[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

... about as much as any average gun-toting peace officer.

I don't know how it is in other states, but that is far from the case here in California. Peace officers have mandatory fire arm range practice on a weekly basis and are attend required psychological reviews. For normal peeps, after you get a permit to use a fire arm you don't have to do anything.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, your ass is where this strawman belongs.

What "its" fact ? That more innocent bystanders get killed by armed security guards than by perpetrators ?

Bullshit. Stop making stuff up.

-t

When people shoot at each other, be it security guard vs perpetrator or job blow vs perpetrator, lots of innocent people are caught in the middle. Bullets are flying around smashing into buildings, cars and people. Its irrelevant if the actual bullet that hits the bystander came from the Security guards gun or the perpetrators gun. What is relevant is that had no gun fight took place no bullets would have hit any bystander. That is fact. This particular case the Security Guard was defending himself as its reported the perpetrator pulled the gun out first. But this isn't always the case. Is any life worth a couple thousand dollars worth of computers? This easily could have turned out different with some 10 year old kid on the side walk being killed.

[turtle777]

Bah - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Give me some real facts, not "facts" based on things that didn't happen. Give me no theory of what "could" happen.

How many cases do you know of where an innocent bystander was killed by security guard bullts ?

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Like clockwork- EVERY TIME the gun argument comes up, we get this bullshit idea floated that armed guards with guns, or off duty cops with guns, or citizens with guns are somehow likely to kill innocent bystanders than perpetrators with guns. EVERY TIME!

It's come up before, and the facts are the same: I SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN!

In fact, the opposite is true. Whenever there's an armed citizen at the site of an attack by an armed nut, there are ALWAYS fewer - not more- innocent bystander deaths, and virtually NEVER at the hands of the person using a gun to stop the armed nut. The reason for fewer deaths is obvious- an armed citizen DETERS the armed nut from killing more innocent people.

This is common sense for most people, but somehow the anti-gun nuts just keep insisting on a bogus alternate universe reality that simply isn't true in this one. Ironically- you can find incidents of cops shooting innocent bystanders by accident, but rarely a case of an armed citizen or security guard. I'm not sure what that says about police training, but sadly, it can be accurately said that waiting for the cops to show up to handle every incident is actually far more dangerous for citizens' health than an armed security guard, or random armed citizen handling it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Ironically- you can find incidents of cops shooting innocent bystanders by accident, but rarely a case of an armed citizen or security guard. I'm not sure what that says about police training, but sadly, it can be accurately said that waiting for the cops to show up to handle every incident is actually far more dangerous for citizens' health than an armed security guard, or random armed citizen handling it.

This says nothing about police training.

Police is involved in shootings much more often, so even at a lower incident rate (compared to security guards), they would have more incidents due to the much higher overall level of incolvement.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You're probably right, but my point is basically that hand-wringing over security guards carrying guns or armed citizens is pointless.

And it IS a fact that if you have an armed attacker showing up in public intent on killing people, more people ARE going to die if no one else present has a gun to deter him, than if you wait around for the police to show up and stop the attacker. This has been proven true time and time again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Uh, they pass on the increased costs to the folks buying insurance (the folks with the security guard). That's yet another reason that a lot of security guards are not allowed to carry guns in the first place - lawyers.

With respect to Athens' comments thus far:

The idea that armed citizens necessitate the arming of crooks is ludicrous. Arming oneself is very risky and expensive, and not a decision to be taken lightly in a business context (see above). I'd argue that crooks with knives, bats, etc. drove honest citizens to the point that they'd have guns sitting around ready.

The naivete of some of these comments (not just Athens) is alarming. There are bad people in the world (like the guy who broke into the Apple Store). They will kill you for what you have, or for whatever for that matter. They will kill you if you see them do something that could put them back into prison. They might kill you if you look at them the wrong way.

I just found it surprising that someone had to die so that people could have their iPad 2s.

