When mass killers meet armed resistance.

[1feral1]

Any firearm is concealable - the debate about concealing firearms is a red hearing intended to distract from the utility of small, convenient firearms that could be used for protection.
I remember having the discussion once when golfing with a typical anti-handgun twit who blathered on about how handguns were bad because they could be concealed.  I asked him what was in my golf bag, and he of course replied "golf clubs?"  As the bag was zipped up his answer was uncertain and I responded "Is it possible that I have a scoped high powered rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition for it in that golf bag?"  The answer was of course and the question is what would be more dangerous?  The answer is that it depends on the person and not the firearm.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper

Good one RLJ. I trust you are well these days.

I am sure even a gold club has been used as a weapon, and is responsible for many deaths from time to time. So perhaps you had a concealable weapon(s) in the first place. I would almost argue that golf clubs used in anger in the USA kill more people than guns Canada wide annually.

Those anti-gun types always seem to have the answers don't they.

Warm regards,

Wes

 

[ballz]

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

I know a guy from Texas (how cliche haha) that always tells this story about a guy going nuts in a bar. He ends up killing I think 7 people, most of whom had firearms in their vehicles but weren't allowed to have them concealed and on them in the bar... He was all worked up about how 7 people wouldn't have died if they were only allowed to carry their firearms on them.

Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday, knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one, then if everybody, including myself has one.... I think I'd also rather those bullets that killed 7 people coming from one gun and one direction and one person, then coming from everybody in the funkin bar's gun from all directions cause everybody panicks to protect themselves.. Call me crazy, but I don't play at casinos cause I don't like the odds.

Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime. Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime. I know that's probably hard for some people on here to accept, since most of you are trained, and trained well, with a firearm, but that's your profession, and you're a minority in the civilian world. I'll trust you with a weapon, and wouldn't mind if CF personnel were permitted to carry a weapon, or an RCMP be permitted to carry his weapon on him even when he's off-duty, and stuff like that. But I don't see how you can justify making people take a few bs courses (like the PAL.... I challenged that thing without EVER having shot a centre-fire... I should NOT have been able to pass that exam) and pass a medical exam and be able to conceal a weapon.

 

[observor 69]

balz I spent some time in Texas, a country unto it's own, and no I didn't like the thought of any idot walking around packin'.

When they have to put up special signs telling people they can't bring their gun into church then you gotta shake your head.

I remember one lady said she just carried a small gun cause it was pretty.

The NRA one of the most powerful lobby groups in the USA.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You guys need to read the crime stats in the US. In Washington DC where handguns are basically banned, you are 4.9 times more likely to be a Homicide victim than in Texas. The Stats from Florida indicate that only 1.7% of CCW permit holders have been charged with weapon related offenses. The guys with the CCW permits are the least of your worries.

 

[a_majoor]

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

Then I can justify putting you on ignore, since there are many pages of facts and statistics in the thread that refute your rather simple "analysis" based on one story.

Read, then post.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You guys need to read the crime stats in the US. In Washington DC where handguns are basically banned, you are 4.9 times more likely to be a Homicide victim than in Texas. The Stats from Florida indicate that only 1.7% of CCW permit holders have been charged with weapon related offenses. The guys with the CCW permits are the least of your worries.

There you go again, letting facts get in the way.

 

[Loachman]

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

Then perhaps you should read through it. The justification that you lack is called education. Until you actually gain some knowledge, said stated opinion is merely an uninformed one, and therefore valueless.

I know a guy from Texas (how cliche haha) that always tells this story about a guy going nuts in a bar. He ends up killing I think 7 people, most of whom had firearms in their vehicles but weren't allowed to have them concealed and on them in the bar... He was all worked up about how 7 people wouldn't have died if they were only allowed to carry their firearms on them.

Read the articles about the Killeen Massacre - twenty-four dead - in these articles, and then watch the video in the last link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html

http://www.search.com/reference/George_Hennard

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v37/ai_12634747

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl

Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday,

And this generally works just fine.

But would you take your chances living in a house with no smoke detectors or fire extinguishers?

Would you risk not wearing seatbelts while driving?

Would you be willing to go through life with no insurance?

The vast majority of people would get through life perfectly well without taking such precautions, but they would be considered unwise and foolish by most people.

Similarly, the risk of violent crime is remote, especially if one is not a member of a high-risk group, such as drug-dealing, visible-minority, gang members, but it would be prudent to be prepared just in case, would it not?

knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one,

But you don't, can't, know that. You cannot tell who is or is not carrying concealed, or what their intent is.

