I know that’s a tad incendiary. But it could have been worse. I could’ve asked “Are Gun Control Advocates Delusional Cowards?” That question popped into my head yesterday, when Gunfight pinup Colin Goddard declared his goal: he wants Americans to be able to go anywhere safely. Really? Anywhere? Gun control can do that for us? I don’t think so. Meanwhile, it got worse. Check this from the post Faculty votes to not support concealed carry at today’s dailytoreador.com: “[Texas Tech Faculty Senator Carolyn] Tate said she did an unofficial survey of the faculty within the College of Visual and Performing Arts. Out of the 54 responses she received, 53 were opposed to having concealed carry on campus. She said many faculty members expressed how they already feel unsafe on campus . . .

“A typical comment brought up issues of faculty protection,” Tate said. “Faculty felt that they were already threatened. Many faculty expressed their feelings that, currently, they feel threatened in their offices and in their classrooms and even in their homes by students to whom they had given an unwanted grade.

“They felt that if this law were to pass, they would no longer feel any necessity of upholding any kind of academic rigor. Why bother to give anybody anything other than an ‘A’ if that student has easier access to inflicting bodily harm on a faculty member?”

I swear to God I never thought of this before: gun control advocates are afraid of law-abiding people with guns. Well, MORE afraid. I should have thunk it watching Gunfight last night, when Brady Campaign Prez Paul Helmke asserted that average people can turn into cold-blooded killers with the simple addition of a firearm.

It must be horrible to live in fear like that. You know what? Gun control advocates should get a concealed carry permit and carry a gun. How weird is that? Gun control advocates as people who secretly want a gun. Well, need one.

What’s your take on the motivations of those who would severely restrict access to firearms?

Recommended For You

100 Responses to Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Cowards?

  1. Are gun control advocates cowards? Only the bloggers who push it hard under an assumed name.
    What is their motivation? Obviously, they are compensating for something.

  2. “They felt that if this law were to pass, they would no longer feel any necessity of upholding any kind of academic rigor. Why bother to give anybody anything other than an ‘A’ if that student has easier access to inflicting bodily harm on a faculty member?”

    Why can they not understand that the bad guys, whether they be student or not, don’t give a rat’s a$$ about their restrictions? If someone wants to cause you bodily harm, they aren’t going to look at a sign on the door with an ex’d out gun on it and change their mind. If that was the case all you would have to do is wear a t-shirt with that emblem on it all the time. Laws are not kryptonite to criminal activity.

    It’s much easier to generate publicity by continually painting yourself as a “victim” with people who legally carry guns as the “bad guys”; that is definitely cowardice.

  3. Why not turn the question on its head: are gun carriers cowards? They are the ones who fear being mugged or raped or assaulted so much that they have to carry a lethal weapon on their person, despite the fact that they are so incredibly unlikely to be attacked.

    Would you find that question and statement inflammatory and offensive?

    • Of course not. It’s a valid question. (I was kinda expecting someone to ask if gun rights advocates are fascists.) Carrying a lethal weapon reduces my fear. So, uh, is that the ballistic equivalent of Dutch courage? Dunno. Works for me, and I’ve proven my (non-firearms-related) courage more than once. So, personally, not guilty. The gun owners I’ve known—and I know a fair few—do not strike me as cowards or wimps. Anecdotal but there you go.

      • Well, the non-gun owners I know don’t strike me as being particularly cowardly either. CSB time: A very good friend of mine was stabbed repeatedly by a vicious little bastard when my friend stepped in to stop a group of thugs from boot stomping a stranger (he is fine, btw, although there are still some emotional scars). Anecdotal, yes, but not uncommon.

        Would carrying a gun make me safer? Don’t know. But I am confident enough in myself that I don’t need to carry a gun to feel safe (not that I am allowed to carry one anyway). And I would have to say that in my opinion, a non-gun carrier that intervenes in a mugging or assault knowing he has no weapon is a darn sight braver than most people, gun-carriers or not.

        • Well, he didn’t have that choice, being Canadian and all. And the fact is, he probably have had an equal chance of hitting the victim as he would have the attackers. The fact remains that he didn’t have a gun and he intervened anyway. That takes guts.

        • I would be very afraid of law abiding gun owners. Just read some of the comments here from the “armed intelligentsia.” If that’s not enough hop over the Sipsey St.

          The fact is some of you guys are dangerous maniacs and our problem is you all look alike.

        • Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Cowards?

          mikeb says: “I would be very afraid of law abiding gun owners. ”

          Exhibit A your honor. The defense rests.

        • Simply being Canadian does not remove your choice to have a gun or not. Being “allowed” is completely difference from being “able.” I know it doesn’t speak to the overall point of the discussion, but it’s something we all should think about in our gun-free “paradises”, both in the US and abroad.

        • Mouldy, the question was not whether non-owners are cowards. The question was whether gun-grabbers are cowards. There’s a big difference between the two groups.

    • “Why not turn the question on its head: are gun carriers cowards? They are the ones who fear being mugged or raped or assaulted so much that they have to carry a lethal weapon on their person, despite the fact that they are so incredibly unlikely to be attacked.”

      That logic doesn’t hold. We all do things, every day, to protect against statistically unlikely occurances. We do these things because they take very little effort while the potential consequences of not doing them are catastrophic. Some examples inclue wearing seatbelts, keeping fire extinguishers in our kitchens and paying for different types of insurance. Carrying a gun is no different.

      There are two reasons it is fair to ask if gun control advocates are cowards. First is that, as we’ve seen, their stated rationales are usually rooted in a frankly irrational fear that everyone around them is yearning to do them harm and is only prevented from doing so because they lack the means. The second (imo more important) reason is that they’re while perfectly willing to have others do violence on their behalf they’re unwilling to do it themselves.

      • That logic doesn’t hold.

        It’s just as logical as asking if gun control advocates are cowards. I will bet you will find that the majority are not. A gun control advocate is just as likely to intervene to save someone as a gun carrier is. And, in my opinion, doing so knowing that they don’t have a weapon takes a lot more guts.

        We all do things, every day, to protect against statistically unlikely occurances. We do these things because they take very little effort while the potential consequences of not doing them are catastrophic. Some examples inclue wearing seatbelts, keeping fire extinguishers in our kitchens and paying for different types of insurance.

        Just like the non-carriers do. Hence the “not engaging in risk taking behavior” I pointed out in a different reply. And many “precautions” are compulsory, like seat-belts and insurance. If those kinds of precautions were treated in the same manner as gun carrying, you might have an good point. Carrying a gun is voluntary; paying car insurance is not.

        …their stated rationales are usually rooted in a frankly irrational fear that everyone around them is yearning to do them harm…

        I am thinking that this statement doesn’t actually help your argument. Isn’t that one of the reasons that people carry guns? Because they are worried about being attacked? You only take a precaution because you are concerned that something might happen, not because you aren’t worried that something might happen.

        The second (imo more important) reason is that they’re while perfectly willing to have others do violence on their behalf they’re unwilling to do it themselves.

        So when do you ship out to Iraq?

        • As has been said, there is a distinction between non-owners and control advocates. I have nothing against those who choose not to own a firearm, nor any concerns about their motivations. Control advocates, though, aren’t making personal choices, they’re trying to dictate their choice to all. And as such open themselves up for questions about their motives.

