Miller Out To Lunch....TO Banning Gun Ranges & Warehouses

[scuro]

The basic premise the mayor believes is that greater handgun accessibly leads to greater numbers of unnecessary death. The means by which he goes to try to limit accessibility can be faulted but I believe that premise to be true. If others disagree, that is a conversation worth having, who knows,...I, and a large segment of the general population could be wrong.

 

Here is a chart that seems to show evidence that guns in the household lead to a higher gunshot death rate. It has Canadian and even provincial content.

 

Figure 1 - Percentage of households with guns vs. gunshot death rate: a multinational comparison

Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

 

***additional information added after initial post***

Edited May 30, 2008 by scuro

[huntervasili]

Do you mind so much as adding you're source? As as what the graph shows... they clearly forgot a title. Thanks

[scuro]

Here is another interesting graph. It illustrates homicide, unintentional death, and suicidal death rates by guns for kids under 15.

 

Graph 1 - Rates of firearm-related death among children <15 years - 26 industrialized countries

 

Source: Centers for Disease Control. "Rates of Homicide, Suicide and Firearm-Related Death Among Children - 26 industrialized countries." MMWR, Vol. 46, No. 5.

Edited May 30, 2008 by scuro

[danbo]

Never give up your Rights to own weapons..someday we all may need it to protect our families & provide food.

A man without weapons is a vulnerable man indeed!

[scuro]

Never give up your Rights to own weapons..someday we all may need it to protect our families & provide food.

A man without weapons is a vulnerable man indeed!

 

We as Canadians have no right to bear arms.

[Guest lundboy]

I am totally against any more gun regulations (and I don't own a gun) for the simple fact that it is the precursor to complete confiscation, and disarming of the public. This leaves the population with no self defense from either corrupt government or criminals.

 

This is the real issue at hand, not whether too many innocents are killed. Statistics can be skewed to match any desired outcome, and have been used for years to sway public opinions in favour of whatever agenda needs to be met.

 

Don't think everything is as it seems, and certainly don't get caught up in useless left-right arguments meant to distract your attention away from the real goals.

[Guest lundboy]

We as Canadians have no right to bear arms.

 

Scuro, someday very soon you may be fortunate enough to be standing behind a citizen with a gun, and will be very happy that he/she has it and knows how to use it.

[danbo]

Well said Lundfella!

[danbo]

Anybody who has not seen the movie; "Hotel Rwanda", should rent it & learn about anarchy..very,very scary & sad indeed..

[scuro]

Keep your eye on the ball folks. The topic was introduced and feted by numerous contributors. There is an issue at hand, if you want to converse...fine. On the other hand if you want to back slap each other every time you think someone has scored a point, the exchange of ideas is over.

[huntervasili]

I am totally against any more gun regulations (and I don't own a gun) for the simple fact that it is the precursor to complete confiscation, and disarming of the public. This leaves the population with no self defense from either corrupt government or criminals.

 

This is the real issue at hand, not whether too many innocents are killed. Statistics can be skewed to match any desired outcome, and have been used for years to sway public opinions in favour of whatever agenda needs to be met.

 

Don't think everything is as it seems, and certainly don't get caught up in useless left-right arguments meant to distract your attention away from the real goals.

 

Very well said.

 

Scuro, you're numbers do not show the before/ after effects of the gun ban in Australia, England and Wales and the increases in firearm homicides in Canada with the registration's and de facto ban of handguns since the 30's... Yes they may have less crime than Canada, but that is in part because of enforcement. They have had lower crimes even before the ban. IF you were to show the before and after effects where over 2 years after the ban in england the rate increased by 40% people may be able to have a glimpse at the truth. Remember to that once our rights are infringed, which they are with the registration in many ways, they can start to take more and more of our rights.

[danbo]

Scuro it looks like you have some things to learn..open your mind to reason.

Ask any soldier or policeman if they like killing? The do NOT!!

Only punkass kids & mental rejects do.

Edited May 30, 2008 by danbo

[scuro]

Remember to that once our rights are infringed, which they are with the registration in many ways, they can start to take more and more of our rights.

 

A clarification here... if you like it or not, you have no constitutional right to own a gun. That holds true only in America. No one is taking your rights away because you never had them in the first place.

[scuro]

Scuro it looks like you have some things to learn..open your mind to reason.

 

Then reason with me.

 

Don't try sway me with herd mentality nor should you attempt to strike fear in my heart. You could do a cost benefit analysis. Are handguns for citizen's protection worth the many useless deaths caused by these handguns? I'd listen to that. Show me the beef. Justify your answers with something citable.

