Va Tech > Guns...

[w squared]

Sorry, Rockie. Your semantics don't change the fundamental realities of the question. When parsing the sentence the distinction between "a" and "your" isn't immediately evident to a sufficent degree to make it plain that the firearm in question is not your property.

You're also using semantics in lieu of a practical application of logic. Nobody in the "pro-gun" camp that I know of objects to background checks prior to issuance of concealed weapon permits.

[rigpiggy]

]

I guess you can't see the difference between a gun and a credit card either.

Or a gun and a rock.
Or a gun and a kitchen knife.
Or a gun and a bucket of water.
Or a gun and a crescent wrench.
Or a gun and a screwdriver.
Or a gun and a ballpoint pen.
Or a gun and a two by four.

I could kill people with any of those things you listed, you better Ban Me, Oh chances are I could kill you with a credit card too. Doesn't necessarily mean that I would though

[niss]

My mom was SF, she could kill you 15 differant ways with a straw and another 5 if you let her use the wrapper.

[goates]

My mom was SF, she could kill you 15 differant ways with a straw and another 5 if you let her use the wrapper.

And . Norris would've roundhouse kicked the shooter before he even found the trigger...

[JakeYYZ]

It’s kind of old. I'm sure there's a newer study out there somewhere.

According to the report, the slightly more than 200,000 Texans who have become licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. Comparing arrest rates for example:
• Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense.
• They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.
• They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.
Moreover, of the six licensees who were arrested and tried for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, four were found not guilty because they had acted in self-defense.

http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html

It does seem to indicate as soon as the killers realize that prospective victims will not sit quietly by and allow themselves to be killed the violent crime rate goes down.

[JakeYYZ]

Here are more recent crime stats.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

[Rockie]

]

I guess you can't see the difference between a gun and a credit card either.

Or a gun and a rock.
Or a gun and a kitchen knife.
Or a gun and a bucket of water.
Or a gun and a crescent wrench.
Or a gun and a screwdriver.
Or a gun and a ballpoint pen.
Or a gun and a two by four.

I could kill people with any of those things you listed, you better Ban Me, Oh chances are I could kill you with a credit card too. Doesn't necessarily mean that I would though

Maybe I'm not being clear enough here but that was my point. You can kill with all of those and countless other everyday items created as tools to accomplish something. But people who can't make a distinction between them and a handgun, designed and built for the sole purpose of shooting a person, are in my opinion stupid. Harsh words I know, and someone who falls into that category is going to get real upset. But that's the way it is. I remember years ago watching a rich young basketball player taking the media for a tour of his house. He showed off his collection of dump trucks (?) his indoor bowling alley and basketball court, and his skeet shooting range. There he was waving the shotgun around like it was a toy. Total moron. This is the image I have of wholesale arming of the public. Sure, the Nark's and xsbank's can say all they want about how proficient and professional they are, but it's meaningless drivel unless I personally know them. That's why I am a big supporter of strict gun control. Because everybody, including that idiot of a basketball player, thinks they're an expert. And that's not even touching on criminal intent whether it's planned or impulsive. There is not a case in my mind to justify more guns available to the public. Civilized society does not mean everyone walking around armed. It'll be the Hatfields and McCoys everywhere you turn.

[w squared]

Should we be more concerned about the intent of the designers when they drew up the specs for an item? Or should we be concerned with the potential damage that item can inflict.

After all, the sole purpose of a car is to move someone from point a to point b.

What exactly will strict gun control accomplish? What has it accomplished in Australia and England? What has it done for their overall homicide rates?

How about Canada versus the US? What percentage of their homicides are commited with firearms in comparison to ours? What do you see when you factor in how many of those firearms are illegal?

[Blue Side Down]

Maybe instead of more 'gun control', we need better 'people control'...

[Rockie]

Should we be more concerned about the intent of the designers when they drew up the specs for an item? Or should we be concerned with the potential damage that item can inflict.

After all, the sole purpose of a car is to move someone from point a to point b.

What exactly will strict gun control accomplish? What has it accomplished in Australia and England? What has it done for their overall homicide rates?

How about Canada versus the US? What percentage of their homicides are commited with firearms in comparison to ours? What do you see when you factor in how many of those firearms are illegal?

I'm going to give up. I cannot debate with people who equate handguns with a lawnmower. I will not debate statistics because they can say anything anyone wants them to say, and they do not address the nature of a society.

I do not want my country to turn into a gun-centric society like the United States and will fight it wherever possible. People down there, and I guess some up here, are actually advocating arming school kids. Those people are seriously, seriously stupid and are the same people who are walking the streets carrying a weapon. Does that not concern any of you?