          Since much of the control debate is couched in terms of fear, fear of what law abiding individuals might get up to if their freedoms were not curtailed, then I think the question becomes valid, if broad. Certainly, I agree that an individual who steps into a violent situation to help his fellow citizen, with or without a weapon, demonstrates admirable courage and should be recognized for such. But that action has nothing to do with gun control, so I think it’s off target as a defense of the courage of control advocates. Because I don’t think the folks who don’t carry/own firearms are necessarily advocates of control.

          I also think James Felix has a point in regards to a willingness to take responsibility for their own safety, as much of the control advocates discourse maintains that the government should provide for their protection, and that is merely offloading the risk onto a third party. While it’s broad to posit the feeling to all control advocates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to note that many seem willing to see someone else do violence to protect them, but disdain the thought of doing so themselves.

          And, so you don’t have to ask, I’ve been to Iraq.

      • Funny how the police are not cowards yet they carry a firearm.

        Oh thats right, they are the only ones capable and trained to protect everyone, LOL!

        I challenge anyone to google “police committing crimes”, then tell everyone how many internet pages and incidents per page there are. I lost count at 25 pages and 9 to 11 incidents per page.

        Want to try the same google search for “police accidental shootings” then compare that count versus armed civilians, LOL. No, don’t think you anti’s want to admit those numbers, hurts your continued lies.

        Funny how the police on average only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed.

        FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 49% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate. But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

        So based on that (1.38 mil x 49%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.75% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

        Funny how the police have no legal liability to protect the individual citizen.

        Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
        Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
        Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
        Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
        Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
        Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

        Funny how the best police response times are 4 minutes and average 15-20 minutes.

        You buy life, car, medical, and home owners insurance as being prepared for worst case scenario is smart.

        But when we realize the truth of the matter, being prepared because the police are too overwhelmed to protect anyone is insane by the anti’s poor and unethical judgment, so too must anyone be insane buying any form of insurance.

        Yeah, recognizing the government can’t nor wont protect us and being prepared is absolutely insane eh? Funny how that same problem exists in ANY country, care to take that bet?

        You can’t have it both ways.

        Funny how we can show 80 successful defensive gun uses a month.

        http://www.keepandbeararms.com
        http://www.thearmedcitizen.com
        http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
        http://www.americanrifleman.org

        Many others, care to count if you dare!

    • Mouldy:

      I think a better question would be are gun owners/gun banners fearful? And the answer is yes to both groups. Clearly, the Arts faculty members are quite fearful of people with guns in general and so are people who habitually carry a gun even in low or no risk situations. As I have said in another post I carry only when I deem the threat to be plausable. Sometimes, as in the case when the DC sniper was on the loose it was more a comfort facter then a true self defense capability.

      Courage is merely the mastery of the fear that is already there while cowardice is a surrender to your fears. The same person can show tremendous courage at one moment and utter terror the next. Just ask any combat veteran.

    • Not really, I am a coward. I leave home every day wearing my rose colored glasses with my head in the clouds calmly knowing that every person I pass is a plaster saint who would never think of taking advantage of someone smaller, weaker or helpless. What I’m scared of is that I might be wrong.

      • What? You mean the world is not just one big happy family! I personally think that a law-abiding citizen should have the choice whether to carry concealed or open and not let the government or any other individual to take that right away. I know that there’re some people out there who will say that I am a right wing radical, but the truth is since 1980’s the government, both Democrat and Republican, treated citizens as either children to be protected or victims to be exploited. I personally consider myself a moderate middle-of-the-road US citizen that believes the U.S. Constitution and the oath I took to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. A good exercise I found is to sit down with a piece of paper and make a list of what you believe in. It is very, very enlightening when you realize that you are the first line of defense for your rights.

    • Yes, I would find that question offensive. The fact that I carry a gun means that I’m willing to defend myself, rather than cower and beg my attacker not to hurt me. I feel nothing but contempt for people who won’t take responsibility for their own self-defense.

  4. Delusional, YES. Cowards?, eaaah, maybe… I guess so from the point of view that they don’t want to take responsibility for their own safety. And don’t want to allow anyone else that option either.

    The larger point is the one that you made, that they think that the simple addition of the means for defending ones-self transforms someone from a meek mannered sheep into a raving maniac.

    Their perception of reality is so warped that they superimpose that warped view onto the rest of the world.

    I didn’t write the following, but I agree with it 100%:

    “Nothing like letting the self-admitted crazies decide what restraints to put on the sane–which, when you think about it, is a core tenet of “progressivism.” Can you imagine having such a negative self-awareness that you don’t even trust yourself with a tool? And then expecting anyone who’s not similarly defective to give serious credence to your ravings?”

    • There is some sentiment that non-gun owners aren’t “taking responsibility for their own safety”. That is a load of crap. The best defense and safety you can have is to no engage in risk taking behavior. Non-gun carriers do this all the time.

      And it is not that I don’t trust myself with a tool, it is that I don’t trust you with that tool. How do I know that you are competent with a firearm? How do I know you are going to shoot what you are aiming at? A gun on your hip is no indication that you have any clue how to handle it. I have to trust you, trust that you aren’t a complete incompetent, trust that you aren’t going to accidentally shoot me instead of the bad guy.

      Why not extend that trust yourself? Trust that I am not a rapist, trust that I am not going to assault you. Chances are that I am not anyway.

        • “Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 11:54 AM
          “Why not extend that trust yourself?”

          I will not extend that trust because I don’t know you and trusting strangers is down right stupid.

          “Trust that I am not a rapist, trust that I am not going to assault you.”

          How do I know? You’re a stranger. I do not know you. Maybe you are and if so, I am not willing to take that chance. I love my life and my family. You feeling ‘trusted’ is not worth a pinch to me.

          “Chances are that I am not anyway.”

          Actually, where I live, chances are you are a rapist, a child molester or some other kind of sexual deviant (let’s not get into the non-sexual criminals in my area). Sorry, Squid. Doesn’t fly.

        • But I am supposed to trust that you know what you are doing with that gun?

          Sorry, doesn’t fly.

        • I don’t have a problem with people carrying guns for self defense. I have a problem with idiots carrying guns. If there were someway of ensuring that gun carriers were at least minimally trained and certified, then that problem would go away. Currently, that training is not mandatory.

          That is one of the reasons I don’t like that fact that Canadians can’t carry. We have mandatory training to be able to purchase firearms. If Canadians could carry, I would know that everyone with a gun on their hip knows enough to not accidentally shoot anyone.

          I am not saying that all gun carriers are idiots, far from it. Most of you (particularly the posters on this board) seem to be solidly behind the idea that you are responsible for training, safe use, and proper procedure so that you and those around you are safe.

          Sadly, not every one who owns or carries a gun is as responsible.

        • Mandatory training will not screen out idiots. Or prevent idiocy. But it will prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

        • “Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM
          “I don’t have a problem with people carrying guns for self defense.”

          Neither do I.

          “I have a problem with idiots carrying guns.”

          So do I. What do you purpose?

          “If there were someway of ensuring that gun carriers were at least minimally trained and certified, then that problem would go away. Currently, that training is not mandatory.”

          Really? Getting some training makes you lose the idiot gene? Wow!

          “That is one of the reasons I don’t like that fact that Canadians can’t carry.”

          Canadians can’t carry because the folks with the power get to keep the power. And as an aside, the power have guns

          “We have mandatory training to be able to purchase firearms.”

          Sure do. But not on those millions that are already in circulation and are passed down as is often done in Canada because of the strict laws.

