I'm a Canadian, unlike Juicyfruits, not from Quebec.
I got my non-restricted firearms license in May.
It was absurdly easy.
I was expressly told "For forty bucks more you could get your handgun license too"

Yes, that's how easy it would have been. The only thing preventing you from getting a handgun legally in Canada is having a criminal record. That's it. You do a simple 16 hour course and start shooting when the license comes in the mail.

Considering how utterly simple it is, you almost NEVER hear of any gun violence here. Not because we don't have guns, or they're hard to get licenses for, but simply because for the most part we don't want them.
Criminals, on the other hand...

Oh, and the only reason I got my shotgun/rifle license was for pure and simple fun - target/skeet shooting

GUNS! GUNS! GUNS!

Some are good. Some are-*is pelted with stale donuts*

Ahg! I'll be nice! Promise!

I'm going to agree with Dog on this one. This thread has been disapointing. I wouldn't lay the blame on Critias's original post; the concerns raised were valid and his timing was not incorrect even if they could have been presented more tactfully.

However, it was foolish to fall into the trap of debate. This debate is pointless and meaningless, not because it can't be won, but because it has been won several times before. We've had it and in the end it always ends up the exact same way. One could easily just post a link to a past gun control debate instead of spending the time and the effort to join this one. The effect would be the same. The arguments are old and tired; and it is aways the same individuals on the same sides.

It would hav ebeen better to simply recognize the concerns of both sides as valid, refer everyone to the past debates, and suggest settling it in a different venue.


By the way, Dale, interesting. This is the first time anything new has actually been added to this discussion.

the tought that came to mind for me now is this:

for every shrike30, kagetenshi or shadowdragon8685 out there that have tought their gun purchase and use over, there will be a variable number of people that go for the biggest shiniest gun they can lay their hands on just to pretend that they are big bad "gangstaz".

and those last ones are the people that worry me, as you dont know what they will do in any given situation...

and then we get to a "rights of the many vs rights of the few" issue...

I would disagree about the debate beeing disapointing. So far, with a few exceptions, the debate has been rather open with few to none "because I say so" posts. Its a debate and an interesting one in my opinion. And as far as I can tell, its more about broadening once own perspective than convincing anyone.

There have been many posts. I'll try to adress the points made by people. No offense intented.

@Shrike
The cars argument is valid, though sadly another one where there is simply a big gap between the US and Germany (or most of europe as far as I can tell.), because here you actually do have people check and doublecheck wether or not you can drive. Here you have to go to driving school with a practival and theoretical test. Driving school is some 15 to 20 hours mandatory each, but both average at about 30 hours I'd say. Once you do have your license (and failing is easy. Your practical test has to be perfect, the theoretical one allows for like one, two tops mistakes) you are on "probation" so to speak for two years. Basically everything can make you loose your license in that time. For instance, driving too fast once gets you 3 points in flensburg (a database where all traffic related wrongs you have commited is stored. Each wrong has a certain point value. Once you have accumulated a certain number of points things can range from psychological evaluation to permanent loss of the license.) a monetary fee (cant recall how much, something like 150€ or so) and back to driving school (on your own money) to determine wether you are really able to drive safely.

Back to the point however I fully agree with you that cars are dangerous, but the big difference, as you already said, is that cars have a purpose outside of beeing dangerous. A weapons purpose is to harm. Therefore, comparing the two is kinda like apples and oranges. (Just as a sidenote, by law, a car can become a weapon.)

I do fully agree with you that the element at fault is the human and not the object with both cars and guns, the problem however ensues in both cases from the maybe too great trust of the goverment in its people and the peoples lack of trust in society and themselves. I'll get back to this.

A little something to keep in mind. I found these numbers this morning, and thought I might share them. These are average police response times for priority 1 (rape in progress, assault with a weapon in progress, robbery in progress, etc) call, aka an "urgent" call in GB:

Cincinnati, OH, PD: 5.5 minutes
London City Police: 90% within 6 minutes
Seattle, WA PD: 8.1 minutes
Dallas, TX PD: 8.5 minutes
NYPD: 10.3 minutes
London Metropolitan Police: 90% within 12 minutes

I share these numbers not because I think they'll geniunely change anyone's minds about how important it is to protect themselves...but because I hope they might change someone's mind about how important it is to protect themselves.