I will only ask this last question...if you guys think a gun in every pocket is the answer, would you go live in Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan? Everybody in those places wears their AK-47 on their sleeve so you should feel quite safe.

[lilfssister]

Is gun control the real issue in this case or the laws that allowed the shooter (when more than one other person had expressed concerns about his mental health) not to be committed involuntarily (well he did brief visits to mental health facilities-WHY did they let him go???) for a long period of time? Despite the outcome you have to applaud those that saw there was a problem and attempted to get him off the street.

[grimey]

Is gun control the real issue in this case or the laws that allowed the shooter (when more than one other person had expressed concerns about his mental health) not to be committed involuntarily (well he did brief visits to mental health facilities-WHY did they let him go???) for a long period of time? Despite the outcome you have to applaud those that saw there was a problem and attempted to get him off the street.

Exactly. There were way too many warning signs for this guy to have been out on the street, let alone being allowed to buy guns.

[rigpiggy]

Let's go back to 1989 shall we. Marc Lepine wasn't his real name, he changed it don't know if legally or just assumed. Had a history of assaults, was on medication for psychotic behaviour. all these things should have been warning signs. Now with Cho we find that he had a history of assaults, stalking, antisocial behaviour, and was bullied. sounds familiar doesn't it. if we put half the money wasted on the registry into social services to help these individuals before they snap we'd all be better off. Didn't Ontario refuse psychiatric counselling to soldier's kids because they weren't responsible for the mental health of military offspring because it was a Federal Issue.

Remember the old show "Shane"
"A gun is a tool. Its as good or bad as the person who uses it."

[Wasps rule]

I'm going to give up. I cannot debate with people who equate handguns with a lawnmower. I will not debate statistics because they can say anything anyone wants them to say, and they do not address the nature of a society.

I do not want my country to turn into a gun-centric society like the United States and will fight it wherever possible. People down there, and I guess some up here, are actually advocating arming school kids. Those people are seriously, seriously stupid and are the same people who are walking the streets carrying a weapon. Does that not concern any of you?

Hey Rockie, here's a good read. It should relieve you of any aprehension you have towards your neighbour owning a gun for protection.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

[Wasps rule]

Here is another good article. Not too many stats in this one so it will be tougher to come up with an excuse to bury your head in the sand Rockie. Enjoy.


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...02252-sun.html

"Anti-firearms nuts dead wrong
Sheeplike behaviour won't make us any safer when gunman arrives

By IAN ROBINSON, CALGARY SUN



The geek with the gun is back, this time at Virginia Tech, and the death toll of 32 innocents brings the anti-firearms nuts out of the woodwork, elbowing one another out of the way in their haste to be first to climb to the top of the pile of corpses to trumpet their message.

Even in Canada, where restrictions on owning long guns are beyond reasonable and getting a handgun ridiculously so -- unless you're a gangbanger who refuses to obey the law -- there are people who believe if they can limit certain freedoms just a little bit more, we'll all be safe within the comforting embrace of the Mommy State.

Jack Layton and Stephane Dion and Sheila Copps all dusted off their tired, old morally and intellectually bankrupt acts and took them on the road again.

They are the Neville Chamberlains of the modern age.

If only we're made more defenceless, more sheeplike, somehow only then will we be safe.

The U.S. Department of Justice found the risk of serious injury for unarmed women who were victims of crime was 250% higher than those who -- Eek! Eek! -- had a gun.

In a study of all public, mass-murder incidents in the U.S. between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott Jr. of Yale's law school and William M. Landes of the University of Chicago's law school (not exactly wild-eyed radicals on this issue like ... well ... me) wrote:


"The most comprehensive empirical study of concealed handgun laws finds that they reduce murder rates by about 1.5% for each additional year a law has been in effect, with similar declines in other violent crimes. And contrary to a popular misconception, permit holders are virtually never involved in the commission of crime, let alone murder."

These fellows found states in which law-abiding citizens can get a concealed weapons permit, the incidence of mass-murder shootings like the one at Virginia Tech were reduced 60%, and when they did occur, the deaths and injuries from such attacks were reduced nearly 80%.

In other words, self-defence works.

It's annoying to live in a culture in which we have to hire smart people to point out what ought to be self-evident.

Lott and Landes also wrote: "One puzzle is why the media rarely reports the role of guns in ending attacks."

A shooting spree at a Mississippi high school in 1997 left two students dead. An assistant principal got his handgun from his car and stopped the attack by immobilizing the shooter until police arrived.