Chances are that you come in close proximity to quite a few more than you realize, and, in Canada, few of those would be the law-abiding variety.

And that is a fact. There are more criminals carrying concealed here than law-abiding citizens. Are you really happy with that situation? Really?

I think I'd also rather those bullets that killed 7 people coming from one gun and one direction and one person,

Well, it wasn't seven, it was twenty-four.

And I'd rather that the killer was stopped by a bullet or bullets going in the opposite direction before he killed more than two or three people.

Wouldn't you? Really?

Or do you think that it's better that twenty-four die at the hands of a killer than one killer dies at the hands of his intended victims?

then coming from everybody in the funkin bar's gun from all directions cause everybody panicks to protect themselves..

Most will panic, as few people are mentally prepared for such situations.

And very few present will be legally carrying concealed.

In those jurisdictions in the US - the vast majority of the states - where concealed carry is permitted, only about 2% to 3% of the eligible populace takes the time and effort to acquire a licence to do so, and not every one of them will carry all of the time, either.

One would expect, then, only two or three out of a crowd of a hundred at best to be actually returning fire. Most people will drop to the ground and seek cover, paralyzed with fear as the killer walks among them, shooting at will as they do nothing. This leaves him the sole upright target in the place, relatively easy to hit while at the same time making it most likely that any rounds that miss him pass well over his intended victims.

And even if some of them are struck by defenders' bullets, the death count is still going to be much, much lower than it would be if he were unopposed.

And isn't that a good thing?

Call me crazy,

I would not do that, as I have insufficient evidence upon which to base such an assessment. I have more than enough, however, to assess you as ignorant and illogical.

but I don't play at casinos cause I don't like the odds.

I don't either, and I carry plenty of insurance, have numerous smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in my house, and always wear a seatbelt and whatever other protective equipment is advisable for whatever I am doing. And, were it lawful in Canada, I would carry concealed as well, for precisely the same reason.

Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime.

Completely wrong.

It is only true when criminals have easier access than law-abiding citizens, which is the case in Canada. Most murderers already have criminal records, usually including convictions for numerous violent crimes often already including murder, and a high percentage of their victims also have criminal convictions. As gun control laws have no effect on criminals (who ignore all laws as a matter of course anyway, which is what makes them criminals), criminal access to firearms will always remain unimpeded. All that they do is raise the ratio of firearm-armed thug to law-abiding citizen.

And you like that?

Easier access by law-abiding citizens will not increase gun or any other crime, as those people, by definition, do not commit crimes in the first place. They are not out beating people senseless with baseball bats, stabbing them with kitchen knives, boiling up crystal meth in their garages, or knocking over little old ladies on street corners and stealing their purses.

"Gun crime" is a red-herring term cooked up by the anti-gun lobby, who cannot produce any evidence that their precious laws save any lives at all. They can, occasionally, find some slim evidence of a reduction in "gun deaths", usually within the range of statistical error, but they have to ignore and conceal the fact that violent crime and suicide are both means independent. No matter how they attempt to portray the criminal/suicide chain of thought and act as "I have a gun, therefore I shall kill someone/myself", it just isn't so. The absence of a firearm, even if such would have been the murderer/suicide's implement of first choice, does not end the process - it just causes something else to be used instead.

Suicide by firearm has decreased in Canada, but other means are substituted. The Coalition for Gun Control can crow all that they want about reducing "gun deaths", but the overall suicide rate has remained unchanged, and the same number of people are dead. We have blown $2 billion on the Lieberals' Firearms Programme, and all that we have done is increase the sale of rope.

To believe that "gun control" works, one has to ignore all of the stabbing, beating, strangulation, poisoning, and "other means" deaths. Dead or not, those people just do not count.

And by the way, for all of its guns, the US has a lower overall suicide rate than Canada.

Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime.

You could not be more wrong. It will have - as has been proven in various jurisdictions - exactly the opposite effect.

"Average Joe" is not pimping teenage girls that he's hooked on crack or blowing away rival gang members. Denying him access to firearms is not going to reduce the crimes that he is not committing.

Allowing criminals better armament than "Average Joe", however, is a recipe for disaster, and I offer Washinton DC, Chicago, and a number of other major US cities as prime examples. They have extremely restrictive firearms laws, yet their murder rates are far higher than the US national murder rate. Their surrounding jurisdictions, with far more "lax" (which US firearms laws really aren't) restrictions, enjoy far lower murder and other violent crime rates.

