the US versus Canada. Almost 6X more likely to die by gun in a murder in the US

Statistically just becoming a US style gun culture the risk to your family goes up significantly.

That is all true.

But I think that is more due to the easy access (by access I mean the ability to own) to guns, not ccw.

I think if we had the same lax laws regarding owning a handgun we would see a great increase in handgun ownership. Again, no one is asking for that.

We are already miles ahead of the U.S. when it comes to responsible ownership.

Allowing CC or OC would not change that.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Sooooo skewed.... Srry. Apple.... Meet orange.
If edmonton oilers played 100 games vs Chicago Blackhawks, you get the point.....

So what is skewed? This is a direct comparison normalized to population.

Yes...US and Canada is different in some ways. I like being different and see no reason to Americanize.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

This is far less about gun control or cc or oc and more about the rights for each individual to have the right to choose for himself. Carry or dont carry I believe we should all have the right to choose for ourselves in our "free" country. Its been my observation during my lifetime that we are totally free in this country to think and believe whatever we are told to

Ahhh. But the same then should include the right for society which is made up of many individuals to decide not become a gun society like in the US.

Your view of society that you are controlled by others would require more understanding before you should every be allowed a CC permit in Canada if it became legal.

I am free. Totally free. It is a fact.

[elkhunter11]

my father taught me that recreational shooting is wasteful. if your gun fires true, then it's good until the next time you want it to put dinner in front of you. that logic works for me. I hadn't fired a gun in over a decade, but still dropped my first whitetail with 1 round.

I am glad that he is your father, and not mine, I would hate to grow up in a family whose children are taught such nonsense. Recreational shooting is a healthy form of entertainment, and it helps to maintain a persons shooting skills. My father taught me to respect the game that I hunt, and a large part of that is making sure that my shooting skills are maintained, and that I verify my equipment before hunting, to make sure that I can make a quick clean kill when required. I would hate to wound an animal because a fault in my equipment went undetected, because I was not responsible enough to verify my equipment before going hunting. Your post also helps me to understand your backward views towards the ownership and use of firearms by citizens.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So what is skewed? This is a direct comparison normalized to population.

Yes...US and Canada is different in some ways. I like being different and see no reason to Americanize.

By simply allowing cc or oc here without changing existing law as to ownership, we would be different and better than the U.S.

[obsessed1]

As others have stated I have no issue with the laws around purchase and ownership of restricted firearms and I do believe that each carry permit should require a written and practical exam before being issued and that you should have to qualify with your chosen firearm each year to keep your permit. And I also believe that we should be able to choose for ourselves.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by expmler

That is all true.

But I think that is more due to the easy access (by access I mean the ability to own) to guns, not ccw.

I think if we had the same lax laws regarding owning a handgun we would see a great increase in handgun ownership. Again, no one is asking for that.

We are already miles ahead of the U.S. when it comes to responsible ownership.

Allowing CC or OC would not change that.

I agree. CW it itself does not cause the increase murder rate. But again... Why carry if we don't need to. Such a low crime rate...doesnt make sense.

If some start to carry...more will want to likely because of the paranoia mentioned above. Some not trusting others carrying want to counter carry. Gun proliferation like in the US could result.

If very few carried...had strong background testing and law enforcement style security training in the urban use of handguns in a public setting then with a high level of accountability including if they Accidentally hurt or killed someone they would be civilally and criminally liable. There would be no grayness in someone's actions.

It would be an interesting concept...however unlikely.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

I call BULLSHOT.

Would you like to compare the laws of Vermont with a murder rate of 4/100,000 to the District of Columbia with a rate of 100/100,000 ?

Do you own a firearm?

Do you squat to pee?

Please join in but be civil or I will not engage in debating with you. I don't want the mods to use you as an excuse to close this down. So talk to the points and not attack individuals or I will ignore you.

You can compare targeted areas in the US to show the lower end of the range. In turn I can show you similar stats for Canada that shows an even more dramatically lower end.

The US is a gun culture. As such their murder rate by gun is way way higher than that of Canada. In fact Nicaragua is better than the US.

The US stats are clear and factual.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am glad that he is your father, and not mine, I would hate to grow up in a family whose children are taught such nonsense. Recreational shooting is a healthy form of entertainment, and it helps to maintain a persons shooting skills. My father taught me to respect the game that I hunt, and a large part of that is making sure that my shooting skills are maintained, and that I verify my equipment before hunting, to make sure that I can make a quick clean kill when required. I would hate to wound an animal because a fault in my equipment went undetected, because I was not responsible enough to verify my equipment before going hunting. Your post also helps me to understand your backward views towards the ownership and use of firearms by citizens.