          “If Canadians could carry, I would know that everyone with a gun on their hip knows enough to not accidentally shoot anyone.”

          Right, because Canadians are smarter then Americans. Canadians don’t do anything stupid. Or should I mention the rash of drunken police chiefs and officers (who coincidently are trained (according to your logic – not idiots) to use a firearm.

          “I am not saying that all gun carriers are idiots, far from it.”

          A moment of clarity.

          “Most of you (particularly the posters on this board) seem to be solidly behind the idea that you are responsible for training, safe use, and proper procedure so that you and those around you are safe.”

          Another moment of clarity.

          “Sadly, not every one who owns or carries a gun is as responsible.”

          Sadly not everyone who owns or carries anything is responsible. Your point?

      • “And it is not that I don’t trust myself with a tool, it is that I don’t trust you with that tool.”

        Then I assume you’re also in favor of outlawing cars, ATVs, chainsaws, swimming pools and a vast array of sporting equipment.

        • “Then I assume you’re also in favor of outlawing cars, ATVs, chainsaws, swimming pools and a vast array of sporting equipment.”

          …and this is why we call gun grabbers elitist. They think they are the only ones competent enough to be trusted with anything. lol… silly folks.

        • People have to through mandatory testing to have a license to drive a car, they have to prove that they are competent and safe behind the wheel. No such training or testing is mandatory for firearms.

          ATVs are particularly dangerous because there is no mandatory training or licensing. Should they be banned? Don’t really care since I am unlikely to be accidentally killed by some idiot on an ATV.

          The vast majority of swimming pools have trained life saving personnel on duty when people are swimming.

          Professional athletes who use a vast array of sporting equipment have been trained in how to use it without killing themselves. Besides, when was the last time an innocent bystander was killed with a vaulting horse? (People do get killed all the time by trampolines, but they are taking the risk of a broken neck, not me).

          Any other false equivalences?

        • “Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM
          But I am supposed to trust that you know what you are doing with that gun?

          Sorry, doesn’t fly.”

          Maybe you should read where I state your trust doesn’t mean a pinch to me. I take my precautions. You take yours.

        • “Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM
          “People have to through mandatory testing to have a license to drive a car, they have to prove that they are competent and safe behind the wheel. No such training or testing is mandatory for firearms.”

          So you have no idea? A CCWer has to go through a training course. If it is one ( and the ones where I live are) where there is an officer whether military or law enforcement is heading it, you better know your stuff. I don’t know what part of Canada you are from but I know it goes for up there too.

          “ATVs are particularly dangerous because there is no mandatory training or licensing. Should they be banned? Don’t really care since I am unlikely to be accidentally killed by some idiot on an ATV.”

          Ah, so if it doesn’t concern you, you could care less about those it does. All clearing up now…

          “The vast majority of swimming pools have trained life saving personnel on duty when people are swimming.”

          lol

          “Professional athletes who use a vast array of sporting equipment have been trained in how to use it without killing themselves.”

          As do CCWers.

          “…People do get killed all the time by trampolines, but they are taking the risk of a broken neck, not me…”

          Ah, more clarity to back up something that was said above. If it doesn’t concern you it doesn’t matter. You live in Canada. This doesn’t concern you, Squid.

          “Any other false equivalences?”

          I’m sure there are. Could you send more?

        • The “Mandatory Testing” argument anti’s always fall back on is a red herring. Forced firearm training (whatever the hell that turns out to be) will not solve any problem, real or percieved.

          The microsecond you make something mandatory, a significant percentage of people directly effected by that edict will immediately begin to find ways to circumvent it.

          I hold no ill will towards you for making the decision to not involve yourself with firearms. You sir owe me that same courtesy if I choose otherwise.

        • “People have to through mandatory testing to have a license to drive a car, they have to prove that they are competent and safe behind the wheel. No such training or testing is mandatory for firearms”

          Assuming that were true (it isn’t btw, at least for concealed carry) does that mean you’d be in favor of concealed carry if there were a process similar to what it takes to get a driver’s license? If not, why not?

          “Professional athletes who use a vast array of sporting equipment have been trained in how to use it without killing themselves.”

          And what of the tens of millions of non-professionals who play baseball, football, hockey? Are you aware that exponentially more people are injured in those pursuits each year than by firearms?

          What’s funny is that you dismiss those in favor of CCW for having an unrealistic fear (ie being assaulted) but want to legislate policies based on your own unrealistic fear. Or do you have some statistics for us that show liberal CCW laws have led to an increase in innocent bystander injuries?

        • People have to through mandatory testing to have a license to drive a car, they have to prove that they are competent and safe behind the wheel.

          That is not true. The falseness of your statement is proven by the large number of licensed drivers who are incompetent and or unsafe. My 92 year old grandmother who was physically impaired and mentally incompetent pass her last driving test for a five year drivers license (my family got it revoked). Just one of many millions of examples that demonstrate that licensing doesn’t prove competency or safety.

        • Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

          Driving a car is a right. It is the right of locomotion. You have the right to walk from A to B, you have the right to bike from A to B, you have the right to drive A to B.

          The state does not have the power to create and gift you with the privilege of using your own property for your own locomotion.

        • So a drivers license makes an idiot safe, 70% on a 30 multiple choice question test and the ability to make it around the block without killing the examiner and you’re good to go for life. OK….

          The vast percentage of swimming pools, lakes, oceans, ponds and 5 gallon buckets do not have Lifeguards on duty. The small percentage of pools operated by towns and cities or private businesses either have a Lifeguard or more likely a sign that says “Use At Your Own Risk”.

          How do you think those trained athletes got their training? Is there a “Law” that says you can’t run hurdles, play basketball, football or golf unless you have “formal training” and pay for a government permission slip? Do you have a permit to carry that tennis racket?

          You are afraid that a person law abiding enough to not be behind bars is probably a raving lunatic or a careless idiot who is deliberately endangering you and your family and your idea of safety is to Hope that somebody else will put themselves at risk to protect you. Don’t worry, as long as you can out run your wife and kids You will probably be safe from the crime you promote.

        • Mouldy can’t tell the difference between a privilege and a right, must be that socialistic brainwashing affecting his mental faculties of understanding the meanings of english words.

          ATF Max 8 million CPL’s US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

          Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida’s data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html it says the same thing.

          JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician.

          Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

          Funny how that death rate by physicians is so close to be identical in Canada.

          So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?

          Now lets talk about cars, insert the word “gun” where car is used to get the point of this demonstration.

          Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.

          Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

          Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes

          Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

          Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.

          Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No

          If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No

          Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes

          Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No

          Do I need a license to buy a car? No
          (in most states)

          Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.

          Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes

          Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.

          Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes

          Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes

          In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No

          In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No

          Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)

          Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

          Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No

          Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No

          Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

          Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

          Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes

          Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?

      • But mouldy just because you aren’t looking for trouble doesn’t mean that trouble won’t come looking for you. It happens all the time. You can only limit risk by placing limits on your life and even then risk doesn’t go away. You could burn to death in your bed.

      • There is some sentiment that non-gun owners aren’t “taking responsibility for their own safety”. That is a load of crap. The best defense and safety you can have is to no[t] engage in risk taking behavior. Non-gun carriers do this all the time.

        The “condition white; condition yellow…” color codes are helpful for everyone too. However trouble may come to you e.g. the scam where a little girl knocks on your door at home saying there has been an accident. You open the door to then suddenly face the bad guys who overpower you, whatever.