Of 687 news articles about the attack, only 10 mentioned the vice-principal's gun. That's like reporting on the Second World War and forgetting to mention the A-bomb.

A CBS News story noted the educator "eventually subdued the young gunman." No mention of how he did it.

Lott and Landes cite other examples. (The paper is available on the web, just Google the authors' names. For a sane Canadian perspective on gun control, and the number of times Canadians use firearms to save their own lives, Google Gary Mauser, a prof at Simon Fraser University.)

But merely putting forth the notion of resistance to killers is now politically incorrect. A Fort Worth school district recently hired a security outfit called Response Options.

It was founded by retired SWAT cops appalled by the Columbine massacre. They decided to do something about it and came up with a program that taught teachers and children, if someone with a gun came into their classroom, to throw everything at him that came to hand, and swarm him to bring him down.

The rationale is the school shooter is beyond reason.

He is there simply to kill.

There is no reasoning with such animals. And by attacking, there is a better chance of survival for the largest number of potential victims.

As trainer Robert Browne of Response Options told the press at the time: "Getting under the desk and doing what the gunman tells you ... that's not a recipe for success."

But when news got out, the school district backed off from the program.

One wonders what might have been for the victims at Virginia Tech had anyone in the building been armed or if, at least been trained in defence against such monsters the way they were trained in fire drills as children.

There are now 40 U.S. states with "right-to-carry" laws. Not a single one has rescinded the law once it passed."

[Rockie]

Those two articles are laughable. You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies.

[Wasps rule]

Yeah, laughable...right.

These were some of my fav's from the articles, I don't recognize any of them as Dirty Harry quotes though.

there are people who believe if they can limit certain freedoms just a little bit more, we'll all be safe within the comforting embrace of the Mommy State.

It's annoying to live in a culture in which we have to hire smart people to point out what ought to be self-evident.

If only we're made more defenceless, more sheeplike, somehow only then will we be safe.

It's almost as though the author was trying to point out something painfully obvious to the painfully ignorant and was trying to soften the blow with a little humour. Now I get the laughable part!

[xsbank]

August 17, 2006
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence
Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University
Don B. Kates, retired

Abstract:

The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.

For more bepress legal papers, visit bepress Legal Repository.

[Rockie]

Yeah, laughable...right.

These were some of my fav's from the articles, I don't recognize any of them as Dirty Harry quotes though.

there are people who believe if they can limit certain freedoms just a little bit more, we'll all be safe within the comforting embrace of the Mommy State.

It's annoying to live in a culture in which we have to hire smart people to point out what ought to be self-evident.

If only we're made more defenceless, more sheeplike, somehow only then will we be safe.

It's almost as though the author was trying to point out something painfully obvious to the painfully ignorant and was trying to soften the blow with a little humour. Now I get the laughable part!

When I read or listen to material that I know little about, I usually try to get apposing points of view before forming an opinion of my own. That means I read a right wing newspaper, then a left wing newspaper. I listen to what a company says, then what the union says. Invariably the truth lies somewhere in the middle and is obscured by the rhetoric from both sides. I read the Toronto Sun every morning and then the Toronto Star. It is amazing the different slant each brings to exactly the same story. After your last post I went online and read a few of this Ian Robinson's articles because I had never heard of him. He is about as out there to the right as you can get. He's even a fan of Ann Coulter who is so extreme she makes right wingers uncomfortable. I would call him as extreme as Svend Robinson, except on the other side of the spectrum. I wonder if they're related? Anyway, if you are using him as a guiding beacon through life I would suggest you do what I do and get a more balanced approach to things.

[Wasps rule]

the truth lies somewhere in the middle and is obscured by the rhetoric from both sides.

Rockie, this is groundbreaking...We are on the same page.

I agree with the whole media slant thing however there is the problem specific to articles regarding guns in general.

Take the 1997 Mississippi High-school shooting incident mentioned in the article in my previous post(again in this article as well). The shooter was stopped by the Vice Principal's own gun, however it is reported only 19 of 687 articles mentioned the fact that the VP was armed. That's only 2.8% of the articles report "THE FACTS"
An isolated incident? A slight oversight? Maybe not. The following article from Freestudents.blogspot that tells of a similiar shooting incident at a law school that was stopped by two students who retrieved pistols from their respective cars and put a stop to a school shooter. Following this incident only 2 of 88 articles reported the students were armed when they stopped the gunmen, that's a whopping 2.3% of editors that allow fair BALANCED reporting. That's a lot of newspapers you have to read to get "Both sides of the story". The result is unavoidable, people see guns=bad, and they have no use except for killing. As I have said before, self defence is also a valid reason for owning a gun.
Is my tinfoil hat too tight or do I have a point? Can you see where I am coming from?