Edited May 30, 2008 by scuro

[Guest lundboy]

A clarification here... if you like it or not, you have no constitutional right to own a gun. That holds true only in America. No one is taking your rights away because you never had them in the first place.

 

to my previous post I guess I should have added:

 

Scuro, someday very soon you may be fortunate enough to be standing behind a citizen with a gun, and will be very happy that he/she has it and knows how to use it.

 

But then again you have been so indoctrinated that you would scream and turn in the person with the gun, while they are trying to protect you from harm or tyranny.

 

No one is trying to scare you. We leave that up to the system you are defending. Too bad you don't recognise the herd mentality as being the sheeple that believe that gun bans protect them.

Edited May 30, 2008 by lundboy

[huntervasili]

A clarification here... if you like it or not, you have no constitutional right to own a gun. That holds true only in America. No one is taking your rights away because you never had them in the first place.

 

I am not referring to the 2nd amendment of the USA... I am referring to the some of the following arguments including the 28 distinctive Charter violations from Sections 1,2,7, 8, 9, 10( B ), 11, 26, 27 of the charter. Of particular interest are the violations of section 7, or at least so I believe and I don't want to spend hours writing an essay. Section 7 states that "Everyone has the right to life, Liberty and security of the person" (s. 7 CCRF, 1982). The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the right to liberty fairly broadly. The Honourable Justice Wilson stated in R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30: "the right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives." Similarly, The Honourable Justice La Forest in the case of Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, stated: "the right to liberty enshrined in s. 7 of the Charter protects within its ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference" (Morton, 2002). By forcing gun owners to licence themselves and register their firearms, Bill C-68 clearly infringes on privacy rights guaranteed by the charter and ruled by the Supreme Court. Although legitimately regulating the sale of firearms, this bill criminalizes the mere act of possessing a legally acquired firearm in one's own home. The bill was further proven according to the courts to have no positive impact on firearm related crimes, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Conrad ruled, "No evidence was presented to this Court to show that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a license or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents" (Morton, 2002). This ruling shows that C-68 does in fact violate personal autonomy protected by s. 7 and the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on liberty. This violation undermines Canadian citizens, particularly hundreds of thousands of law abiding hunters, trappers, sport competitors and farmers, by taking away their individual control even though they have done no harm to society. The right to security of the person is also infringed upon in the Firearms act, although criminal law and police forces enforce the law, they cannot always be at the place of a crime and so citizens have a right to self defence against attacks on their person or possessions, and this can, on occasion, require the use of force and a firearm, and so by making the public fully dependant on the police for protection the Firearms Act infringes on the right to security of the person. Section 7 is also interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect not only a citizens physical security but also the right to be free from and emotional and psychological stress induced by the government. The Right Honourable Justice Dickson explained that "the case law leads me to the conclusion that state-imposed psychological stress constitutes a breach of security of the person. And in a later case, R. v. Oakes [1986] explained the effects criminal offences can have on a person. "An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms." This bill is the direct cause of a violation of security of the person as there is significant psychological stress on firearms owners. Otherwise law abiding sportsmen, farmers and collectors are pushed into contact with criminal law, where they can face incarceration. Other violations of section 7 include that, Section 105 of the firearms act forces any person in possession of a firearm to bring it forth for inspection by a government official. (Morton, 2002) If the firearms owner refuses to bring it in they can be criminally punished for not providing the police with what could be self incriminating evidence, which would be a violation of the principles of fundamental justice. By forcing one to give up information and answer questions about firearms brought in for inspection they are being denied the right to silence and the right not to be questioned without a lawyer present. A Right to Procedural Fairness is also infringed upon in the administration of Bill C-68 as any person with unregistered firearms can be charged prosecuted. Deadlines for registration cause enormous backlogs in the system as only 40 000 registrations can be processed per week, so long as there are no subsequent crashes as have frequented the CFC in the past. . (Morton, 2002) This backlog will allow those who have sent in registration applications before the deadline to be prosecuted as the applications will only be received and not processed or legally registered. This will cause a violation of the principles of procedural fairness, and right to liberty that the Supreme Court has established, and this argument is strengthened when justice Lamer wrote that "A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person's right to liberty under section 7 of the Charter" (Morton, 2002). These violations of the charter clearly prove that the guaranteed rights and freedoms are being infringed upon by the Firearms Act. If you cannot see that for you're self, well I guess that is an opinion you are entitled to according to the CCRF, but remember when you allow the gov't to take away some rights they can go as far as they want as there is precedent. So if this poorly organized registration and "banning" continues don't be surprised when you loose you're freedom of opinion. Again there are over 20 more infractions and violations but I don't have a couple days to write and spell it out for you.