My argument is based only on the observational differences between Canada and the US. Similar in almost every way of life with some key differences. Its easier to compare Canada and the US then the US to most other nations. US is tough on criminals, Canada is really light on criminals. In the US the mentality is to fight back, in Canada if you fight back your going to be fired and depending on the situation can actually have criminal charges against yourself. Overall crime rates are very similar but the striking difference is the violence and deaths are vastly different. The majority of armed robberies in Canada are with knives or fake guns and most never result in any one being hurt. Typically the suspects are caught later. While a quarter of US robberies involve a gun and many result in people being hurt and killed. Same rates of robberies but way different levels of violence. I, myself, ME suspect its because of the differences in mentality and justice systems. For one if you rob a store at knife point here your lucky to do more then 18 months in Jail, average is going to be 4 months. Secondly your not going to come across resistance most of the time so the level of violence for compliance isn't necessary. General access to fire arms is more difficult here as well. So when your not going to be facing a long jail term, your almost cretin that a store clerk isn't going to pull out a shoot gun at you and shot you let alone offer any kind of resistance, leads to a criminal who isn't going to be violent. Look at the US though, chances are good a clerk will fight back, and be armed. If not another customer might be. Either way its going to be violence to get compliance and dominance. Getting caught can lead to 10+ year jail sentence so you don't want to get caught at all and will fight harder to get away. Again this is my theory because I don't think any one has ever done a study on it, at least not that I can find that looks at those 2 key differences. But makes absolutely no sense that the style of crimes would be so different in such similar societies.

From Wikipedia on the subject of Gun ownership rates
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, a quarter of commercial robberies are committed with guns.[47] Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[47][48][49] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[50] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons.[51] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.[52][53] A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed.[49][54] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are also comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.[51][54]

[Athens]

PS Im not a Anti-GUN nut, I support guns, Own guns and actively against some of the stupid laws here at home related to Guns.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This says nothing about police training.

Police is involved in shootings much more often, so even at a lower incident rate (compared to security guards), they would have more incidents due to the much higher overall level of incolvement.

-t

Why are you so fixated about if the bullet comes from the security guards gun. A gun battle requires 2+ people firing guns at each other's directions. Your missing the point between Security Guard accidentally killing some one vs "GUN BATTLE" that is bullets being fired back and forth between people killing some one. For computers and junk like that its better to let the guy go then to get into a gun battle on public streets.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

US is tough on criminals, Canada is really light on criminals. In the US the mentality is to fight back, in Canada if you fight back your going to be fired and depending on the situation can actually have criminal charges against yourself. Overall crime rates are very similar but the striking difference is the violence and deaths are vastly different.

Canada has higher incidences of things like rapes, burglaries, car thefts, etc.

Most Americans are simply not interested in seeing those things increase, in order to feel smug about fewer gang-bangers or pretty thugs blowing each other away or getting killed preying on people- even though most of the more violent ones will sooner or later anyway.

Where we've tried gun control, crime has increased, not decreased. In areas where criminals have no idea if they'll get their heads blown off or not for preying on people, crime is low. In areas where criminals are smug that their victims will be unarmed, it tends to climb higher.

It's great that you don't mind your government disarming you. Why are you obsessed with the fact that our government doesn't have the power to legally disarm us?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're probably right, but my point is basically that hand-wringing over security guards carrying guns or armed citizens is pointless.

And it IS a fact that if you have an armed attacker showing up in public intent on killing people, more people ARE going to die if no one else present has a gun to deter him, than if you wait around for the police to show up and stop the attacker. This has been proven true time and time again.

No arguments here about that. Except that your confusing a nut case intent on killing people with armed robbers intent on stealing not specifically going out to murder people. Its 2 different things. A nut case going out for the purpose of killing people is different kind of threat. Im not against security guards carrying guns. I'm opposed to open gun fights in the streets for insured, replaceable property.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Canada has higher incidences of things like rapes, burglaries, car thefts, etc.