        It’s ones personal decision whether the probability of something like that happening is worth taking any responsibility to defend against it.

        Now we have apparently another probability to consider, whether one might be injured by a CCW person while they ward off their attacker. What might that risk be? Take the low probability of needing a CCW defense, times the low probability of being around said attack, times the unknown probability but presumably less than certainty of being injured by said CCW activity. With all those probabilities being less than 1 then their combination (product) becomes smaller still.

        I have to trust you, trust that you aren’t a complete incompetent, trust that you aren’t going to accidentally shoot me instead of the bad guy.

        In my state for CCW one has to pass among other things a practical shooting test. That’s something. What I won’t trust is some Star Chamber of self-absorbed elites deciding what’s best for everyone else (wait, we may already have a czar for that…).

  5. As an aside, my employer just sent us to a seminar on ‘Violence in the Workplace” in which one of the speaker’s main points was that the data showed that most of the workplace shootings were not crimes of “passion”, as in someone just ‘going off’, but that they were planned and prepared for in advance, including bringing and staging firearms to the workplace in advance. And the shooter being assured that his victims were totally unarmed and unable to resist.

    The really scary part was that the security girl who took some of the questions at the end made the statement that she was sure that AT THAT MOMENT that there were firearms in vehicles in the parking lot and that short of stopping and searching EACH AND EVERY car that came through the gate, each day, (and thereby creating an unacceptable traffic jam of 16,000 people) that she couldn’t prevent that from occurring. “But, you all be good little sheep now and follow the rules that we’ve put in place to ensure that you’ll be dead if someone does decided to pick your place to ‘go off’ ……..”

  6. If gun loons were simply ordinary citizens who just wanted to carry guns, I don’t think they would concern the other ordinary citizens that much, if at all. It’s all the other stuff gun loons project along with the rabidly expressed desire to arm themselves — the anti-social attitudes, outlaw mentality, goofy politics, conspiracy theories, vigilantism, etc. Guns are one thing. People in tinfoil hats are another thing. People with guns AND tinfoil hats are another thing altogether.

    Scratch a gun loon and surprisingly often, there is some kind of screwball underneath (and in a rich and bountiful variety, it must be said). This generalized vibe of gun looniness tends to put off the population at large. There is a gun loon archetype or stereotype — call it the Walter Sobchak syndrome, for lack of a better term — and fair or not, that’s your objection from the general public. You don’t come across as serious and responsible people, so naturally you don’t automatically inspire confidence that you will use your weapons responsibly.

    In current jargon, I guess I am saying you need to work on your brand.

    • I can buy the “work on your brand” idea. Certainly there are people who will be put off by videos of Old Fat White Guys, or Toothless Rednecks, or Otherwise Normal Next-Door Neighbors (or whatever) hooting and yelling after shooting a propane tank and setting off a giant fireball (or whatever). Some people like that sort of thing, and some don’t. The thing is, there’s an inner screwball in pretty much anyone, “gun loon” or otherwise, in “rich and bountiful” variety.

      I wonder if the NRA, or someone, could do a counter-spot to the Brady Campaign’s “little girl paper target” ad, to say, “I’m a pretty normal guy. And I carry a gun.” (And I proper decent muzzle control, and I don’t wave the fingers of my support hand around while shooting, *cough*). Ok, it prolly wouldn’t work…

      • “work on your brand”

        Front Sight Firearms Training Institute in NV claims to be attempting that. Their director, Dr. Ignatius Piazza, believes that just playing defense against the anti-gun crowd is not enough. He wants to thoroughly train individuals who can then become positive role models for responsible carry. I think he gives free training to any media person who is interested.

    • “Magoo says:
      April 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM
      If gun loons were simply ordinary citizens who just wanted to carry guns, I don’t think they would concern the other ordinary citizens that much, if at all. It’s all the other stuff gun loons project along with the rabidly expressed desire to arm themselves — the anti-social attitudes, outlaw mentality, goofy politics, conspiracy theories, vigilantism, etc. Guns are one thing. People in tinfoil hats are another thing. People with guns AND tinfoil hats are another thing altogether.

      Scratch a gun loon and surprisingly often, there is some kind of screwball underneath (and in a rich and bountiful variety, it must be said). This generalized vibe of gun looniness tends to put off the population at large. There is a gun loon archetype or stereotype — call it the Walter Sobchak syndrome, for lack of a better term — and fair or not, that’s your objection from the general public. You don’t come across as serious and responsible people, so naturally you don’t automatically inspire confidence that you will use your weapons responsibly.

      In current jargon, I guess I am saying you need to work on your brand.”

      So how about you go find yourself a gunloon forum and spout there?

    • t’s all the other stuff gun loons project

      Oh no! Not non-conforming beliefs and attitudes! The horror, the horror! Now let us all be good sheep and conform to the collectivist standard.

    • Magoo. I don’t buy your argument, I’m an ordinary citizen and not a gun loon, but what I do believe in the old Boy Scout motto “always be prepared”. I’ve noticed from reading your comments in several different articles on this website is that you have a trust in the morality and ethics of other people and especially the government. As someone who’s been on the other side of the fence so to say, I know that their are people that would take away your rights and liberties under the cover national security and you would not know about it until you wound up in a cell in Gitmo or some other secret prison.

  7. I don’t think all gun control proponents are cowards. I do think all cowards are gun control proponents though.

  8. “You don’t come across as serious and responsible people, so naturally you don’t automatically inspire confidence that you will use your weapons responsibly. ”

    Do you actually know any CCW holders? Or any gun owners at all? Because it sounds to me like everything you know about gun owners you learned from Michael Moore and CNN. You take the worst, most absurd, most extreme stereotype of gun ownership and hold it up as the norm, then say we need to improve our brand. That is, to use your term, loony.

    • “James Felix says:
      April 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM
      “You don’t come across as serious and responsible people, so naturally you don’t automatically inspire confidence that you will use your weapons responsibly. ”

      Do you actually know any CCW holders? Or any gun owners at all? Because it sounds to me like everything you know about gun owners you learned from Michael Moore and CNN. You take the worst, most absurd, most extreme stereotype of gun ownership and hold it up as the norm, then say we need to improve our brand. That is, to use your term, loony.”

      Yes, this is the issue with MikeWarhammer40K and Magoo – they are preaching gun loonery on a forum where I have seen none of such yet. I have been to many forums on guns and some were just down right ignorant and smacked of some kind of cultish kill the world movement. Not here though. I don’t get it. Maybe they know the loons won’t listen and have that need to be heard.

  9. Buuurr says:
    You live in Canada. This doesn’t concern you, Squid

    The question of wether or not gun control advocates are cowards does concern me. Besides, this is a public board, right?

    As for the CCW: I stand corrected. Is that a federal law that CCW holders have mandatory training, or does it vary from state to state? Do all states require this testing if it is not a federal mandate, or are there states where anyone who wants to can carry? If the law does vary from state to state, are all of the standards of the training equivalent, or do they vary as well? Is there a minimum competency level? Who regulates the testing process? Do all pro-gun advocates support mandatory testing and training?

    As for Canada: we don’t get to carry handguns. Period. The only exceptions are if you are a LEO, specific military (e.g. MP), a bonded security agent (body guard/armoured cash truck and only on duty), or can show that there is a compelling, clear and direct threat to your person (so rare that it is non-existant and chance are the courts would ask why you haven’t retained a bonded security agent or sought LEO help).