The best average response time I could find on-line was the one for Cincy, at five and a half minutes -- man, that's an eternity. Someone with a knife can mortally wound you in five and a half seconds. Hell, if it's the only way to help you grasp the time frame I'm talking about, that five and a half minute number is 110 Shadowrun combat rounds. Lots of boxing matches or MMA bouts don't go five and a half minutes, and those guys are trained to take the hits. How long do you think you'd last, unarmed, against a determined (or just desperate) attacker with a knife? Or two? How long would your mother, or your girlfriend, or your sister?

Think about some of these numbers, before you go thinking the cops can protect you.

Understand; I don't hold these numbers against the police. I wouldn't be trying become a police officer, if I didn't think what they did was important, noble, and absolutely crucial to a smooth-running society. I'm not by any means saying the police refuse to protect you, or choose not to protect you, or don't want to protect you -- this isn't me calling them incompetent, or blaming them in any way. I'm saying they simple can't protect us, save by the stupid luck of them happening to be there right when something goes down. There quite simply aren't enough of them for that to be reliable.

Think about what can happen in 5.5 minutes, against someone intent on causing you horrible bodily harm (or, again, your wife, mother, sister, or girlfriend).

I am jumping in at the end of this, and I noticed this:

In a few of these posts, it was hard to tell the difference between fervent anti-gun advocates, and trolls.


My personal stance is this:

1: "Good" people need to be protected from "bad" people, whether by protecting themselves, or being protected by a societal construct.
2: "Bad" people will use every advantage they can to get what they want from "good" people as easily as possible.
2a: The "bad" person in this Montreal incident brought a firearm instead of a baseball bat because it was easier to fulfill his antisocial goals that way.
3: When law enforcement cannot fully keep the "bad" people away from the "good" people, "good" people need to be able to make up the difference.
3a: Thus, "good" people should be able to legally own whatever "bad" people are likely to use as "leverage", as this makes it harder for the "bad" people to get what they want.

so lets start handing out pocket nukes

why should i? i dont live in the usa...

I'd like to point out that I consider the "proper application" of a firearm to be "emptying the magazine in the motherfucker's center of mass." Ask around, and I'm willing to bet that's got "very nearly a 100% success rate at stopping the threat." You'll also find that it's not like I'm making that up, off the top of my head, as far as proper application goes -- it's what quite a few self defense classes teach (sans "motherfucker," I bet).

You shoot until the threat is stopped. Then you check for other threats, and shoot them until they've stopped. Reload and repeat as necessary -- then get to safety, and call 911.

That's it. That's the rules, man. Everything else is technique and practice, to help you do those things.

Yes, that's proper application. If you try it at someone too close to you, you stand a pretty good chance of getting fucked up proper by anyone who was going to be doing any fucking up in the first place, regardless of how much lead your assailant has in him or her afterwards.

~J

Well then, I bow to your superior skills. For us mere mortals, there are three body parts that the average human is quite good at protecting, even if totally untrained:

1) Eyes
2) Genitals
3) Throat/front of neck

(Back of the neck is another matter)

These are difficult targets for most people. Anything that relies on hitting them had best involve hitting something else pretty hard first, because that's what it's going to take to break down the natural defenses.

~J

I would think that for self-defense purposes merely pointing a gun at an assailant would make them back off pretty quick. Pointing a baseball bat (which won't fit in a pocket btw) will probably make them laugh.

Oh yeah, cause a potentially drugged up psycho looking at his "prey" is going to take you with a baseball bat seriously.

A baseball bat can really hurt a guy. There's a reason that pick handles continued to be considered effective melee weapons even in to the 20th century, and that's because you can beat a guy to a pulp with one of those with pretty much no training.

This is starting to head downhill, guys.

Assume for a moment that we've got a limited amount of time allocated to self-defense preparation in our lives. This amount of time varies for various people. The majority of folks don't put in much thought to this at all... they've got more important things to think about, or they've got a firm belief in the "foot stomp, rib jab, key rake, and run screaming" approach that's taught at the two-hours-every-two-years self-defense course offered to their office.

In the middle, you've got guys like me... they get some training in the defense of their choice when they can (be it martial arts, handgunnery, or any mix of elements they come up with), and try and keep in practice between training sessions with sparring, range trips, and the like.

On the end of the spectrum, you've got guys who train constantly. Often, their skills have a professional application, because it's hard to justify that amount of time and effort otherwise. Others do it as a hobby, pursuing a martial art or a "practical" shooting sport because they enjoy it.

