Canadian Handgun Registry

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=4

"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."

>>1
Everyone reasonable knows gun-control doesn't do shit.  Most of those who support it are emotionally driven irrational mothers.

>>2 people should give up their guns.  there are so many people in the world who die because of gun deaths.. it is really sick to me that some people could be so selfish that they would be unwilling to surrender their guns to prevent gun violence

>>1 Handguns are used in killing people 99% of the time... why should people be allowed to have them? They should be banned.

>>1
Handguns are only used for killing people... their uses in hunting are very limmited.. people should just give them up seriously

>>4
>>5
Handguns are nothing else, but self-defense weapons and it has been proved that concealed carry actually reduces crime. Rifle is much better choice if you actually want to kill someone.

>>6 you would feel differently if it was your kid who got shot in columbine

Haven't you people ever hunted squirrel with a handgun? I'm sure alot of big game hunters (grizzly) carry a large caliber pistol for backup too.

And this whole guns kill people therefore they should be banned argument is just a way to dodge the already proven fact that gun control isn't at all effective.

Yeah guns kill people, so do kitchen knives, baseball bats, swiss army knives, poisons made from chemicals in your kitchen sink, ect ect ect. I think people who beleive guns only exist to hurt people must have an extremely violent and hateful mind compared to gun owners and gun supporters seeing how they can never come up with another way to use them.

>>7
I wouldn't let my kid go to such a crappy school.

>>8 if people started using those things as weapons, maybe they should be banned too

that's a different story though.  you can kill someone with a car by running them over... but running people over is not the purpose of having a car.  guns kill people, and that is their intended purpose.  we should ban all guns, period.

>>10
Oh yeah, swords have one sole use. To kill people. Want to outlaw them too? Guns are just tools and they themselves don't cause crime no-one robs or kills, because he has gun. There's almost always motive. Truly free-society doesn't need gun bans. Restricting people's freedom's is police state's way to deal with crime. Fixing the true causes of crime is free society's way.

Cars are decidedly more lethal than guns. That's why drivebys are preferable to face on face shootings.

>>7
Would I? Why? It wasn't the gun which killed my kid. It was those crazy kids. I'm not sure how would I react to such situation, but banning tools, because of it is bit stupid. Not that it's likely, that gay man like ever has kids.

>>5
     My father uses a .357 to hunt deer with.  At his age a shotgun is too much stress on his sholders, which aren't in good shape anyways due to a accident earlier in his life.  Why should he be punished for being a law abiding citizen using a gun because others are using the same type of gun to commit crimes?

I use a larg stick to hunt deer, I'm a real man.

>>11 swords are likely illegal, depending on what state you are from...

in my state you need a permit to carry any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches... and thats good... smaller swiss army knives are one thing, but guns and large knives should be banned outright.

>>16
So this is about carrying in public and not about possession?

>>17
both should be illegal.  only hicks and country bumpkins want weapons... they need to get with the times.  this is the 21st century.  we don't need weapons for protection, or anything else anymore... the police and government do that for us

>>18

unamerican piece of shit

>>18
While it's against my ideals, I think people like you should be put on 1984 setting for week as you don't seem to understand what it's like.

>>20 Not enough people have read that book, seriously.  So many people are clamoring for more and more restrictions, and regulations across the board. 

Freedom is in everyone's interest, including theirs. 

>>18 has probably never left the comforts of the city. He doesn't seem to realize that the entire world isn't one big collection of concrete, steel, and glass completely devoid of nature. There are alot of people that don't live in areas where venomous snakes and packs of wild dogs are just something you hear about on the discovery channel.

>>22
Which is very ironic, since cities are far more dangerous than wild nature. You're much likely to get mugged and robbed than attacked by bear or killer snake. When in big cities I often feel unsettled around streets and prefer to stay in car, but then again I was born in countryside and hate dense crowded hellholes that cities tend to be.

>>23
This is why I prefer sparsely populated areas just outside of cities like towns on the outer edges on North Minneapolis. You can still get just about any convenience available in a city (multiple grocers, specialty stores, restaurants, all the major chains) but with not so much congestion and plenty of greenery.