Most Americans are simply not interested in seeing those things increase, in order to feel smug about fewer gang-bangers or pretty thugs blowing each other away or getting killed preying on people- even though most of the more violent ones will sooner or later anyway.

Where we've tried gun control, crime has increased, not decreased. In areas where criminals have no idea if they'll get their heads blown off or not for preying on people, crime is low. In areas where criminals are smug that their victims will be unarmed, it tends to climb higher.

It's great that you don't mind your government disarming you. Why are you obsessed with the fact that our government doesn't have the power to legally disarm us?

You cant compare rap between Canada and the US. The way its counted are to different. We do have higher car theft numbers. Burglaries are also a hard one to compare because of some differences between how the stats are recorded. But rates are lower in Canada for burglaries when you break the stats down and compare the ones that can be compared.

Comparing crime rates between countries is difficult due to the differences in jurisprudence, reporting and crime classifications. National crime statistics are in reality statistics of only selected crime types. Data is collected through various surveying methods that have previously ranged between 15% and 100% coverage of the data. A 2001 Statistics Canada study concluded that comparisons with the U.S. on homicide rates were the most reliable. Comparison of rates for 6 lesser incident crimes considered possible but subject to more difficulty of interpreation. For example types of assaults receive different classifications and laws in Canada and the US making comparisons more difficult than homicides. At the time the U.S. crime of aggravated assault could be compared to the sum of three Canadian crimes (aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder). This comparison had a predicted bias that would inflate the Canadian numbers by only 0.1%. The study also concluded that directly comparing the 2 countries' reported total crime rate (i.e. total selected crimes) was "inappropriate" since the totals include the problem data sets as well as the usable sets.[6] For reasons like these homicides have been favored in international studies looking for predictors of crime rates (predictors like economic inequality).

Murder is about the only stat that is easy and fair to compare with.

and again

IM NOT A ANTI GUN PERSON!!!!!!! So stop that already.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Well you let the thieves get away with a few iPhones and let the real crooks (insurances) pay for it!

So you wouldn't mind if someone came into your home and stole your belongings as long as insurance paid for it? That's what you're saying.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Athens 

For computers and junk like that its better to let the guy go then to get into a gun battle on public streets.

I'd agree with you, except the criminal started the gun battle.

Originally Posted by Athens 

I'm opposed to open gun fights in the streets for insured, replaceable property.

They was no gun battle over property. The law doesn't allow that. The security guard defended himself with a gun after the criminal threatened his life with a gun.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by chabig 

I'd agree with you, except the criminal started the gun battle.



They was no gun battle over property. The law doesn't allow that. The security guard defended himself with a gun after the criminal threatened his life with a gun.

In this case, but the topic is turning into a general debate about guns/property not just about this story.

I like that California law that will charge the 2 surviving robbers with the murder of the 3rd even though it was the security guard that killed him.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Athens 

In this case, but the topic is turning into a general debate about guns/property not just about this story.

Well then it's simple. Most jurisdictions don't allow the use of deadly force to defend property. The only exception would be the Castle Doctrine.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You cant compare rap between Canada and the US.

Sure we can- Canadian rap sucks.

Seriously though, you're dealing minus facts as usual. Rape incidents are higher in Canada than the US, and the methods of reporting are the same:

Rapes (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map.

Canada ranks #5, the US #9 and the events are counted per-capita.


Also, in terms of total crime, and the likelihood of being a victim, Canada ranks up there with many nations that have let their government disarm themselves- at #7. The US is #15. This is: 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats.

In other words, yes we have a lot of crime in the US, in many cases more than Canada, but what's interesting is, citizens in the US that aren't themselves involved in criminal activities, or live in high crime areas, tend to be less likely to be victimized by crime than ordinary citizens in many other countries. That's a key difference, and yes, guns do play a role. Criminals go for the low-hanging fruit more often- so they tend not to victimize people as much that they fear can fight back.

