Gun Control in US and Canada

[tincan]

Please tell me what a handgun is designed for if not for shooting another human / target of a human in a shooting range? I sure as hell don't use them when duck hunting or deer hunting. However, if I was scared enough to think that I need a gun for 'protection' I would opt for one as it seems like a great tool for close range against other humans. Just because you haven't killed anyone with your handgun doesn't mean it's not the most preferred weapon of choice for others to kill their enemies/themselves. Again, the fact that you (or other responsible gun owners) don't use them in horrific ways doesn't mean others don't and won't and that is why there are certain restrictions on guns and IMO why there need to be many more.

I disagree with your point "handguns are for killing people" I have owned handguns for thirty years and have not killed anyone yet and do not have any intention of even pointing one at a person. When you make a broad statement as such you include many with it.

 

[Gunsmith]

I cannot change how you think, but here is another thought fish hooks are designed to kill fish.

Please tell me what a handgun is designed for if not for shooting another human / target of a human in a shooting range? I sure as hell don't use them when duck hunting or deer hunting. However, if I was scared enough to think that I need a gun for 'protection' I would opt for one as it seems like a great tool for close range against other humans. Just because you haven't killed anyone with your handgun doesn't mean it's not the most preferred weapon of choice for others to kill their enemies/themselves. Again, the fact that you (or other responsible gun owners) don't use them in horrific ways doesn't mean others don't and won't and that is why there are certain restrictions on guns and IMO why there need to be many more.

 

[Lipripper]

but here is another thought fish hooks are designed to kill fish.

[Cq8NbvEOd3E] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq8NbvEOd3E


and no... the wood shampoo is designed for that.

 

[MRACER]

Just reading the chain saw thread---I think they should pass a law to limit the bar length to 7 inches! Anything bigger is just for Killing poor defenseless trees!

 

[Dave S]

[Cq8NbvEOd3E] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq8NbvEOd3E


and no... the wood shampoo is designed for that.

hahah......ahhhhhh Lippy, you a funny man.

 

[GLG]

I disagree with your point "handguns are for killing people" I have owned handguns for thirty years and have not killed anyone yet and do not have any intention of even pointing one at a person. When you make a broad statement as such you include many with it.

The purpose of a hand gun is not to be stored or owned.
It's purpose is to be concealed, or for easy transport, and used to kill people.
They did not invent the handgun to shot holes in paper targets.
I am sure that all members on this site have no intention on using a hand gun for it's purpose.
The problem is that we can not be sure that these deadly weapons don't get in the hands of the wrong people.
Examples happen on a regular basics in Vancouver and else where as I have posted.
Where do these guns come from? Most seem to be smuggled in from down south.
The remainder come from responsible owners that have been broken in to and have had them stolen.
These handguns have no place in Canada and we must start facing the facts that they are killing people.
Handguns are not toys to be collected and brought out to have fun with.
I see no other use to own one and I see lot's of reasons to not own one.
Where do we draw the line?
I draw the line at....
Guns are for hunting, to put good food on the table and the social benefits of hunting.
I support gun owners but we need to change because I don't like what I see coming in the future.

 

[Gunsmith]

I hate to break the news to you but that will not work as proven many times the only people who will have a handgun will be criminals and you will be at their mercy unless you are a politician. GOOD LUCK.

The purpose of a hand gun is not to be stored or owned.
It's purpose is to be concealed, or for easy transport, and used to kill people.
They did not invent the handgun to shot holes in paper targets.
I am sure that all members on this site have no intention on using a hand gun for it's purpose.
The problem is that we can not be sure that these deadly weapons don't get in the hands of the wrong people.
Examples happen on a regular basics in Vancouver and else where as I have posted.
Where do these guns come from? Most seem to be smuggled in from down south.
The remainder come from responsible owners that have been broken in to and have had them stolen.
These handguns have no place in Canada and we must start facing the facts that they are killing people.
Handguns are not toys to be collected and brought out to have fun with.
I see no other use to own one and I see lot's of reasons to not own one.
Where do we draw the line?
I draw the line at....
Guns are for hunting, to put good food on the table and the social benefits of hunting.
I support gun owners but we need to change because I don't like what I see coming in the future.

 

[seadna]

I hate to break the news to you but that will not work as proven many times the only people who will have a handgun will be criminals and you will be at their mercy unless you are a politician. GOOD LUCK.

