For the pro-firearm crowd.

There will always be guns. It's a big industry and I'm sure the government makes good money from it. It's just that by having a ban on guns could stop the idiots from using them in a bad way. You do not have to be a criminal to use a gun in the wrong way.

It is not a "Crime" anymore to have a small personal amount, they can *fine* you a small fine, can't remember the # but you will not have a criminal record, It's not truly legal, but not something you will go to court for.... And I have a pretty good source, my neighbor is OPP and I asked him.....

Yes, and that's what I just said.

Wow, amazing how one post can throw a thread into a whole new direction.

Just clarifying because some may think when you say "Small Penalty" you mean criminal penalty, and it is not, it's a fine, kind of like a speeding ticket. And it is very rarely enforced.

LOL That's what I love about Chaz, usually

Boxers are on numerous apartment "ban" lists here, because they've developed the reputation for being aggressive and "vicious" towards both people and dogs. Same with German Shepherds and GSD's are both widely renouned for their work in the above areas and yet prohibited from living in many areas.

Banning is a stupid, knee-jerk reaction that makes no sense at all. It's just as sensible to ban your boxer and my Aussie as it is to ban handguns and pitbulls.

Sorry, but if guns were banned, I'd still own one. I suppose that makes me a criminal but I bet any one of you who are all FOR a gun ban would be WISHING you had one the day some armed mad man broke into your home, shot your "protection dogs" and then went to rape you and your children before they killed you, execution style. The day guns are banned will be the day when good citizens will be disarmed and unable to protect themselves from the real criminals and psychos out there in the world. You bet your a$$ that a ban wont keep them from owning a gun to commit their crimes. Thats what I think anyway.

but but but we love our dogs, its everyone else who is messed up, not us. We only need to control everyone else not the dog people.

You are exactly right Zoom.

There has been more people killed with a stroke of a pen if we want to blame objects for disaster.

Could you explain why American cities with the most restrictions on firearms have the most mishaps? Washington DC, Los Angeles and New York come to mind.

A ban on guns will make garage machinists rich. Anyone who can run a lathe and a mill can make guns. Actually they can be made from pipe fittings, come to think of it bombs could be made from pipe fittings. I probably shouldnt write that in a public forum we will need a background check to fix our leaky sink.

This has been a really great thread, I'm learning quite a bit about Canada here!
Oh, and I too love it how we can go through 4 different topics, then come back to the first one again.

Idiots using them is not the problem.

The criminals using them in a bad way is the problem.

Sure, a lot of deaths that were on accident would be prevented. But I bet you ANY amount of money its going to make criminals MORE likely to break into homes, knowing the house is unarmed.

Not to mention how many die in car "accidents". It would be like banning everyone from driving because a handful of drivers are irresponsible.

If I were to plan a robbery I would be very concerned if the people were armed. Its not too difficult to disable phone service and if 911 was called during the breach you still have several minutes to commit your crime and leave (they warn you with sirens when they are near). This also leaves you alive and able to get their neighbors house a couple weeks later.

I guess no one reads any links I post or anyone else posts or else you wouldn't say that there are more gun mishaps and crime on account of regular citizens owning guns. The link I posted about the mandatory gun ownership law in a city in Georgia points out and demonstrates why it is just the opposite. Who is going to break into a home, rape, rob or kill people when they know every homeowner has a gun in their possession? If I were a robber or worse criminal, I sure as heck would avoid stacking the odds against my coming out of their home alive. If every homeowner, including women would learn how to use a gun, how to safely protect their children from their gun, teach their children how to respect and handle a gun when of age, you wouldn't have nearly the crime that there is. Crime is not perpetrated by law-abiding citizens. (isn't that an oxymoron?) Crime is committed by criminals who break laws. (that's stating the obvious, but I feel it must be stated for some reason) Laws, as it's been hashed over are broken by criminals. Criminals will always have guns. It is fundamentally wrong to disarm citizens. And furthermore, it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There should be no debate as far as I'm concerned because of that right.

And as far as breed bans go, if you think Boxers or any breed is immune, think again. Here's a link you ought to enlighten yourself with Boxer100. If they ban one or two breeds, whats stopping them from doing whatever else they want? If they control and opress the people, what's stopping them from stomping us like squashed insects? Do you really think that they're out to "help" make this a better place? Better re-think that one.

But alas....as usual, these links to educational matter will be passed over by most. It's fruitless.

http://www.chazhound.com/forums/t54164/

That's actually my opinion too. I was just pointing out that the other view isn't irrational. If there are a lot of guns around, more people will die from them, and it IS a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. I still think of guns as a equalizer, and I'd rather give people the right and ability to defend themselves (though it should not be a requirement for one's safety that one have a gun . . . one should have a right NOT to have one too). But the other point of view isn't crazy.

