Gun control = Genocide, and more.

[Mike Tx]

More gun control, more genocide. That's the lesson of the 20th century in many nations, including Uganda. Yet the United Nations is again trying to make it impossible for Ugandans to protect themselves. Once again, the U.N. is supporting repression rather than human rights.
"The Ugandan government has established a national body to combat the proliferation of illicit small arms into the country," announced the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on September 24.

The NFP (the Ugandan National Focal Point, an agency that coordinates Uganda's relations with multinational bodies) will be responsible for fulfilling the country's obligation, pursuant to the Nairobi Declaration, to reduce "the demand and supply of illegal firearms" in Uganda. According to the March 2000 Declaration, illicit small arms have had "devastating consequences . . . in sustaining armed conflict and abetting terrorism, cattle rustling and other serious problems in the region." To the contrary, it has been disarmament which has been the prime facilitator of state-sponsored terrorism in Uganda.

Occupying the northeast corner of Uganda are the Karamojong pastoralists, a marginalized minority of about 100,000 people who wander with their cattle from one pasture to another. Comprising three percent or less of the total population of Uganda, the Karamojong belong to a larger group of African peoples called Nilo-Hamites, some of whom live across the borders in Kenya and Sudan. The remainder of the Ugandan population are Bantus. About 90 percent of the country's inhabitants live in rural areas.

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121102.asp" target="_blank">web page</a>


2 million = 1 billion

Effusively praised by President Clinton, Canada's gun-control laws are in a state of crisis, threatening the political future of many Liberal party politicians. Introduced in 1995 with a promised net cost of $2 million dollars (Canadian), the nation's gun registry is going to cost over a billion dollars, according to a new report from the auditor general. The report details pervasive malfeasance by the Liberal administration. Now, many Canadians who have no personal interest in gun ownership are turning against the deceit and self-dealing of the Liberals.

On December 3, Auditor General Sheila Fraser released a scathing report. "This is certainly the largest cost overrun we've ever seen in this office," she said. Commentators are calling the registry "the billion dollar boondoggle."

One reason for the spending disaster, although hardly the only one, was lavish government spending on politically connected public-relations firms to promote the gun registry and other projects. One PR executive billed the government for 3,673 hours of work in one year

[KL]

In reference to the Canadian gun control part of Mike's post, I'm surprised it took him so long to point out a failing in the Canadian gun control strategy! :D

I think the registry is eventually going to collapse. I am in favour of all gun owners being required to have a permit to possess them. I am also in favour of all of the restrictions we place on the types of firearms that can be owned and how they must be stored. The gun registry was an idea that sounded good on paper. You have to register your car, why not your guns? The reality is that it is an unworkable, unenforceable mess.

[Sparky]

You maen in Canada, you even have to get tags for cars (register) that you don't even drive?

In the US, we only have to get tags for cars if they are to be driven on public roads. Your '55 Chevy that sits in the garage a few years while you restore it doesn't have to be registered. Neither do you have to get any sort of permit to go buy it from the junk yard to begin the restoration.

I had no idea that cars were so well regulated in Canada. That sounds like a mess, too. I can't imagine what car dealerships go through. And I certainly imagine that you don't have many car manufacturers up there either.

[Mike Tx]

For clarity, my topics on gun control in foriegn countries are not meant as attacks on those people, but to show the failure of gun control and it repercussions, and to impede its progress in this country.

[Sparky]

Heh.. Heh.. Heh..

Uh... You said "impede".

heh Heh Heh...

Cool.

[KL]

You don't need tags on plates for a car not being driven. A computerized record is maintained provincially of at least VINs and associated owners for all vehicles. I'm sure some cars that haven't been on the road for years have been missed.

Believe it or not, the Big Three and Honda all manufacture cars in Canada. The Camaro and Firebird were made in Quebec. The Crown Victorias are made in Ontario.

To get back on topic, the registry portion of our gun control isn't working because too many gun owners don't agree with it. Permits to possess and acquire firearms has wide support, as does the previous requirement to register handguns. Registering all guns at this point is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

The one positive aspect of the registry program is that many people who had guns lying around that they hadn't used in years turned them in for destruction rather than go through the hassle of registering them.

[Mike Tx]

Hmmm, I must be stupid or something, I can't see how turning a gun in for destruction, that has been laying around all those years, as you say, is positive. It must be that those guns, as they get older. aqquire some evil characteristics that merit the death penalty on the old monster.

Sparky, did I say impede? What was I thinking? Of course I meant "stop".

[KL]

If the person isn't using them, why have them around? Sell them to someone who will use them or just get rid of them. My opinion is that the fewer guns that are around the safer we are.