Even though I don't yet own a gun, it will be a cold day in hell before the government tells me I can't.

>>23 Yeah, I grew up in the country.  Same here.  I wouldn't want to walk around in a city without a concealed firearm or at least a handful of people with me - especially at night.

I don't see why all the city folks want gun control.  If they remove all guns from the city, the criminals will still have them... then it's guns vs no guns, and the law-abiding good folks won't have them.

>>18 we don't need weapons for protection, or anything else anymore... the police and government do that for us

yah and when its the police and government that take away our only means of defending ourselves and start to oppress us it is referred to as a police state. For more information on police states see also: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia

>>26
If the government wanted to oppress you, they would do so.  Weapons or not, you just can't take down an anti-personnel nuke with a 9mm handgun.

>>27
     what exactly is "an anti-personnel nuke".  When a nation gets repressed and revolts it almost always reverts to gurilla tactics to take advantge of their low number and lesser equipment with hit and run raids and such.  nukes and bombs do little against these as they are too decentralized.  Revolutions are won with people with handguns, not huge armies and carpetbombing.

>>18
>>26
         Yes the government and police department are responsilbe for protecting citizens.  But there is a huge difference from being responsible and solely responsible.  You are also responsilbe for protecting yourself, from those trying to protect you if necesssary, and a gun is insturmental in doing that.

>>28
Has a small guerilla ever won against a large country with highly advanced technology, immortal soldiers, etc. etc.?  I don't think so.  Anyway, with the average amerikan's mentality, he'd consider any freedom fighter a terrorist and shoot him on sight, after buttraping him for 3 months.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the government used air raids against partisans.

"immortal soldiers"
Shows just how little you know about warfare. And you have no right to speak on the average American's mind set.

>>30
Small guerilla war? Have thousands of guys with rifles suddenly revolveting and any goverment is down it's knees. Not to mention that they couldn't really deploy military effectively during revolution. Some of military would defect and overall chaos would make process even harder.

A guerilla war is stupid. A campaign of espionage and sabotage directed against the government would be the only succesful method, but the population of the United States are luke warm and it doesn't take much of a threat or prospect of cash to get them to betray whatever cause they supposedly support. Most people in a movement may well be there in the hopes they can sell out and make some $$$s.

>>30
Vietnam.

A guerilla war is stupid.

On the contrary. There are numerous examples of successful expulsions of conventional armies with guerilla tactics throughout history.

A campaign of espionage and sabotage against a government, that's stupid. To pull that off you'd need to be well-organised, well-funded, and operating on enemy terrain, which in itself makes you an easier target.

>>30
       Vietnam
       China
       America(Revolutionary war)
       France
       Russia

            And more that I can't think of right now.

>>33
       Who the hell is preaching for a gurilla war in the US tomorow.  It would obviously unsucessful as there aren't enough people pissed off enough at the governemtn to pull it off and devote themselves to the cause.  That doesn't make the tactic stupid.  The likelyhood of a gurilla revolutionary war in the US soon doesn't make the concept of guerilla warfare stupid.  Guerilla warfare is simply a tactic of necessity.
        No you don't actually win a war in the conventional sence with guerilla tactics.  This is because you never actually gain ground, as you aren't trying to.  Guerilla tactics are about killing the enemies defences and melting away into the environment afterwards.  You don't set up Forts and Defences, because it is a style that requires dispersal of units when not actively on offence.  Therfore you never gain ground and hold it.  What you do is cause the government huge ammounts of aggrivation, bad publicity, and $$$, causing more and more to join your side.  If the government is domestic it Can eventually collapse, however you are more likely to just force political negotiations for civil and political rights.  If it is foreign they eventually withdrawl when the cost of fighting becomes too high.  Either way is a victory.  But not in the traditional sense of winning a war.

>>35
Oh come on..

"There are numerous examples of successful expulsions of conventional armies with guerilla tactics throughout history."

Yes, but in order to pull that off they needed..

" to be well-organised, well-funded, and operating on enemy terrain, which in itself makes you an easier target."