Burglaries are also a hard one to compare because of some differences between how the stats are recorded. But rates are lower in Canada for burglaries when you break the stats down and compare the ones that can be compared.

Everything can be broken down to show the real deal going on- it's just that people like you only ever do it in one direction.

No matter how you want to slice it, Canadians suffer far more burglaries per capita than we do in the US. And it's a far more common crime than murder or other things we have more of, but are less likely to occur among common, non-criminal citizens.

And yes, a lot of our lower burglary rate has to do with the fact that here, a criminal doesn't know if he will get his head blown off entering my house or my neighbors. He can do the ol' eenie-meenie-miney-mo before choosing which of us to try and burgle, but in one of his choices he's likely to draw his last breath. He has no idea which.

So here's the thing- neither me or my neighbor are as likely to have to put this into practice, because the criminal won't take the risk in the first place.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sure we can- Canadian rap sucks.

Fixed.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sure we can- Canadian rap sucks.

Hey I think we got at least one good rap group

Seriously though, you're dealing minus facts as usual. Rape incidents are higher in Canada than the US, and the methods of reporting are the same:

Rapes (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map.

Canada ranks #5, the US #9 and the events are counted per-capita.

No its actually not. Simply touching some one on the ass is categorized as sexual assault the same as beating down a woman and raping her. How the US categorizes Rape and how Canada Categorizes Sexual assault are vastly different leading to unusable comparisons.

Break down that rape state from Nationmaster.com site to full details and you get this number 0.733089 per 1,000 people or 73 Sexual Assaults per 100 000 people. According to Stat Can for 2003 a year later then the sources nationmaster lists and non of the sources used actually list Stat Can which is the best source for info its 61 Sexual Assaults per 100 000 people nation wide.

Sexual assault is an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent. Although sexual assaults most frequently are by a man on a woman, it may be by a man on a man, woman on a man or woman on a woman,[1] adult on a child, adult on an adult, child on a child or child on an adult.
While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape.[2] What constitutes a sexual assault is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the assault takes place, which vary considerably and are influenced by local social and cultural attitudes.

This is a good report on the differences between crime stats and goes through the differences. Lists a few things higher in Canada and a few things higher in the US.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-...001011-eng.pdf

More importantly is this report from the Federal Government

2. Comparisons Not Recommended
2.1 Sexual Assault
Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible
rape in the United States.
Following the Canadian Criminal Code, the Canadian UCR compiles statistics on three types of sexual assault:
aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and simple sexual assault. These three sections are not
grouped together but are spread along the offence seriousness scale to match their respective maximum penalties.
In contrast, the American UCR crime index contains only one narrow version of sexual assault. The offence of
forcible rape is limited to forced sexual intercourse by a male against a female. This crime differs from the Canadian
sexual assault offences, which are neither gender-specific nor confined to sexual intercourse. Although Canada
does not describe sexual assault in the Criminal Code, sexual assault can be defined as an assault of a sexual
nature that does not require sexual penetration. Therefore, comparing the Canadian sexual assault offence and
American offence of forcible rape would not be reliable.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collectio...85F0035XIE.pdf

So im sorry we cant compare it. The only reliable one we can compare that is easy is murder rates. All others have issues and some are just impossible to compare with.

Also, in terms of total crime, and the likelihood of being a victim, Canada ranks up there with many nations that have let their government disarm themselves- at #7. The US is #15. This is: 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats.

Again its almost impossible to judge anything by that sites numbers because of differences in reporting between all the nations. Murder rate is about the only good one to use across the board because its very much the same around the world.

In other words, yes we have a lot of crime in the US, in many cases more than Canada, but what's interesting is, citizens in the US that aren't themselves involved in criminal activities, or live in high crime areas, tend to be less likely to be victimized by crime than ordinary citizens in many other countries. That's a key difference, and yes, guns do play a role. Criminals go for the low-hanging fruit more often- so they tend not to victimize people as much that they fear can fight back.