 

Bill

Edited May 30, 2008 by Bill Parker

[huntervasili]

Sorry for the double post

Edited May 30, 2008 by Bill Parker

[scuro]

So we need handguns in our houses now because at some point in the future, and we don't know when this may occur, the government that we elected will try to kill us or put us in bondage. Of course the government will have to take over the military and police forces across this vast country first. At that point they will try to control the population and those that have the guns will be the initial resistance force that leads to the eventual overthrow of our despot leaders. Either that or UN forces hell bent on controlling the world will collect along our boarder and oceans and destroy our military and police forces. A guerilla war will ensue and the citizens resistance force will save the day by igniting a general uprising.

 

These remote possibilities in distant years are the justification for useless death....right here and right now?

[danbo]

Yeppir!

[scuro]

I couldn't find the source for this graph.

 

[huntervasili]

Sounds similar to a country south of the border, minus the "elected" part and before the UN. Although that is, as you explain sarcastically "very likely" And as mentioned, Banning guns does NOT reduce gun crimes it increases them! I am getting slightly frustrated with this useless death, here and now thing... We need enforcement. Ask any Cop worth his salt, he will tell you this: The registry looks important and used because it is automatically pulled up on its own. It is "From its inception, I was advised not to depend on it to make decisions. It is outdated, inaccurate and completely unreliable. To make a decision at a call based on registry information would be foolish at best and deadly at worst." Talk about local... This is from Michael Mays a former police officer in Toronto. Or how about another officers views "Not once, however, during my career do I recall using the gun registry to solve a major crime. Simply put, the vast majority of criminals use firearms which don't come close to being included in this bureaucratic jumble of information. " Sgt Cottingham, Alberta. I have another 100 or so with the same opinion but don't need that many to get my point across. Ok Just one more "The reasons that the firearms registry is so highly ineffectual are, I believe obvious, but basically it affects the wrong people, law abiding citizens and not criminals." This is from a 23 year Veteran of the OPP Ben Beatty. I don't believe many people are mre educated in this matter than those who use, well, attempt to use the Registry. Rex murphy said it best I believe when he said that the registry was a "Billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness" mind you it is now 2 Bil... which could have gone to enforcement and actually saved some lives rather than this banning.

[Sinker]

Scuro,

 

We are talking about two different things here. Its hard to argue what you are saying, but I can't stand for it.

 

You said:

 

"greater handgun accessibly leads to greater numbers of unnecessary death."

 

Of course it does.

 

The thing is, if you are a LEGAL handgun owner in Canada, NOBODY can access your guns.

 

Most of the facts you posted are from pre-registry days.......since then, storage laws have been added.

 

Show me some facts regarding how many REGISTERED, LEGAL firearms are used in crimes in Canada. I'd bet it is a low number when compared to the number of illegally owned firearms used.

 

Why take away priveleges from people, when you can PUNISH the REAL criminals?

 

 

Sinker

[huntervasili]

I couldn't find the source for this graph.

 

 

I find that very offensive. I thought we were having a civil discussion. Were you not the one just a little while ago mentioning not to turn this thread into a bash fest and instead add constructiveness? Please, there is no reason to close this but you sure as hell can't begin to make this go downhill just because you are overwhelmed, like the liberals were, with the uselessness of the Canadian Gun Registry. If that is the case.

[scuro]

I find that very offensive. I thought we were having a civil discussion. Were you not the one just a little while ago mentioning not to turn this thread into a bash fest and instead add constructiveness? Please, there is no reason to close this but you sure as hell can't begin to make this go downhill just because you are overwhelmed, like the liberals were, with the uselessness of the Canadian Gun Registry. If that is the case.

 

Wouldn't you need handguns to protect yourself against crazy people with handguns? I saw it as a joke both sides could appreciate..sorry if I offended.

[scuro]

Scuro,

 

We are talking about two different things here. Its hard to argue what you are saying, but I can't stand for it.

 

You said:

 

"greater handgun accessibly leads to greater numbers of unnecessary death."

 

Of course it does.

 

The thing is, if you are a LEGAL handgun owner in Canada, NOBODY can access your guns.

 

Most of the facts you posted are from pre-registry days.......since then, storage laws have been added.

 

Show me some facts regarding how many REGISTERED, LEGAL firearms are used in crimes in Canada. I'd bet it is a low number when compared to the number of illegally owned firearms used.

 

Why take away priveleges from people, when you can PUNISH the REAL criminals?

Sinker

 

I'll look into that tomorrow. Nite.

Edited May 30, 2008 by scuro