The totalitarian regime you want to overthrow isn't just going to sit back and scratch their assholes waiting for you to band together and start blowing up railway lines. They are going to use the secret police to root your out and cause paranoia, train infiltrators to see how they can join your organisation, enforce a police state so they can keep a track of who goes where. In order to counter their attempts to keep you from bringing men and equipment together you will need to implement espionage.

>>37
The American Revolution.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the British King had employed some of those methods at the time... spies and whatnot. 

The Americans won anyhow.

>>38
The american revolution still fits into my equation and it shows why it worked. For a start practically the entire population was pro-independance including many of the powerful, the British were not very totalitarian and large groups could gather in the countryside or in speaking places without substantial contest from british authorities, british spies couldn't do anything other than observe or attempt to influence people not to support revolution. The British were by no means democratic, but incidents of totalitarian behaviour on part of the british were very mild for instance when compared to the Mongol hoarde's invasion of the Khwarazmian empire in the 13th century which saw nearly the entire population slaughterred mercilesly, crops salted and cities burned to the ground, these incidents also occurred long after militia groups had been formed.

Long story short it didn't take much espionage for the guerilla forces to be organised. A couple of speakers on horseback might not constitute espionage, but it served the same purpose.

>>39

"british spies couldn't do anything other than observe or attempt to influence people not to support revolution."

I'm fairly sure the King could order pretty much anything he wanted done.  That's mostly false.

It was also a case of simply military failure against a smaller and well organized force, that wasn't as well equiped, against what was at the time the most powerful military force in the nation.

>>40
Yeah? Well fuck your theory. Wikipedia states otherwise.

Civil oppression by British towards Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
5 civilians killed

Oppression by Mongols towards Khwarezmids during occupation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols
Nishapur, Persia — ~1.7 million killed in assault
Merv, Persia — ~1.4 million killed in assault
Meru Chahjan, Persia — ~1.3 million killed in assault
Rayy, Persia — ~1.6 million killed in assault

Nothing you can say now can prove that the British were not very oppressive, the difference between oppression and the light oppression of the british is hueg like X box!

And... yeah, also, the Canadian Handgun Registry hasnt solved a crime since its creation in 1934.

>>42
I wasn't trying to say the Brits weren't oppressive.  I am against gun-control.  I think you misread my post...:D

>>44
Oh yeah, well I get it now, sorry. Well people should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves, but certain areas like schools and hospitals should be gun free zones with only security personnel with guns. Politicians should also accept the fact that people have the right to shoot them if they are pissed off enough. This will re-enforce to positive effects of public gunnery and lessen the bad effects.

What do you think?

>>45
Yes, only school personnel should have firearms in school zones... but, I think something needs to be done about how we define a "school zone."

For ex:  a lady walks down the street with a handgun in her purse.. if she's walking through a town, in many instances, it's not possible for her to keep two miles away from the local school. 

She could be breaking the law.. and heck, if you carry one in your car for protection, and drive by a school, you are a criminal as well. 

Heck, often, you won't even see the school, but will come within two miles of it, and will then become a criminal as well.  (if there were buildings in front of it obstructing your view)

Clearly, the present laws about the distance you can be from the school with firearms need to be changed.

>>46
And, speaking of which... what a good solution to stopping school shootings!

Seriously, think... what if all the teachers of the school had arms? Columbine probly wouldn't have happened if they did at that school.

>>47 That would be a sensible approach.  You forget that anti-gun people are not sensible.

The Canadians are also trying to get rid of their Firearm registry people.  Lets learn from their example:  it doesn't work.  It's a bureaucratic mess, doesn't actually help anything, and for the amount of money it would cost to implement it, we could just hire more police officers to actually help the crime cituation. 

It didn't work in Canada. 

>>49
Also numerous European countries have negative experience from gun registry. Too much work and it's ineribly hard to keep it in date resulting non-existant ghost guns. Then again registering arms of law-abiding citizens is like they would register amount of knives , hammers or other tools you have. Pure 1984 and stupid.

>>50
Not to mention how the Nazi's used it against the German people..

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=67