Everything can be broken down to show the real deal going on- it's just that people like you only ever do it in one direction.

No matter how you want to slice it, Canadians suffer far more burglaries per capita than we do in the US. And it's a far more common crime than murder or other things we have more of, but are less likely to occur among common, non-criminal citizens.

And yes, a lot of our lower burglary rate has to do with the fact that here, a criminal doesn't know if he will get his head blown off entering my house or my neighbors. He can do the ol' eenie-meenie-miney-mo before choosing which of us to try and burgle, but in one of his choices he's likely to draw his last breath. He has no idea which.

So here's the thing- neither me or my neighbor are as likely to have to put this into practice, because the criminal won't take the risk in the first place.

1.5 Theft
By noting minor differences in classification and scoring rules, the comparison of thefts is possible.
The Canadian Criminal Code contains a range of sections (sections 322 to 335 inclusive) dedicated to the offence
of theft. Generally, theft can be defined as the taking without permission of any inanimate or animate object from
the owner or person with special interest in it. The Canadian Criminal Code prescribes different penalties for theft
over $5,000 and theft under $5,000 and correspondingly, the UCR survey captures these two categories separately.
In comparison, the FBI defines larceny/theft as “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property
from the possession or constructive possession of another” (FBI 1984: 24). While this definition is similar to the
Canadian one, the FBI classifies thefts into three monetary values: $200 and over, $50 to $200, and under $50.
This difference in classification makes comparisons limited to theft totals.
The types of offences classified as thefts impact the reliability of comparing theft counts. Some offences which
Canada counts as either break and enters or motor vehicle thefts are considered larcenies in the American UCR
survey. In particular, the FBI classifies the illegal entry into tents and trailers, along with thefts of bulldozers,
motorboats, and farm and construction equipment as “other larcenies”. Consequently, the American rate of theft
would be high when comparing it with the narrower Canadian category. This caveat should be noted when
comparisons are performed.
Since thefts are the largest category of property crimes, both Canada and the United States sub-classify thefts
according to the type.
11
Thefts of bicycles and shoplifting are the only types of thefts that are identical between the
two surveys. However, the Canadian category of theft from motor vehicle is equivalent to the American categories
of theft from motor vehicles and theft of motor vehicle parts and accessories. Also, the Canadian sub-category of
“other” thefts would equal the sum of the additional American theft types of pocket-picking,

As is the case with comparing Auto Thefts, Canada counts farm equipment in our list the US does not. Ours is still higher anyways but almost nothing on that site you posted means anything between any of the countries on that list. UKs crime rates, US, Australia all of that is utter garbage because of the differences in reporting. Only murder is universal around the world.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't know how it is in other states, but that is far from the case here in California. Peace officers have mandatory fire arm range practice on a weekly basis and are attend required psychological reviews. For normal peeps, after you get a permit to use a fire arm you don't have to do anything.

You have to go regularly or you lose your bond, and if you aren't bonded you can't be an armed security guard.

[mduell]

The breakin was before business hours. Not many people around to be shot.

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Well I'm not a thief, but I certainly wouldn't expect to be shot at while robbing an Apple Store.. come on, they have insurance for that!

Security guard keeps the insurance premiums down.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

It's business as usual to go around breaking into Apple Stores? To bring a gun while breaking into an Apple Store?

'Round these parts, apparently it is (though minus the 'armed' part)!

Apple store robbed again, $30,000 in electronics taken — Naperville news, photos and events — TribLocal.com

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No its actually not. Simply touching some one on the ass is categorized as sexual assault the same as beating down a woman and raping her. How the US categorizes Rape and how Canada Categorizes Sexual assault are vastly different leading to unusable comparisons.

Interesting stuff. However, it actually doesn't apply to the Nationmaster stats which state their sources.