I would appreciate it if you did not talk ill of my family or how I was raised.
-My father taught me that there are healthy forms of entertainment that do not cost a thing.
-My father also taught me to respect the game that I hunt, and that filling every tag I am eligible for leads to waste.
-My father taught me proper use and handling of firearms in a safe and controlled manner.
-My father and I always go out at the beginning of the season, check our weapons and fire a few rounds to ensure they are still true from last season.
-My father taught me that a rifle is a tool that has specific purpose and should only be used for those specific purposes.

I have never mishandled a firearm and I have never wounded or maimed an animal I have aimed at.

You post highlights the quality of your character by your complete disregard of learning about the people you speak of. As well as your view that guns are not only tools, but toys that you play with for fun.

It goes both ways buddy. Take care.

should of taken Rugs advice and not clicked.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I agree. CW it itself does not cause the increase murder rate. But again... Why carry if we don't need to. Such a low crime rate...doesnt make sense.

If some start to carry...more will want to likely because of the paranoia mentioned above. Some not trusting others carrying want to counter carry. Gun proliferation like in the US could result.

If very few carried...had strong background testing and law enforcement style security training in the urban use of handguns in a public setting then with a high level of accountability including if they Accidentally hurt or killed someone they would be civilally and criminally liable. There would be no grayness in someone's actions.

It would be an interesting concept...however unlikely.

If we agree CW in itself does not increase the murder rate, I would ask why not allow it. If you do not feel the need fine, if I feel the need fine. We both have a choice. Neither of our choices affects the other.

More may want to, but they would still have to meet the same standards of
the few. If they met those standards the murder rate would still not rise.

If in order to carry, the person met all of the criteria you listed above, I don't believe it would matter how large or small the amount of carriers there would be.

[elkhunter11]

You post highlights the quality of your character by your complete disregard of learning about the people you speak of.

Actually your posts tell me more than you think about you.

First you post;

I hadn't fired a gun in over a decade, but still dropped my first whitetail with 1 round.

Then you post;

-My father and I always go out at the beginning of the season, check our weapons and fire a few rounds to ensure they are still true from last season.

Your story is changing from post to post, which does teach me something about you.

As well as your view that guns are not only tools, but toys that you play with for fun.

I never refer to firearms as toys, but I do shoot for entertainment. By doing so, I am actually using my firearms for the purposes that they are intended to be used for. Why do you suppose that they make target rifles, or sporting clays guns, or skeet guns , if not to shoot them for entertainment?

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by expmler

If we agree CW in itself does not increase the murder rate, I would ask why not allow it. If you do not feel the need fine, if I feel the need fine. We both have a choice. Neither of our choices affects the other.

More may want to, but they would still have to meet the same standards of
the few. If they met those standards the murder rate would still not rise.

If in order to carry, the person met all of the criteria you listed above, I don't believe it would matter how large or small the amount of carriers there would be.

Perfectly stated^^^^^^^^ in the case of an amoral issue like this, to not have the freedom of choice means you are not truly free

[roper1]

Seems so plain & simple to me but maybe I am simple- authorized to carry a long gun, why not a short one ??

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Perfectly stated^^^^^^^^ in the case of an amoral issue like this, to not have the freedom of choice means you are not truly free

oh how one dimensional. Do you wear a seat belt ?? what are all those signs at the side of the high way telling you ?? Why do I have to wear a helmet on a m/c?? Why do I have sit a test and get a licence. then get insurance and register my vech??? Im traind to a higher standard than a normal class five driver licence why cant I drive as I wish ??? Carrying on the might need it idea is at the level of irrational fear ie paranoia. with canadian stats of .5 per 100 thou. .00001% phobia is an other word that explains irrational fears.

[surhuntsalot]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Please join in but be civil or I will not engage in debating with you. I don't want the mods to use you as an excuse to close this down. So talk to the points and not attack individuals or I will ignore you.

You can compare targeted areas in the US to show the lower end of the range. In turn I can show you similar stats for Canada that shows an even more dramatically lower end.

The US is a gun culture. As such their murder rate by gun is way way higher than that of Canada. In fact Nicaragua is better than the US.

The US stats are clear and factual.

You still don't seem to acknowledge the difference in culture... Not that the U.S doesn't have more guns, more people, more crime. You continually cite that there are more murders per capita...