    Furthermore, our mandatory training and testing isn’t for carrying anyway. Ours is to be able to apply for a license to purchase firearms. You get extra training and testing if you want to purchase handguns and certain types of long arms. A Canadian can’t walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun. Is this restrictive? Sure, but it does ensure that all gun owners have a minimum amount of training.

    • “… it does ensure that all gun owners have a minimum amount of training.”

      I assume all the violent criminals in Canada go through training prior to stealing a lawful gun owner’s gun, no?

      • Hard to steal guns in Canada. There are several levels of locking that are required. Locked cases and safes, then trigger or breech locks. And the ammunition must be stored separately. Sure an enterprising criminal could get the thing unlocked, but thieves are lazy. It is easier to buy an illegal gun smuggled into the country. Gun theft is rare and if your gun is so easy to steal you are going to have problems with the law.

        That is where our gun control zealots get it wrong. The vast majority of firearms used in crime in Canada are smuggled from overseas (primarily the US). Legally acquired firearms are rarely used in crime (this is something that goes for both sides of the border, right?). Further restrictions on legally owned firearms will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Canada. Our government has been woefully lax in enforcing our borders. They have also been reluctant to legislate tougher penalties for crime where firearms are involved. Those two steps alone would cut Canadian gun crime by a third.

        The whole purpose of the mandatory training is ensure that the owner doesn’t kill or injure people with his weapon. It still happens, but it is much less likely. Most of the accidental shootings in Canada are hunting accidents.

        • “Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM
          “Hard to steal guns in Canada.”

          Actually it is easy.

          “There are several levels of locking that are required. Locked cases and safes, then trigger or breech locks.”

          Really? Oh! You are talking about those guys stupid enough to spend all the money on these things. Safes are great but not in use really. Cops don’t come to your house, nobody inspects to make sure you have one or many.

          “And the ammunition must be stored separately.”

          Wow. I have never seen that in all my years as a Canadian. Never. Every soul I know with a gun keeps the ammo right next to it or sometimes in it.

          “Sure an enterprising criminal could get the thing unlocked, but thieves are lazy.”

          Actually it is usually a kid tall enough to take the gun off the display it is proudly perched on in Dad’s or Pappy’s basement or cabin wall.

          “It is easier to buy an illegal gun smuggled into the country.”

          Or ask a family member for an unlicensed one.

          “Gun theft is rare and if your gun is so easy to steal you are going to have problems with the law.”

          Hemm… not where I lived. Gun theft happened all the time because ol school over-unders were rare.

          “That is where our gun control zealots get it wrong. The vast majority of firearms used in crime in Canada are smuggled from overseas (primarily the US).”

          Somewhat but largely passed around – and those French.

          “Legally acquired firearms are rarely used in crime (this is something that goes for both sides of the border, right?).”

          Yep.

          “Further restrictions on legally owned firearms will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Canada. Our government has been woefully lax in enforcing our borders. They have also been reluctant to legislate tougher penalties for crime where firearms are involved. Those two steps alone would cut Canadian gun crime by a third.”

          Sure would, if criminals would only stop trying to break the law.

          “The whole purpose of the mandatory training is ensure that the owner doesn’t kill or injure people with his weapon.”

          Won’t stop it in any measure.

          “It still happens, but it is much less likely. Most of the accidental shootings in Canada are hunting accidents.”

          And yet there are so few idiots… oh… wait… hah!

        • MS – Gun theft isn’t that rare in Canada, from what I researched. It sounds like Toronto has big issues…

        • Mouldy:

          Do they sell illegal drugs in Canada? If the answer is yes I bet that your local drug dealer has diversified into firearms. A Canadian criminal doesn’t have to steal a gun he can by one illegal from another criminal.

        • Shall we talk about the effect we have on a bordering country?

          A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003, Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, March 7, 2005.

          Google it, you will pull it up. It is your own Canadian government study proving what again, oh your wrong.

          “Comparing average crime rates for 2003 in the three prairie provinces and in the four bordering states as presented in the report for those crimes that are similarly defined and measured in both countries, we found that, in total, both violent and property crime rates were two thirds higher in the Canadian prairie provinces than in the four border states. Average crime rates were higher in the Canadian Prairies for all crimes with comparable definitions and statistics in the U.S.A.: Homicide – 1.1x higher; Aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and attempted murder – 1.5 x higher; Robbery – 2.1x higher; Breaking and Entering – 2.3x higher; and Motor Vehicle Theft – 3.2x higher.”

    • I think then, you are trying to apply Canadian morals and laws to those of us in the United States. I see it all the time from Canadians, Australians, and Europeans. Because it is good enough for you, it should be good enough for us.

      That is probably what gets under my skin more than anything else. That somehow your way is better than ours. And I am sure the reciprocal can be said of the US.

      As to the question at hand about cowardlyness – let’s look at their statements:

      “Faculty felt that they were already threatened. Many faculty expressed their feelings that, currently, they feel threatened in their offices and in their classrooms and even in their homes by students to whom they had given an unwanted grade.

      “They felt that if this law were to pass, they would no longer feel any necessity of upholding any kind of academic rigor. Why bother to give anybody anything other than an ‘A’ if that student has easier access to inflicting bodily harm on a faculty member?”

      Can anyone seriously think that any real LOGIC and RATIONAL thought is going on? These are all feelings! To say they would feel MORE threatened by a student (should CCW be permitted) because of grades is an absolutely insulting statement. What is really to stop any criminally-bent student pissed off about a “D” from shooting his professor now? That’s right, class, nothing! However, should the professor decide to stand up and take responsibility for his self-protection instead of “feeling” endangered, perhaps we can get beyond this.

      It IS cowardly to impose restrictions on ALL those around you just so you can lie to yourself and “feel” protected. What is bravery? It is taking responsibility for your own life and property, and maybe even those around you that you might care about. We now have people who “feel” threatened placing the entire campus in even further danger of catastrophic death.

      It is too long to repost as well as some possible legal implications – but this is a good read – http://jim.com/cowards.htm

      • I think then, you are trying to apply Canadian morals and laws to those of us in the United States. I see it all the time from Canadians, Australians, and Europeans. Because it is good enough for you, it should be good enough for us.

        Not at all. I am using Canadian laws as an example of how gun control works elsewhere. I am not saying that the US should (or even can) adopt our morals or laws. I am trying to show that gun control is not always odious and in some specific cases work. Canadians have far fewer accidental shootings. I attribute this to mandatory training. Are these kinds of regulations applicable to the US? That is for you to decide. I keep hearing about open minds, I am trying to provide a perspective that doesn’t always agree with your own.

        That is probably what gets under my skin more than anything else. That somehow your way is better than ours. And I am sure the reciprocal can be said of the US.

        Not better, just different. Not all of us thing we’re better.

        It IS cowardly to impose restrictions on ALL those around you just so you can lie to yourself and “feel” protected. What is bravery? It is taking responsibility for your own life and property, and maybe even those around you that you might care about.

        This is a valid point, and one that I happen to agree with. What I don’t agree with is the sentiment that all people in favour of (some) gun control are cowards. I object to that, not just for myself, but for all the other reasonable people who would like to see gun crime reduced. You and I may disagree on how it should be reduced, but certainly we agree it should. Calling me a coward isn’t going to help the situation.

        We now have people who “feel” threatened placing the entire campus in even further danger of catastrophic death.