1) Has this been proven many times over or just spoken many times over? Please cite the data and evidence.
2) It would seem to me that even if only criminals had handguns, one could still do a very good job of defending oneself with a rifle or shotgun.
3) It would also seem to me that if handguns were outlawed, perhaps there would be fewer handguns overall. E.g yes perhaps criminals would be the only ones with them (since in this scenario it would be criminal to own one) but perhaps far fewer criminals would have them since the overall availability would go down. E.g "only criminal will own them" does not equal the same number in criminal hands. I believe there is a lot of evidence for that in other countries around the world.

 

[reelfast]

chicago has a very high murder rate from the use of handguns of all sorts. these guns primarily come from Indiana and gun dealers willing to deal with straw buyers. this has been pretty well documented. simply requiring background checks and a waiting period for all purchases would pretty much shut this entire enterprise down making a significant dent in the importation of firearms into the windy city. even this simple step is being opposed by the NRA.

 

[Gunsmith]

In a dream world yes, but in the real world the fact is the criminal is a criminal because that person will not obey the law.
I will not waste your time citing data and evidence as that information has been and will be skewed to whatever is needed.
Believe what you will, I find that new laws and regulations just create obstacles for the law abiding citizens and tend to be ignored by the lawless society. Our government has rubber knees when it comes to this they have not the balls to ENFORCE the laws in place.

1) Has this been proven many times over or just spoken many times over? Please cite the data and evidence.
2) It would seem to me that even if only criminals had handguns, one could still do a very good job of defending oneself with a rifle or shotgun.
3) It would also seem to me that if handguns were outlawed, perhaps there would be fewer handguns overall. E.g yes perhaps criminals would be the only ones with them (since in this scenario it would be criminal to own one) but perhaps far fewer criminals would have them since the overall availability would go down. E.g "only criminal will own them" does not equal the same number in criminal hands. I believe there is a lot of evidence for that in other countries around the world.

 

[Gunsmith]

In this matter I find the NRA irresponsible, to me regulations properly enforced would make a great difference but not be so great an obstacle that rights to own would be impeded.

chicago has a very high murder rate from the use of handguns of all sorts. these guns primarily come from Indiana and gun dealers willing to deal with straw buyers. this has been pretty well documented. simply requiring background checks and a waiting period for all purchases would pretty much shut this entire enterprise down making a significant dent in the importation of firearms into the windy city. even this simple step is being opposed by the NRA.

 

[Seafever]

If you ban handguns ...or...they are hard to obtain (not)......then the more industrious lawbreaker-types will simply make their own........remember the "zip" guns used in times gone by?

Crudely constructed in many instances....but they work.

 

[reelfast]

single shot zip gun is not undesirable outcome.

 

[Seafever]

You lost me there......did you mean, then, it is a desirable outcome?

BTW multi-barrel zips can be made too.

 

[reelfast]

better than a glock with a 40 round magazine.

 

[seadna]

<stuff clipped>
I will not waste your time citing data and evidence as that information has been and will be skewed to whatever is needed.
<more clipped>

That's what I thought. It's best to just believe what one wishes regardless of what data actually exists or might show.

 

[Labman2]

National Geographic had an issue where the Afgans were making AK's to fight the Russians.
Of course back then, they were being commmended on their abilities.

 

[pescador]

I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Doubt we'll ever get anywhere with that approach. In God we trust, all others bring data (Demmings). Look easy access to firearms equates to ease to use them and kill. You guys may all be perfectly sane and capable. Its those marginalized people with issues that I worry about....and there's lots of them. If they can't get their hands on a gun, they can't kill. Controls, that's the answer.

 

[Gunsmith]

If they can't get their hands on a gun, they can't kill. Wrong, wrong, and wrong! A person can kill with bare hands or whatever implement that is available. Gun is just a word expanded on by the antis. Guns do not kill unless held by humans.

I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Doubt we'll ever get anywhere with that approach. In God we trust, all others bring data (Demmings). Look easy access to firearms equates to ease to use them and kill. You guys may all be perfectly sane and capable. Its those marginalized people with issues that I worry about....and there's lots of them. If they can't get their hands on a gun, they can't kill. Controls, that's the answer.

 

[tortuga]

If they can't get their hands on a gun, they can't kill. Wrong, wrong, and wrong! A person can kill with bare hands or whatever implement that is available. Gun is just a word expanded on by the antis. Guns do not kill unless held by humans.

Wow 52 pages and we are back to page 1.

Bare hands and mass murder in the same equation. What?

So if restricting guns isn't the answer, then what is?
Pro gunners don't seem to be offering up to many ideas.