[Mike Tx]

KL, I have a few guns that I haven't used in a while, and they are in no way dangerous while they are not being used.

While I certainly may not need all the firearms I have, the ones that I seldom use are not a danger to anyone. I think you are confusing criminals with guns.

Now criminals should definately be turned in, as the ones that are just sitting around not doing anything very well may do something bad soon. Of course, the crime they commit will determine if they should be destroyed or not.

So with that in mind, I would say the fewer criminals out there, the safer we are.

[KL]

Mike, I diffentiate between someone like yourself, who apparently has lots of guns, and someone who has an old .22 or shotgun stuck in the back of a closet.

If you have some you don't use often, big deal. I'm sure you store them safely. My experience, as a police officer, is that people who don't use these old guns don't store them properly. They are usually stuck in the back of a closet and end up being stolen during a break-in. Then I have to worry about coming up against them. Stolen guns are a major source for firearms used by criminals in this country.

In keeping with my views on this subject, I'm considering getting rid of a couple of guns that were passed on to me by my father and grandfather. Any idea what a 7.62 mm Mauser broomhandle or a model 1893 .303 Savage lever-action rifle might be worth?

[Mike Tx]

I see what you mean, I think. I don't really know much about gun values, but I'm sure you can search on the net for some place that may have a guide, or, let someone in a gun store evaluate it.

[Watchman]

Send them to me. Ill give you 50 bucks for both of them sight unseen...PM me for the adress to send them too. Ill even pay shipping !

<small>[ 12-14-2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]</small>

[Mike Tx]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They are usually stuck in the back of a closet and end up being stolen during a break-in. Then I have to worry about coming up against them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You know KL, we have the same problem here. Instead of stopping the criminals, and punishing them severely, the law wants to punish the guns that aren't hurting anything.

[KL]

For the most part, we get pretty decent sentences for criminals who use guns. It's consistent with Canadian society's generally negative attitude towards guns.

[Mike Tx]

Do you agree with that?

[KL]

I have to say that I do. I just do not believe that having more guns makes a society safer. If that were the case, the US would be the safest society in the world. The fact is that the per capita murder rate in the US is much higher than Canada and I believe the reason is the guns.

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? I saw it this week. Certainly Michael Moore did not approach the subject objectively, but he still made some very good points.

[PeteBroccolo]

If I WERE to discuss this thread, I would do so face-to-face or by eMail. One difficulty in being so open with one's identity.

[Mike Tx]

KL, so you think that the availability of firearms makes people who would normally not be killers turn into killers?

As far as more guns = less crime that is true. The problem here is that many many people believe they are safe and do not need to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Usually what has to happen to change their mind is a brush with death from a violent felon.

[Deputy757]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by KL:
<strong>I have to say that I do. I just do not believe that having more guns makes a society safer. If that were the case, the US would be the safest society in the world. The fact is that the per capita murder rate in the US is much higher than Canada and I believe the reason is the guns.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But more guns in potential victims hands might change that per capita murder rate some. As Mike has stated numerous times, it's not the gun that kills the person, it's the criminal holding it. And no matter how much gun control you have, criminals will always be able to get them, while the otherwise honest citizen will not.

[PeteBroccolo]

Again, KL and I are coming from pretty much the same perspective - overall in Canada neither the general civilian population, nor on-duty Peace Officers, face the kind, and frequency, of violation that seems to occur South of the 49th / Great Lakes / Gaspe.

I very much favour gun possessors / purchasers / acquirerers to be required to be licenced. Every jurisdiction requires operators of land and air craft to be licenced for the majority of those kind of craft. Why not with firearms, or at least on this side of the 49th?

The rest? Well, see my last post above!

[Mike Tx]

Pete, I've always been curious about that as well. Just how does registering them help? How does that make people more safe? Thanks.

[retired]

Deputy,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Deputy757:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by KL:
<strong>I have to say that I do. I just do not believe that having more guns makes a society safer. If that were the case, the US would be the safest society in the world. The fact is that the per capita murder rate in the US is much higher than Canada and I believe the reason is the guns.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But more guns in potential victims hands might change that per capita murder rate some. As Mike has stated numerous times, it's not the gun that kills the person, it's the criminal holding it. And no matter how much gun control you have, criminals will always be able to get them, while the otherwise honest citizen will not.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not in favor of gun confiscation, but with an estimated 200 to 250 million guns in the U.S., don't you think that the majority of these guns are already in the possession or hands of the law abiding potential victims?

[Deputy757]

One would hope!! But if that were the case, than almost EVERY American household would have a gun in it and I don't think that's quite right either.