The UK (my homeland) made it "harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun" - almost impossible, in fact - and both gun crime and every other form of violent crime have soared.

One is far more likely to be beaten, robbed, or raped in Jolly Olde England these days than in the Wild West US.

The US murder rate is higher, but it is dropping while that of the UK is increasing.

I know that's probably hard for some people on here to accept, since most of you are trained, and trained well, with a firearm, but that's your profession, and you're a minority in the civilian world. I'll trust you with a weapon, and wouldn't mind if CF personnel were permitted to carry a weapon, or an RCMP be permitted to carry his weapon on him even when he's off-duty, and stuff like that. But I don't see how you can justify making people take a few bs courses (like the PAL.... I challenged that thing without EVER having shot a centre-fire... I should NOT have been able to pass that exam) and pass a medical exam and be able to conceal a weapon.

And who said that a PAL would be the standard for concealed carry?

The NFA proposed that the standard would be the RCMP firearms training programme.

If it's good enough for the RCMP, then it's good enough for your "Joe Average".

If it's not, then it's inadequate for the RCMP too.

 

[Infanteer]

Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday, knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one, then if everybody, including myself has one....

So your desire to "feel" safe trumps my right to carry a firearm on the basis that I may or may not use it to commit a crime?  The logic of your statement is absurd - we could extend it to automobiles, as one is more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime. Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime.

What is important?  The gun or the crime?  If a child is murdered in the street, what is more important, the fact that the child was a victim of a homicide or the fact that a gun was used to commit the offence?  Is a crime any less of a crime if it is not committed by a firearm.  Would that crime have been committed without a firearm?  Probably - we see it everyday in Canada.  "Gun Crime" is just term used to make an illogical, emotive political statement out of the misfortune of another.

 

[ballz]

But would you take your chances living in a house with no smoke detectors or fire extinguishers?

Would you risk not wearing seatbelts while driving?

Would you be willing to go through life with no insurance?

The vast majority of people would get through life perfectly well without taking such precautions, but they would be considered unwise and foolish by most people.

You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm? The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...

I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this. You're right, guns have no effect on suicide. If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything. But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about.... Would you be just as effecient at killing 15-20 people with a rope as you would be with an assault rifle? or a hand gun?

So your desire to "feel" safe trumps my right to carry a firearm on the basis that I may or may not use it to commit a crime?

Does Canada's (not sure of your nationality but this is "Canadian Politics") constitution outline a "right" to bear arms? I just read it, and can't find anything of the sort. Anyway, it's not about my desire to feel safe, but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.

What is important?  The gun or the crime?  If a child is murdered in the street, what is more important, the fact that the child was a victim of a homicide or the fact that a gun was used to commit the offence?  Is a crime any less of a crime if it is not committed by a firearm.  Would that crime have been committed without a firearm?  Probably - we see it everyday in Canada.  "Gun Crime" is just term used to make an illogical, emotive political statement out of the misfortune of another.

No, no it is not any less of a crime... But if someone randomly stabs a baby in the head, a gun probably couldn't have prevented it either. And sure, it would be nice to be able to pop that guy off right there in the middle of the street if he killed your kid, no doubt, but the fact is its too late to save your kid. All these "one kill" scenarios are null and void... If I have a gun, I'm not any safer if I'm the specific target. If someone has a knife, and they want to kill me and me only, then the gun isn't going to save me. I'll be bleeding out of 5 or 6 stab wounds in my back long before I get a grasp on my gun. This whole firearm stuff is only related to mass murders, since that's what guns allow for over knives and bats and stuff.

Would a firearm, in the hands of a properly trained individual such as many of you on here, being on hand when somebody goes postal be able to neutralize them and save a few lives? Yes, absolutely.

Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some...intervention? In my opinion, yes.




Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. .

Maybe I'm just stupid but when I'm "sick" of something I don't go aimlessly butting in,......maybe thats just me though.

 

[ballz]

Maybe I'm just stupid but when I'm "sick" of something I don't go aimlessly butting in,......maybe thats just me though.

For f**k sakes... I stated my opinion on the matter after many other thorough discussions on the topic, another 7 pages seemed harmless compared to the probably 30-40 I've already been through plus many articles I'm running out of places to store them. It's only "aimless" to you because you disagree with my opinion.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hmm, I HATE guns.....what was that again?