Anyway, here is the link. It is an interesting read

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... tance.html

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
When mass killers meet armed resistance.

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.

[Hedley]

Yes, but ... did you know that EVERY person that consumes Dihydrogen Oxide is guaranteed to die?

More than 4 out of 5 dentists are unable to refute the above - Dihydrogen Oxide is a KILLER! It's DESIGNED TO KILL!

BAN DIHYDROGEN OXIDE!!

[Rockie]

The difference in attitudes here comes from the different directions we view this issue from. In all the cases you and others have cited Hedley, there are one or two armed individuals who put a stop to a shooting rampage and actually prevent further loss of life. No one, including me, can argue with that. I have said myself that if I were at Virginia Tech and had a gun on me I would shoot Cho myself. If I were in a situation where I needed a gun to protect myself I would certainly wish for one and would not hesitate to use it.

But you, me and everybody else here are individuals. Try thinking in terms of everybody out there being armed. I can guarantee you your opportunity to use that gun will increase exponentially. Every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry is going to be waving a gun around and you won't know if it's going to settle on you or someone else. So the supposed "self defense" shootings will dramatically increase. If you're armed, so is everyone else. Imagine that...Mogadishu, Kabul, Bagdad, Toronto. This isn't simple self defence you're talking about here, it's social engineering.

Stop thinking about just yourself and try and look at society as a whole. Millions of people walking the streets armed. Running gun fights on the 401 (you know that's going to be a twice daily occurance). What you're talking about is not arming individuals, it's arming an entire society, and I view that as a bad thing along with most of the rest of this society. I do not advocate banning guns and never have. I do support strict controls on who gets them. Laws are developed because by and large society wants them. Sure, there are some mistakes made by governments but unless you live in a dictatorship, which we don't by the way, the laws reflect the will of the society. People in Canada want to feel safe and they don't feel safe with everyone being armed. Immigrants and refuges escape places like that to come to Canada for a better quality of life. And I do not want my country to become like the places they came from.

[Wasps rule]

Try thinking in terms of everybody out there being armed. I can guarantee you your opportunity to use that gun will increase exponentially. Every Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry is going to be waving a gun around and you won't know if it's going to settle on you or someone else....

Who said anything about everybody being armed besides you? For that to happen everybody would need a handgun first. We are currently short 31 million handguns in Canada for that to happen. Quit being such an alarmist.

...This isn't simple self defence you're talking about here, it's social engineering...

No it's simple self defence were talking about. The term social engineering is applicable to some extent as peoples attitudes and perceptions would change. That being said, a "no parking" sign is also a form of social engineering.

...Stop thinking about just yourself and try and look at society as a whole. Millions of people walking the streets armed. Running gun fights on the 401 (you know that's going to be a twice daily occurance).

I am looking at society as a whole. When qualified individuals are permitted to carry concealed the violent crime rate drops. Try and find a State that saw its violent crime rate increase after concealed carry was introduced, it goes down as a rule. Also, indviduals who are permitted to carry concealed are less likely to commit murder than their unarmed nieghbours.

What you're talking about is not arming individuals, it's arming an entire society

Again, you are the only one going on about arming an entire society. I'm talking about arming qualified individuals. Think of it as police officers without a uniform. I read an article recently (can't find right now please correct if I'm wrong) that said only 5% of Texans are permitted to carry concealed. Not everybody wants the responsibility of carrying a gun so sleep easy, 95% of us would still be unarmed. Everybody however would enjoy the lower crime rate brought about largely by criminals who don't want to risk confronting an armed victim.

[Rockie]

You have a fairly high opinion of yourself thinking you're qualified to carry a handgun Wasp. I don't happen to think you are. But assuming you are qualified, and don't think people who aren't qualified should be armed, aren't you really talking about ...gasp...gun control? Who in your opinion should make the determination on who is qualified and who isn't? You? How do you suggest we weed out the idiots from the highly trained knights in shining armour like you. Should we test them? Should we have some sort of psychological analysis to make sure they aren't latent killers? How do we do that Wasp pray tell?

We already have qualified people who are armed Wasp. We call them the police. If you think there aren't enough armed police around maybe you should be campaigning for more police? But we're supposed to be comfortable with you carrying a handgun why? Because you say so?

In a word...no!

[xsbank]

Attempting to argue with a person who's mind is closed reduces your own position to a rant - give up trying to convince Rocky, its pointless. I figured that out 3 days ago.