        This does remain to be seen, however. There is little proof that CCW or open carry would make campuses safer in the event of these kinds of shootings. I may be wrong, but it seems that even when there are CCW holders and legal firearms carriers around when this kind of shooting happens, their guns don’t make a difference in the toll of life. If, then, having people carry guns on campus doesn’t stop a deranged killer or limit the number of victims, what good is it to have guns on campus?

        But back to the topic of the Question of the Day. Are you willing to call me a coward because I think there should be minimum competency tests for gun ownership? Or to be less accusatory, are you willing to make a blanket statement that all gun control advocates are cowards? The same kind of statement that goes: “All gun owners are small dicked, bedwetting loosers”. If neither side is willing to be reasonable and listen to each others’ concerns there will never be an end to the animosity.

        • If, then, having people carry guns on campus doesn’t stop a deranged killer or limit the number of victims, what good is it to have guns on campus?

          To prevent rapes.

        • Phew – lots going on there –

          First – Spelling, Amuricun board, use Amuricun spelling. 🙂 no more “flavour”.

          “I object to that, not just for myself, but for all the other reasonable people who would like to see gun crime reduced.”

          Second: Common debate tactic to place someone who disagrees with you as being un”reasonable”. Not buying it.

          Third:
          “There is little proof that CCW or open carry would make campuses safer in the event of these kinds of shootings.”

          Perhaps you are unaware with correlations on Shall Issue states and crime. And if you don’t agree with that, you can at least agree that MORE CCW’s will not necessarily increase crime. The point is moot, however – a criminal will not follow the laws, by definition. So you can feel good and brave all you want with these laws, it will do nothing but make it safer for the criminal to go about his business.

          Fourth:
          “I may be wrong, but it seems that even when there are CCW holders and legal firearms carriers around when this kind of shooting happens, their guns don’t make a difference in the toll of life.”

          Are you talking about the estimated 2 mil crimes that are stopped due to the presence of a weapon? There are very few instances that I am aware of where there WAS a presence of CCW. We don’t have a “requirement” to use-type of law for CCW. But I can point out many instances where restrictive laws have given the criminal free run – the psychology of the predator is to attack prey that is least likely to fight back.

          Fifth:
          ““All gun owners are small dicked, bedwetting loosers”.”

          I never called YOU a coward, I believe I made the case that the sentiments of these faculty members are cowardly. As to that specific statement – I have no first-hand knowledge about your size or prostate issues. You would be in a better position to answer that – or your lover.

          Finally – Listening? Sure – I would say the “pro-gun” side of the aisle have been listening for over 40 years, only to see our rights incrementally be infringed. I live in CA – it started with Unloaded open carry (68 I think), then “waiting periods”, background checks, registration, “assault weapon bans”, large capacity “clips” (Magazines, yes – I know), Handgun safety certificates, mandatory gun cable purchases (even if I own a $2K safe at home), Ammunition bans, restrictions, etc… we now have bills going through the assembly to take away UOC. They are trying for micro-stamping. I have to find a gun on a Roster of Certified Handguns for the CA DOJ to see if I can get a new gun. If it isn’t on there, maybe if someone moves to CA and can sell (personal transfer). We have to have a “tool” to be able to remove a magazine from our AR’s. And it goes on, and on, and on… Oh, my children get asked by the Doctor, at the bequest of the State whether I have guns in the home. SO YEAH, I GET A LITTLE TICKED AT THE BS WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH.

          Don’t get me started on the “May Issue” status of CA and its hit or miss approach to CCW issuance.

        • “I may be wrong, but it seems that even when there are CCW holders and legal firearms carriers around when this kind of shooting happens, their guns don’t make a difference in the toll of life.”

          Actually yes, you are wrong.
          http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

          Plenty more cases where that came from, if you want to search around.

          And even if you weren’t wrong you’re once again approaching this from an unjust and upside-down perspective. The burden of proof belongs on the person trying to restrict freedom, to show that the freedom is harmful and the restriction addresses that harm.

        • Of course there are other countries that have recently tried strict gun control/bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

          1997 Australia, Canada, England

          Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref AIC.GOV)

          Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)

          Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, such a common trend.

          England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase.

          So much for less gun equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

          We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

          We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.

          That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murders?

          All while at the same time we see 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 states total, and 34 plus states implementing concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. Then 3 states and 71 universities implementing concealed carry.

          All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as Mouldy.

          So much for the more guns equals more violence BS.

    • “Mouldy Squid says:
      April 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM
      “Buuurr says:
      You live in Canada. This doesn’t concern you, Squid”

      LOL! Simply using your logic. So this does concern you?

      “The question of wether or not gun control advocates are cowards does concern me. Besides, this is a public board, right?”

      Sure is. Some of us have things to say.

      “As for the CCW: I stand corrected. Is that a federal law that CCW holders have mandatory training, or does it vary from state to state?”

      I have no idea. I just know that in my state you are required to have it for CCW and it is printed on your drivers license.

      “Do all states require this testing if it is not a federal mandate, or are there states where anyone who wants to can carry?”

      I have no idea. I haven’t applied in any other state so I don’t know.

      “If the law does vary from state to state, are all of the standards of the training equivalent, or do they vary as well?”

      I am sure in that it does vary. This state is somewhat restrictive/non-restrictive in its policies.

      “Is there a minimum competency level?”

      You have to shoot from a number of different positions and off handed and a number of background checks are done. Videos, some material and other jazz.

      “Who regulates the testing process?”

      As far as I know it is the state for right here.

      “Do all pro-gun advocates support mandatory testing and training?”

      I don’t know. I doubt it. Do all drivers support booster seats?

      “As for Canada: we don’t get to carry handguns. Period.”

      I know. Sad.

      “The only exceptions are if you are a LEO, specific military (e.g. MP), a bonded security agent (body guard/armoured cash truck and only on duty), or can show that there is a compelling, clear and direct threat to your person (so rare that it is non-existant and chance are the courts would ask why you haven’t retained a bonded security agent or sought LEO help).”

      Victims can’t defend themselves but have the right to be judged on why they have no sought protection by those that will not put their lives on the line for theirs. Sad.

      “Furthermore, our mandatory training and testing isn’t for carrying anyway. Ours is to be able to apply for a license to purchase firearms.”

      I know. It is pointless and serves as bragging rights for the guy without a gun and as another from of taxing income for the country.

      “You get extra training and testing if you want to purchase handguns and certain types of long arms.”

      Yes, if you are of a certain age. Generally if you are older it is let slide on long guns.

      “A Canadian can’t walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.”

      Nope.

      “Is this restrictive? Sure, but it does ensure that all gun owners have a minimum amount of training.”

      Nope. Not those that have already purchased the firearms and the many, many, many that are not in the registry.

      • Yes, if you are of a certain age. Generally if you are older it is let slide on long guns.,

        No. No matter your age, you must meet the requirements of the exam to be licensed, long arms included. If you want licensing (Possession and Acquisition License) for restricted weapons the training and test is more rigorous and you must have passed the first level. It works like this: basic PAL (shotguns, non-restricted long arms) requires basic training and exam, Restricted PAL (shotguns, non-restricted long arms, handguns and restricted long arms) and Restricted PAL with Prohibited Acquisition (the coveted 12(#)) requires successful examination of the basic training course plus training and examination on handguns and semi-automatic long arms. You don’t get a pass just because you are old. The only way you “get a pass” is if you have allowed your PAL to expire (which is dumb since there is no retesting and no renewal fee) and can either 1) prove that you have passed the courses (that is provide your documentation) or 2) the PAL expired within the last 12 months.