[wonderwoman]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Mike Tx:
<strong>Pete, I've always been curious about that as well. Just how does registering them help? How does that make people more safe? Thanks.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am so proud of the mature way you are communicating in this gun control thread. I really am! :D :D :D :D

[Mike Tx]

WW, ****** ******* you old ***** ****** then you can go and ****** ********* *********** *** *** *** ***** **** ***** in the back yard. **** ***** ****** cranberry sauce. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<small>[ 12-15-2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]</small>

[Mike Tx]

<a href="http://www.rachellucas.com/stupidgunlaws.htm" target="_blank">European article with statistics</a>

[wonderwoman]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Mike Tx:
<strong>WW, ****** ******* you old ***** ****** then you can go and ****** ********* *********** *** *** *** ***** **** ***** in the back yard. **** ***** ****** cranberry sauce. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">:D :D :D

[KL]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deputy757:But more guns in potential victims hands might change that per capita murder rate some. As Mike has stated numerous times, it's not the gun that kills the person, it's the criminal holding it. And no matter how much gun control you have, criminals will always be able to get them, while the otherwise honest citizen will not.

I guess that is the route you are trying in the US. Does it seem to be working? Do you really think the answer is for there to be shoot-outs between citizens and criminals? Doesn't this cheapen life all around? If a criminal thinks his victim will probably shoot at him won't he shoot first to avoid taking the chance?

I don't think that the Canadian approach would work in the US. The guns are already in circulation. You can't go back. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it is to have even more guns.

<small>[ 12-15-2002, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: KL ]</small>

[Mike Tx]

KL, we only shoot back when we don't have any other choice. We don't pretend to be LE, but we do value our right to life, and many of us won't allow a criminal with a deadly weapon to to take it if we can stop them. Remember, I said when we don't have any other choice. The media here rarely ever reports on those kinds of stories. They usually only report on the negative use of guns. Hell they don't even report on Canadas problems with it's registering guns because that would be anti anti-gun.

Consider one thing - You said that you favor people turning in guns they don't use because they may get stolen, and then you and other police are likely to encounter criminals armed with them after that.

So, in that respect it's good that you are armed, but seeing how you can't stop criminals from getting guns illegally, would you want a law abiding citizen to have to face an armed criminal without being able to properly defend themselves with their own firearm? You can't be everywhere, right?

Unfortunatly, many people have the mistaken idea that the police can protect them from all harm, and that is a very bad illusion to live under.

<small>[ 12-15-2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]</small>

[Deputy757]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by KL:
<strong>[QUOTE]
I guess that is the route you are trying in the US. Does it seem to be working? Do you really think the answer is for there to be shoot-outs between citizens and criminals? Doesn't this cheapen life all around? If a criminal thinks his victim will probably shoot at him won't he shoot first to avoid taking the chance?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, it doesn't seem to be working but that's primarily because, as it's been said before, many people believe that the police will keep anything bad from happening to them and that's just not the case. Sure, we occassionally interrupt a violent crime in progress but it's more often than not a reply to a complaint after the crime has occurred.
No, I don't think shootouts are a good thing, but I'd rather an honest citizen have a fair chance it the situation arises. As for cheapening life, if you are referring to the sh**head that initiated the confrontation, there's really no loss if he/she ends up on a slab.
I think there are plenty of existing cases where unarmed citizens have been shot or stabbed even though they possessed no weapon of their own. Unarmed cops in England occassionally get shot/stabbed as well. Not on the scale of what happens in the US, but then again we have almost 10 times their population.

[Bill R]

Retired,
I am not in favor of gun confiscation, but with an estimated 200 to 250 million guns in the U.S., don't you think that the majority of these guns are already in the possession or hands of the law abiding potential victims?

Sorry, nobody told me there was a specific number allotted. I have used up the quota for quite a few folks. I do agree that the majority of guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Chief Wiggum]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Sparky:
<strong>You maen in Canada, you even have to get tags for cars (register) that you don't even drive?

In the US, we only have to get tags for cars if they are to be driven on public roads. Your '55 Chevy that sits in the garage a few years while you restore it doesn't have to be registered. Neither do you have to get any sort of permit to go buy it from the junk yard to begin the restoration.

I had no idea that cars were so well regulated in Canada. That sounds like a mess, too. I can't imagine what car dealerships go through. And I certainly imagine that you don't have many car manufacturers up there either.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not everywhere in the US. In OK even unused cars must be registered. It's just much cheaper. But If your caught driving it, it's towed and held until you pay the full registration.

[Oink]

<small>[ 01-05-2003, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Oink ]</small>