These stats are taken from several International Crime Surveys conducted by the UN, and standard definitions were agreed upon to mitigate the type of situation you outline. Otherwise, of course, you're right, it'd all be meaningless. For example:
Rape was defined by the UN survey to mean sexual intercourse without valid consent.


Also, Rape and sexual assault categories were tallied separately, as per what I quoted. So don't take the results up with me, take it up with the UN.

The larger point isn't to try and cast Canada as a shithole -like some people try and do bandying around stats from the US. It's merely to illustrate that all the anti-gun laws and heavy-handed government nonsense with such haven't done a thing for Canadians as far as keeping them safer from many criminals. In fact, they have probably emboldened many criminals to commit crimes they might have been otherwise deterred from if they though they stood a good chance of running up against an armed 'victim'.

This isn't really rocket science- criminals basically are a cowardly lot.

[Athens]

I think you have a misconception about our Gun laws as well, Probably NRA mis-information for there own gains. The gun rules are annoyances at times, especially around Hand Guns but for the most part its pretty easy to obtain guns in Canada. A 1996 study came to the results that almost 25% of Canadian house holds had at least one gun.

Does Gun control work? I dunno, you tell me. North of the 49th Murder rates are lower, death by guns way lower, crime rates very similar for those that are comparable and I still disagree with your assessment of that sites crime study, as I said before the most important source was not list, which was stats can, and the report I showed you from the federal government was in response to a UN study which tells me the UN just did a blanket numbers comparison not a breakdown with the differences analyized on how crimes are reported thus I do not trust that sites stats for any of the countries on that list including the US numbers. As the Government report pointed out some numbers made US inflated due to differences as well. So im ignoring the site you posted. It means nothing to me because the information they have is in direct conflict with a source i do trust, the actual agency that collects the data and knows the breakdown. But thats besides the point I don't want to get into a debate about that right now.

Im posting numbers of accident rates just as a FYI because the very last one is about accidents with guns. I do think most of our GUN laws work with a few things that are absolutely stupid. I also think you are totally misinformed about our Gun laws, and gun ownership numbers and usage. So what do you know about our Gun laws and owning a gun in Canada. I just want to see what misconceptions you have so I can correct any.

The total accidental death rate in Canada was 27.9 per 100,000 in 2000. Included in that total is the death rate from transportation – including motor vehicles, water craft and other land transports – which stood at 10.2 per 100,000. Also included are non-transport deaths, with a rate of 17.7 per 100,000. Of non-transport accidents, the 'unspecified accident' category stood at the highest with a rate of 7.7 per 100,000. After that, falls accounted for the next largest group with a rate of 5.1 per 100,000. Accidental poisonings were next with a rate of 3.1 per 100,000. Accidental firearm deaths stood at 0.1 per 100,000 in 2000.[35] These statistics contain no information on correlation between gun laws and accidental rates of death by gun or other means.
[edit]

I dunno what the US gun accident rate is haven't bothered to look but I have a strong feeling its higher.

The most important fact no matter what way we look at things is overall crime rates in most categories for both countries have been dropping for 25 years but the perception that crime is getting worse has been going up. The way the news covers crime is a factor. But even so, open gun battles in the streets, high speed police chaises on public roads do result in innocent victims.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Does Gun control work? I dunno, you tell me. North of the 49th Murder rates are lower...

I would assume this is accounted for more by cultural differences than laws.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

No way. Criminals obey laws.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No way. Criminals obey laws.

Great... now you sound like a "stupid" politician.

** please note the stupid is not directed at you, just in general against politicians, I in no way imply your stupid**

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Great... now you sound like a "stupid" politician.

O/T: When are you Canucks gonna get the irony / sarcasm upgrade ?

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah we totally don't do sarcasm at all.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would assume this is accounted for more by cultural differences than laws.

Shhhhh!! Everyone KNOWS that its about guns, only about guns and you can't prove it otherwise.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yeah we totally don't do sarcasm at all.