#1... Do you disagree that a large portion (if not a greater portion) of those murders and gun crimes are committed by the Huge gang and drug problem that is rampant in the U.S, and not by the legal law abiding firearm owner ?

#2... Do you agree or disagree that the increased poverty/employment situation, and social problems in the United States is also a large contributing factor to the higher suicide rates and crime rates (not just simply linking it to more guns)?

You tend to continually link the number of guns to the numbers of crimes, etc. committed . There are certain communities and reservations within Canada that because of the same poverty/ social issues also have a disproportionately high suicide and crime rate. We don't socially engineer the country based on those numbers.I would tend to think (having some faith in Canadians), that if you were to take the number of guns in the States and put them in Canadian hands that you would not see the type of decline in safety you claim there would be. The true left wing ideology is "Put your faith in others to protect you". If they are unable to protect you, then they further erode your ability to protect yourself to the point that anything they do for you will still be better than what you can do. Even if it is not enough.

[Wild&Free]

Elkhunter, perhaps the fact that I hadn't fired a gun in a decade indicates that I didn't go out hunting for a decade.

There was no contradiction in my post.

If you'd like to continue to make this a personal matter, and not a discussion of ideas I'd like to refer you to this quote.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Also, just because a tool is used and adapted for entertainment doesn't change the nature of the tool itself. Case in point, the club being used to hit a ball and the invention of baseball. If you like playing with weapons, by all means go a head and do so. Just not out in the general public outside of appropriate fields, that's how bystanders get hurt.

PM me if you have anything to add, I'm done with this thread.

[surhuntsalot]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Carrying on the might need it idea is at the level of irrational fear ie paranoia. with canadian stats of .5 per 100 thou. .00001% phobia is an other word that explains irrational fears.

Every responsible person "Carrying" would be doing so hoping They Never Need... Truth is LEO's might never need to draw a side arm in their career ... Yet they carry. There may never be another threat to the House of Commons, but you can bet your Arse someone there is Carrying....

If you, your wife or member of your family were to unfortunately fall into the .5% per 100k, I'm willing to bet at that point you could care less about the other 99.5% that were unaffected....

Carrying is more like Auto Insurance... You have it, hope you never need to use it, but sure are glad it's got you covered when you do need it...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Elkhunter, perhaps the fact that I hadn't fired a gun in a decade indicates that I didn't go out hunting for a decade.

There was no contradiction in my post.

If you'd like to continue to make this a personal matter, and not a discussion of ideas I'd like to refer you to this quote.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Also, just because a tool is used and adapted for entertainment doesn't change the nature of the tool itself. Case in point, the club being used to hit a ball and the invention of baseball. If you like playing with weapons, by all means go a head and do so. Just not out in the general public outside of appropriate fields, that's how bystanders get hurt.

PM me if you have anything to add, I'm done with this thread.

If you hadn't fired a gun for a decade, before firing the one shot that killed the deer, then you obviously didn't fire the gun before you went hunting that season, as you posted that you and your father always do, so yes, there is a contradiction.

I don't play with weapons, but I do use them for the intended purpose, and in most cases, those particular firearms were developed specifically for entertainment purposes.

However, the more that you post, the more that I understand how misguided your opinions are, as to why people own firearms. Perhaps it's a result of your upbringing, but you just can't seem to grasp that firearms can be used responsibly,for purposes other than killing things. With your attitude, Wendy Cukier would likely enjoy having you join her group.

[Got Juice?]

I like to be distinct when classifying firearms... makes life simple... but that confuses LIEberals.. but here goes nothing:



Firearms are TOOLS! nothing more, nothing less. Used in a safe responsible manner, nobody gets hurt, everyone stays safe.


However... any TOOL that is MISUSED can be perverted from a TOOL to a WEAPON!!! These people are neither safe, or responsible, and people are going to get hurt.

Ersazt Media... if it bleeds it leads. mentality.

[obsessed1]

Also, just because a tool is used and adapted for entertainment doesn't change the nature of the tool itself. Case in point, the club being used to hit a ball and the invention of baseball. If you like playing with weapons, by all means go a head and do so. Just not out in the general public outside of appropriate fields, that's how bystanders get hurt.



Interesting how a "tool" used in the hands of the incapable becomes a "weapon" In the hands of a person who has taken the time and steps to become a master of said " weapon" in both a safe and responsible manner....hummm yuppy much?