 

[George Wallace]

Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.

As this seems to be a common complaint with your posts, your being too lazy to read the topic from the beginning, we should just ignore your outbursts.  You burst into a discussion, as Bruce pointed out, and bring up points that have already been discussed.  The discussion has moved on and you only create disruption and chaos.  

Let this be a WARNING.  Your lack of respect for this forum, in not reading the whole topic, and disruptive behavior adds nothing to the forums.  If you insist on continuing along with this lazy behavior, we will gladly allow you the freedom to be even more lazy and ban you from posting.

George
Staff

 

[aesop081]

but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.

You driving a car has the potential of endangering myself or anyone else around.

 

[ballz]

You driving a car has the potential of endangering myself or anyone else around.

: You're right. Now that you mention it, we shouldn't allow scissors in school anymore, or even glue for that matter cause some people are actually stupid enough to eat that stuff.

Forgive me for not being able to take the analogies in this post seriously. I suppose that warrants a warning too.

 

[aesop081]

: You're right. Now that you mention it, we shouldn't allow scissors in school anymore, or even glue for that matter cause some people are actually stupid enough to eat that stuff.

Roll your eyes at me all you want. You know damned well that your position makes no sense at all. Its people who think like you who are driving what i call"over regulation" in thsi country. Its an undeniable fact, that has already been shown to you, that the statistics on the subject show that regulation has had no effect other than to waste billions of dollars.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm? The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...

I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this. You're right, guns have no effect on suicide. If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything. But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about.... Would you be just as effecient at killing 15-20 people with a rope as you would be with an assault rifle? or a hand gun?

We're talking about inanimate objects with no will of their own. Doesn't matter if they are guns, baseball bats, golf clubs, steak knives or smoke detectors.

Does Canada's (not sure of your nationality but this is "Canadian Politics") constitution outline a "right" to bear arms? I just read it, and can't find anything of the sort. Anyway, it's not about my desire to feel safe, but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.

There is no Us and Them. The Charter applies equally to all. Para 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I cannot be guaranteed that Right unless I have the means to defend myself and loved ones.

No, no it is not any less of a crime... But if someone randomly stabs a baby in the head, a gun probably couldn't have prevented it either. And sure, it would be nice to be able to pop that guy off right there in the middle of the street if he killed your kid, no doubt, but the fact is its too late to save your kid. All these "one kill" scenarios are null and void... If I have a gun, I'm not any safer if I'm the specific target. If someone has a knife, and they want to kill me and me only, then the gun isn't going to save me. I'll be bleeding out of 5 or 6 stab wounds in my back long before I get a grasp on my gun. This whole firearm stuff is only related to mass murders, since that's what guns allow for over knives and bats and stuff.

That is simply your opinion and is not backed up by any fact. Unlike the facts that come along with the opposite argument.

Would a firearm, in the hands of a properly trained individual such as many of you on here, being on hand when somebody goes postal be able to neutralize them and save a few lives? Yes, absolutely.

Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some...intervention? In my opinion, yes.

Like I said, your opinion, with nothing but your stubborn gut feel to back it up. It is outweighed by just the opposite though, by fact and study, readily available should you be inclined to check it out.

Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.

Then why come her to raise it again and fight another losing battle. I'm sure you'd be much happier agreeing with Wendy Cukier or 'His Blondness' Miller of Moronto. They too cannot put forth a valid argument without trying to twist straw men beyond all recognition.

If you say you should be able to ban something I legal own and use for recreation, simply because you don't like it. I should be able to arbitrarily ban something of yours without and bleatting from you.[/

Edit for spelling

 

[ballz]

Over regulation? I'm not crying for more regulation. In fact, I'm totally against the registry program. I don't think we have much of a gun problem, and so I'm arguing against slackening them. They're fine as they are, there's no need to start handing out guns to citizes so that they feel safe. EDIT: This would answer your concern there too Recce. I'm not lobbying to have all your household firearms stripped from you and melted down into spoons and forks.

George: I just read the last 1/3rd of my posts, and I fail to see where having to read has been a "common complaint." But hey, I'll take you're word for it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Crikey, for somebody that is fed up with this debate you sure seem to be taking up a lot of bandwidth.

 

[ballz]

Sigh... I'll stop haha... Once you get the wheels rolling it's hard to put on the brakes. It's a colorful issue, what can I say.