Maybe they rolled it out from East to West

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Wait a minute, did you just capture the core secret of this board? Damn, we need a public East/Middle/West poll for purposes of testing this hypothesis.

[Chongo]

With the über-strict gun laws in Europe, how does someone get their hand on an full-auto weapon?
Dutch mall shooting: 7 killed after man opens fire with machine gun | Mail Online

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

With the über-strict gun laws in Europe, how does someone get their hand on an full-auto weapon?
Dutch mall shooting: 7 killed after man opens fire with machine gun | Mail Online

"Gun permits are difficult to obtain, but illegal automatic weapons and ammunition are frequently seized during drug busts." Like, maybe there's a black market for firearms in Holland? Like maybe the super-strict gun laws in Europe don't really work?

Also, note the other thread here in the PWL about the Dutch mall shooting...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Like, maybe there's a black market for firearms in Holland? Like maybe the super-strict gun laws in Europe don't really work?

Amen. The bad guys are always gonna have guns, no matter what the law says.

-t

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Amen. The bad guys are always gonna have guns, no matter what the law says.

Amateurs use guns to attack armoured cars. Here in France, they use RPGs. This story happened when I was living in Lyon, about 2 miles away. Search for "lance rocket fourgon blindé" and you'll see other examples.

BTW, Rocket Propelled Grenades are very banned in France.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Amen. The bad guys are always gonna have guns, no matter what the law says.

-t

For myself, there's never been any thought that would prevent bad guys from getting guns. However, I also don't believe that giving regular joes easy access to guns will doing anything to scare the bad guys away from violent crime. Most non-bad-guy people are going to shy away from actually shooting another person. Also, responsible gun ownership necessitates storing the gun unloaded, making it tricky to actually use a personal gun in self defense.

No, for me the issue of gun ownership has always been one of keeping guns out of the hands of idiots.
accidental shooting - Google Search

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For myself, there's never been any thought that would prevent bad guys from getting guns. However, I also don't believe that giving regular joes easy access to guns will doing anything to scare the bad guys away from violent crime. Most non-bad-guy people are going to shy away from actually shooting another person. Also, responsible gun ownership necessitates storing the gun unloaded, making it tricky to actually use a personal gun in self defense.

No, for me the issue of gun ownership has always been one of keeping guns out of the hands of idiots.
accidental shooting - Google Search

Which is pretty much the same take on it for me to. Some of the gun rules are stupid up here but overal its not hard to get a gun. Americans have major misconceptions on Guns in Canada.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Gun permits are difficult to obtain, but illegal automatic weapons and ammunition are frequently seized during drug busts." Like, maybe there's a black market for firearms in Holland? Like maybe the super-strict gun laws in Europe don't really work?

Also, note the other thread here in the PWL about the Dutch mall shooting...

My bad, I missed that thread.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I can't believe that Apple hires people WITH GUNS to protect its stores. Hasn't there already been enough killing in this world?

Shooting-Reported-at-Otay-Ranch-Town-Center

I'm sure the family of the slain person (who we can't call a perpetrator, because that would be biased) will find a lawyer fast.

Can't somebody stop the madness?

Sure. You can. Simply step in front of the gun and take one for the team.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Sure. You can. Simply step in front of the gun and take one for the team.

Wait, are you using a terroristic threat?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Just on a trivial tangent to this: Remember when Homeland security released thousands of guns to drug dealers with the covert plan of intercepting them at the boarder and arresting everybody? Well they dropped the ball on that and mexican gangsters got away with loads of guns scott free; then used them to kill some agents... I think most people didnt hear about it because it was only reported on fox news; Others are so afraid to criticize our dear government.

Chuck Norris mentions "Operation Fast and Furious" in this column about the 2012 elections.

More detail here.

Funny, though, I haven't heard anything in the mainstream media about this. Maybe, just maybe, they've been co-opted by their political biases. Just perhaps.