        The only way you could get around this is if some how you could prove that you were a gun owner before the 1977 act that introduced the FAC which was given to everyone who 1)asked for it or 2) was already in the files because they owned handguns. Since it is extremely unlikely that someone owned guns before 1977 and has never bought ammunition or another firearm since then and never owned a handgun, then yes, almost everyone who legally owns a gun in Canada has had training to get their license. The small minority that hasn’t is just that, a very small minority. So small, in fact, the don’t count.

        Not those that have already purchased the firearms and the many, many, many that are not in the registry.

        I think you are confused about the firearms registry. Canadians have always required registration of handguns and semi-automatic weapons (well since 1934 anyway). Non-self loading long arms and shotguns have only recently been “required” to be registered. I put quotes around “required” because it is voluntary.

        I believe that your “many, many, many firearms” refers to the voluntary long-arms registry. This registry is specific to shotguns and non-self loading long arms and is a recent abomination.

        Again, there may be a vanishingly small segment of firearms owners that have no training, or have unregistered firearms (other than non-restricted long arms). This percentage is almost exclusively in their 70s and 80s. The number of legal non-registered handguns and semi-autos is more or less limited to the rusty old piece of junk in the attic that everyone forgot about. And if that percentage decided to apply for a PAL, they would have to take the training and pass the tests just like the rest of us.

        So, yes, I will stand by my statement that Canadian gun owners all have a minimum standard of training.

        • Mouldy Squid says:
          April 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM
          Yes, if you are of a certain age. Generally if you are older it is let slide on long guns.,

          “No. No matter your age, you must meet the requirements of the exam to be licensed, long arms included. If you want licensing (Possession and Acquisition License) for restricted weapons the training and test is more rigorous and you must have passed the first level. It works like this: basic PAL (shotguns, non-restricted long arms) requires basic training and exam, Restricted PAL (shotguns, non-restricted long arms, handguns and restricted long arms) and Restricted PAL with Prohibited Acquisition (the coveted 12(#)) requires successful examination of the basic training course plus training and examination on handguns and semi-automatic long arms. You don’t get a pass just because you are old. The only way you “get a pass” is if you have allowed your PAL to expire (which is dumb since there is no retesting and no renewal fee) and can either 1) prove that you have passed the courses (that is provide your documentation) or 2) the PAL expired within the last 12 months.”

          Wow. All the above is nice. Nice and well thought out but again – wrong. My grandfather can’t read or write. Does he shoot every season? Yep. Does he have a license to shoot every season? Yep. Does he not go through testing to do so? Yep. He simply goes in. Explains the situation and walks out with his pool of areas he can shoot in. He shoots a .303 with scope for moose, a double barrel goose gun for foul and a crack barrel .410 (which was mine since I was 7, which has never been licensed nor has ever been, nor ever will be. Nor was I ever ‘trained’, licensed or lawfully supposed to have it, but… don’t tell, my father gave it to me 31 years ago… let’s just say it is one of the many, many, many unregistered firearms in Canada) for rabbit and grouse. Questions? Answers? Concerns? It happens, Dude. Even in Canada. All the time.

          “The only way you could get around this is if some how you could prove that you were a gun owner before the 1977 act that introduced the FAC which was given to everyone who 1)asked for it or 2) was already in the files because they owned handguns. Since it is extremely unlikely that someone owned guns before 1977 and has never bought ammunition or another firearm since then and never owned a handgun, then yes, almost everyone who legally owns a gun in Canada has had training to get their license. The small minority that hasn’t is just that, a very small minority. So small, in fact, the don’t count.”

          Wow! Really!? I don’t. I was born in ‘79. What happened, Squid? Am I a minority? Are there numbers to support that? I know I am not because I know a lot and I mean a lot of people who have shotguns and .410 that have never been ‘trained’ in the use of them nor have had any issues with owning them. No, they aren’t the newest, best guns but they kill the game they are fired at. Much like the crappy, old hand-me-down guns criminals use wouldn’t you say?

          “Not those that have already purchased the firearms and the many, many, many that are not in the registry.

          I think you are confused about the firearms registry. Canadians have always required registration of handguns and semi-automatic weapons (well since 1934 anyway). Non-self loading long arms and shotguns have only recently been “required” to be registered. I put quotes around “required” because it is voluntary.”

          I am not confused at all. My statement is that there are many, many, many unaccounted for guns in Canada that are going without regulation and you are stating they are. How can you regulate what you have no idea exists?

          “I believe that your “many, many, many firearms” refers to the voluntary long-arms registry. This registry is specific to shotguns and non-self loading long arms and is a recent abomination.”

          Ummmm… yes and no. There are a number of family members with army issue pistols and gear. How did that happen? The laws are in place? Hell! I know a man with a live grenade in his basement. But how? Laws are great, Dude. Too bad they are just that.

          “Again, there may be a vanishingly small segment of firearms owners that have no training, or have unregistered firearms (other than non-restricted long arms). This percentage is almost exclusively in their 70s and 80s. The number of legal non-registered handguns and semi-autos is more or less limited to the rusty old piece of junk in the attic that everyone forgot about. And if that percentage decided to apply for a PAL, they would have to take the training and pass the tests just like the rest of us.”

          But they won’t and criminals don’t look for the latest and greatest. They look for what is cheap and does the job. What better to kill someone with then an unknown weapon that even the original owner has no idea still existed?

          “So, yes, I will stand by my statement that Canadian gun owners all have a minimum standard of training.”

          I guess. If you are willing to say that minimum is the bottom and you are okay with that.

        • And you think that is good, right? I’m an owner, with a ccw permission slip from the government, they extorted ~$150 US for the privledge of exercising a right they are forbidden to infringe on. Yes though, I’m in favor of mandatory training. It should be taught at age appropiate levels from elementary through high school and be required for graduation.

  10. John Fritz says:
    April 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM
    The “Mandatory Testing” argument anti’s always fall back on is a red herring. Forced firearm training (whatever the hell that turns out to be) will not solve any problem, real or percieved.

    The microsecond you make something mandatory, a significant percentage of people directly effected by that edict will immediately begin to find ways to circumvent it.

    I hold no ill will towards you for making the decision to not involve yourself with firearms. You sir owe me that same courtesy if I choose otherwise.

    I am not trying to flame you with this, but if there is no point in making firearms training mandatory because a significant percentage of people will circumvent it, why then have any kind of licensing for cars, planes or other required-training licenses? I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Truly.

    People drive without a license or insurance all the time, granted, but the point of the license is two fold: 1) to show that you meet a minimum competence, and 2) so that if you do get into an accident and kill someone the authorities have an opportunity to levy a greater punishment.

    I don’t see how anyone can disagree with the first. Minimum competency makes everyone safer, drivers and pedestrians alike. As for the second, well, I can see how people would object to that, however, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to add some more prison time to the guy that takes out a whole family with his truck? The potential for abuse is there certainly, but it is a way of establishing punitive damages for reckless behavior.

    • People drive without a license or insurance all the time, granted, but the point of the license is two fold: 1) to show that you meet a minimum competence, and 2) so that if you do get into an accident and kill someone the authorities have an opportunity to levy a greater punishment.