Buckshot, I'd actually say, having lived in several big cities, and currently living right outside of one of the worst for gun violence (DC) that the gun ban didn't create the problem. The problem was that there was a huge ammount of gun violence already . . . and so they thought a gun ban might help. It didn't, of course, because the sort of people who murder each other in the street don't obey the law. But I don't think it caused the problem . . . only a tiny fraction of the violence (gun or otherwise) comes from people being killed in their homes (or even walking down the street) who are not somehow involved. Its mostly people with guns killing other people with guns, and most of those involved are criminals. Not always, and there are always the innocent bystanders. But there's not a huge break in and kill people problem . . . unless they are looking for someone specific. Letting the law abiding citizens own guns might help a bit (and I wholly support letting people have handguns) but it wouldn't reduce the violence in any serious way. Because by and large the sort of people who keep guns in their house as protection against random crime aren't the sort of people dyng.

Actually, half the problem is that the gun ban isn't really enforced . . . except against poor sods caught with one in their house. A lot of time, because of overcrowding or police error (either acting illegally or incompetantly) the gangbanger caught with a gun walks, though without his gun. The statistics on this are pretty amazing, I wish I could find that article again. So, they got the worst of both worlds . .. banning the law abiding from havng guns, and totally failing to use the gun ban as an enforcement tool to get violent criminals and their guns, off the streets, which was part of what it was supposed to do. Again, I'd much rather see the ban gone than enforced . . . but the way its been done is just stupid.

Of course, I also support liscening, so that anyone caught with an illegal gun is in big trouble (at least if they would enforce the law) but I know we differ on that. In my view it at least draws a clear distinction . . . let the law abiding have guns, and nail the criminals for having them. I just think a licensing system would be more efficent than the current background check system . . . but I do see the issues with it.

:hail::hail::hail::hail:

That was the most well written post I have read.

People have made up their minds and no amount of facts or statistics will change it. I am more afraid of compromisers than those who are in your face about their wanting guns confiscated. Little laws here and there that let the government take guns away little by little with the support of the alleged pro gunners is my biggest fear on this issue. The NRA has supported many little infringements. I called them once (when I was a member during Clintons presidency) and asked them what their plan was if there was a total gun ban. They told me that they would respect the law. I canceled my membership on the spot.

Just like licensing a driver makes them responsible. It is a more in your face way, if another administration (or possibly this one) decides to confiscate. I am a much bigger fan of in your face stuff than behind your back stuff like the background check. All licensing will do for guys like me is make me an outlaw. I am just an average guy who wouldnt hurt any one unless provoked. I mind my own business and dont create victims, but you are willing to vote to make me and many thousands like me into criminals. Empowering government.....cant we see the misery on massive scale that has caused in the world

(Thanks 4dogs. I just get passionate about this subject)

Buckshot, I totally agree with you. I'd be right up there on the front line with the revolutionaries fighting for my rights. Our forefathers "broke" the law....English law and if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have a country. When governing a people creates fear and oppression, that government needs to be dismantled. (if I'm not back on here in the next couple of days................)

I'm sure that is true, that the vast majority of victims of gun shots are criminals themselves. But tell that to the families of the female college students' out for a jog on campus, who were dragged behind the bushes, raped and/or murdered. Tell that to the minimum wage convenience store owner who has no protection when someone comes in threatening him or her. Recite statistics to the female real estate agent, alone, a sitting duck holding an open house who gets raped. When I was an agent, there was a rash of rapes of this nature in the area I worked.

A friend of my son's who lives in the next state over had a thug come up from behind him in a large parking lot, hold a gun to his head and demand his wallet. And believe it or not, a month later, a thug, not sure if it was the same creep came up behind this young guy's mother who was about to get into her car after shopping in broad day light, put a pistol to the back of her head, demanded that she hand over her keys and purse, pushed her down and stole her car. Now, why on earth these people who live in a less than desireable area don't carry a gun on them, I'll never understand. I'd love to see the split-of-a-second look of surprise on the face of my attacker, just as a bullet leaves the chamber.

There are loads of innocent people who have their homes broken into, get assaulted on te street, in parks, in convenience stores or gas stations. If you think it only matters that statistically, more victims are criminals themselves, well....I don't understand the relevance in statistics such as this when we're talking about human life...innocent human life.

As far as that law requiring the members of that town to own guns, perhaps that is not right either, from a legal standpoint. However, I personally think it is the moral duty of every citizen to take part in preserving our rights, our safety and most of all, our freedom from oppression. Having guns and knowing how to operate them, which really isn't very difficult is a moral duty to assist in protecting our neighbors and ourselves from violent crime. You see what happens when everything is left up to the government, federal or local.

You obviously never owned a boxer. They do not attack other dogs nor do they attack people. They are actually intimidated and scared in some cases by strangers. :lol-sign: It all depends on how you treat your dog, if you leave them outside on a chain and never give them any attention, of course they will become wild and aggressive.