If someone's going to put in a limited amount of time and end up somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, I would hope that they'd train to be as effective as they thought possible. For people who don't have ethical or personal outlooks that would forbid them from possibly being aggressive towards someone (or possibly killing them), there's a lot to be said for building a defensive system that includes a combination of martial arts, less-lethal weapons (sprays, tasers, batons, and the like), blades, and firearms. With sufficient exposure, the person can make a good decision about what works for them (and what doesn't), what they're comfortable doing to someone, what they're willing to carry around all day, and what they should focus on when they practice and train. They'll have gotten the information they need to start making educated decisions about where they want to prioritize their limited time budget for self-defense.

I'm about to make some observations. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, this is just what I'm noting.

For Nidhogg, it seems his personal experience and the restrictions placed on him by the life he currently lives have led him to feel that sprays, impact weapons, and martial arts are the level of protection that suit his needs.

For Kagetenshi, it seems that his personal beliefs and his exposure to martial arts have led him to feel that he is unwilling to do any more harm in any less controlled of a fashion than he can with his hands in order to protect himself, and that the level of protection he has is sufficient for daily life.

For Shadowdragon, it seems that her personal experiences and awareness of her limitations have led her to feel that there are situations where a firearm is the most likely means of surviving.

For myself, my approach to any unknown situation is to want to have as many options available to myself as I can, so that I've got increased odds of having what I felt to be my best option work out in my favor.

There's a number of other people involved in this discussion. I'm not trying to leave them out, I'm just showing a few samples to make a point: there's a wide spread of opinions here.

I'm of the opinion that your average adult should be believed to be a responsible individual. Frankly, I don't think society would work if the average adult was irresponsible. We've got various ways of showing that someone is irresponsible... mental illness, criminal history, and the like are used all over the place as beaurocratic flags that indicate "this person doesn't have their shit together. Do not trust them."

We assert that the average adult is responsible enough to drive a car safely, to raise a child properly, to play MMORPGs without losing themselves to them, and to have alcohol be available to them without their loosened inhibitions causing problems. Frankly, we give people all sorts of opportunities to fuck up both themselves and others because we assert that there's a point at which people can be trusted to make their own decisions rather than having the government make those decisions for them.

If someone fucks up badly enough, there are corrective measures. Child abuse is a crime. So is reckless driving. Drunks who cause enough problems to get the police involved usually end up charged with something. Most of the people I know who dug too far into MMORPGs ended up living with their parents again, a special hell reserved for the worst of irresponsible adults

Self-defense shouldn't be any different. I think that all responsible adults should be able to look at the various means of defending themselves, consider how much time they're willing to put into it, how many people they might have to defend, their likelihood of needing to defend themselves, and how much damage they're willing to do to somebody in order to protect themselves, and then make their own decision without having a law sitting out there that says "By the way... with regards to these particular choices, we're going to treat you like children. Let the adults (cops) take care of you."

The vast majority of people in America (land of the highest first-world murder rate) have the option of defending themselves however they choose. Most of them fit into that first category I talked about... the ones who don't feel the need, or think that foot-stomping or screaming is sufficient for them. I may not agree with their analysis, but I believe that adults should be allowed to make those kinds of decisions themselves. I don't call them "sheeple" or any of the various derogatory terms that float around the RKBA community because I think it'd be hypocritical: I have the right to choose to carry a firearm because it's assumed I can make good choices, I should assume that they're making the choice that's good for them when they choose not to.

Whether guns, pepper spray, or jujitsu are the most effective or least dangerous means of self defense is besides the point... those are all subjective, and what works out best for one person may not be what works out best for another. What it really comes down to is whether or not you believe adults can be trusted to make important decisions.

I don't carry a gun (open, which is perfectly legal here, or concealed) because I rely on the statistical probability that I will need one. That said, I know how to use one and if (more like, "when") the time comes I will keep one with me by my bed, in my car, or on my person.

Crit and I know each other well enough that I know he won't take it personally when I say that I actively distrust law enforcement, and I certainly don't expect them to be there in an emergency unless I'm living in a well-patrolled area. He knows about his area PDs. I know about mine. The numbers for all of them suck, especially considering how much of our respective states are rural and where the nearest Level One trauma center may be in another state--accessible only by helicopter.

That's one of the reasons why I have always thought that the best home defense weapon is a shotgun for the intimidation factor of racked slide makes in a house, and the fact that buckshot is less likely to overpenetrate if you miss while holed up in a ready position. Plus, if you run out of ammo then you can try to bludgeon the shit out of them.

I'm not exactly averse to open carry myself. Of course, here it's perfectly legal (even when concealed carry wasn't), so... Go figure.

<Bad joke removed>

~J