      Wrong on the first one. The real reason is to control the people, the second reason is to make them used to useless tests, unnecessary paperwork, unneeded fees, bureaucracy, lines, and the concept of rights as “privileges”. The second reason you mention is accurate but it’s not very important to the state.

    • I don’t see how anyone can disagree with the first.

      It’s not true – that’s how. Your “minimum competency” is that of “absolute incompetency”. Seen it myself as noted above. You can be physically and mentally unable to drive competently and safely and you can and will get your license.

    • The stated reason for driver’s “licenses” may be couched in “public safety”, but it is actually all about revenue. Every single traffic law or driving regulation that does not involve actual damage to property or harm to persons is pure and simply about making money for the state. Rights are our birth-right from God, not the state; and the state has no authority to license any right. The fundamental right to property is paramount to understanding the truth of various state infringements. The state cannot tell us when, where, or how to use our property or what paperwork is required for such (this includes cars, guns, ATVs, pools, sports equipment, tools, plants, water, etc…). Your argument regarding driver’s “licenses” and auto insurance are made based on the false premise that those are valid under the authority of the state. Well, they are not valid… they are infringments on our God given right to property, just as would be infringments on tools of self-defense.

  11. “People drive without a license or insurance all the time, granted, but the point of the license is two fold: 1) to show that you meet a minimum competence, and 2) so that if you do get into an accident and kill someone the authorities have an opportunity to levy a greater punishment.”

    You left out a big one. Licensing is a source of revenue for the government.

    “As for the second, well, I can see how people would object to that, however, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to add some more prison time to the guy that takes out a whole family with his truck? The potential for abuse is there certainly, but it is a way of establishing punitive damages for reckless behavior.”

    You have briefly touched on the whole difference between liberals and libertarians/conservatives there. At the risk of oversimplifying, liberals start with the assumption that everyone is either juvenile or moronic and that “normal” people shouldn’t be trusted with anything until they prove they can handle it. That is, penalize everyone for the presumed faults of the few.

    Libertarians believe that by default people can and should be trusted with all manner of things and then dealt with individually if they abuse their freedoms. That is, hold each person responsible for his or her own conduct.

    The libertarian view is not only more fair but it has time and again been shown to produce better outcomes in the laboratory of real life.

  12. Because Canada and the US are divided by a long border and a common language, both Canadians and USA Americans make assumptions about each other that are untrue. The US has a federal system where the central government has (in theory) limited powers. Just as the feds do not license drivers, they do not license gun owners. That’s the province of the states. Canada has no “Establishment Clause” requiring the government to keep away from religious matters (there’s a nice recent case involving an eruv wire in St. Ives). Canada has no Second Amendment. Canada has a single-payer medical system. Comparing the two countries is a waste of time. The list of differences is too extensive. The bottom line is that Canada and the US are completely disparate nations and what works in one country won’t necessarily work in the other. Not even baseball!

    • “The bottom line is that Canada and the US are completely disparate nations and what works in one country won’t necessarily work in the other.”

      And the less said about the travesty that is Canadian Bacon, the better. 🙂

      • “And the less said about the travesty that is Canadian Bacon, the better.”

        It is just round ham… I was Canadian and I don’t get it.

    • Fact right there, Ralph. I have lived in Canada for 28 years. I have lived here for four. The mentality, the community, the thinking, the people – everything is different. I will say that I do like my new country far better, despite having to pay for health care (which with insurance is about the same anyway). I tell my parents and family and some of them are now moving once they retire to the US of A for these same reasons. I enjoy being surrounded by and large by people who will fight and stand up for what they have and not just let it go. Canada unfortunately does not share that faith. Divided does not even begin to sum up Canada. To say the US and Canada are the same is to say that a Doberman has much in common with the Chi-wah-wah.

      • I enjoy visiting Canada every year (mostly Toronto and Montreal), and I remember the best advertising slogan Canadian tourism ever had — “Friendly, Familiar, Foreign and Near.” We in the US (or the “States,” as it is often referred to up North) sometimes forget that Canada is a foreign country. A fun country, a nice country with delightful people, but foreign nonetheless. Oh, Canada!

        • I haven’t heard of that ad, Ralph. It is a good one though. I like it. Sums the place up. Would we treat Mexico the same as Canada? Most people wouldn’t hesitate to say, ‘No’.

  13. Boy, y’all sure have a lot of time on your hands. One of the things is that neither side really knows the other side so we’ve all got this utterly bogus mass-media induced vision of what the other side is all about. Cowards, gun-loons, yada yada, whatever. The fact of the matter is that in my life I’ve met my share of mall ninjas and range commandos as well as my share of Euro wannabes and ivory tower scaredycats, each representing the far ends of the human bell curve. There’s always some truth to every stereotype and it’s been my experience that far too many folks are all content and comfortable and uncritical in accepting those stereotypes that align with thier own particular pejudices. Life is so much easier and less complex that way. It’s the incuriousness of the intellectually lazy. It’s very seductive.

    Beyond that though, yes, people of all stripes are more cowardly now than in previous generations I think. But I also think that we’re far from the tipping point. Hope springs eternal. Still, evidence for that assertion is clear and widely spread across all levels of society. Especially in the West, we’ve gotten very soft living high on the hog. The Great Society my arse. A kinder, gentler apartheid with a big screen TV in every room is more like it. Is it any wonder that with so many of our kids kept in a bubble from birth to adulthood, and with the role models that they have to study the human condition from, is it any real surprise that so many of us are afraid of our own shadows and seek shelter in whatever feeble shields we’re able to erect around ourselves to protect our psyches from the scarey world that we understand so little of?

  14. The survey was of Faculty from the College of Visual and Performing Arts. These are not people for whom logical thought is common. I’d wager that the outcome would have been different if the faculty members were from hard science department.

    I agree with the statement above that all cowards are gun control advocates. I also believe in the premise that pacifists are parasites. As for the comment earlier asking when the person was shipping out to Iraq, been there done that.

    I avoid known high crime areas and do other things to reduce risk. That being said, there is always residual risk and no area is completely safe. I carry to protect my family because I’m getting too old to throw hands with a criminal and the police are only there to pick up the pieces.

    How about all those advocating minimum training in order to exercise a right also agree to prove minimum ability to think logically in order to vote. Any takers? I didn’t think so.

  15. “Why bother to give anybody anything other than an ‘A’ if that student has easier access to inflicting bodily harm on a faculty member?”

    Because he may be carrying a gun?!!

    There it is. It’s the gun. The specter of the gun. The gun has a spirit. It is the source of evil. The otherwise free-thinking individual is no more, once he has a gun.

    • If instead of guns and getting shot, they were afraid of rain and getting wet rather than carry an umbrella they would demand the government pass a law against rain.

      There is no way to overcome their irrational fear, they have been brainwashed too completely. If you should find me acting irrationally and threatening you or yours with my lawfully owned and carried gun the correct and appropiate thing for you to do is shoot me, right then and right there. Not after some innocent is injured or killed. If I have lost control of myself to that extent I will not blame you. But if you stand idly by because you are too scared of yourself to act responsibly and an innocent person is hurt or dies then morally (but not legally) you share the fault. You could have prevented it but doubted yourself to much to accept the responsiblity.

  16. Gun control advocates are not stupid, do not wet the bed during their nightmares about guns, and aren’t ignorant of either facts or logic concerning gun control. They are, dedicated to winning their objectives, the dis-arming of the American citizen, in spite of facts and logic and historical record, by any means necessary, and this does mean lies.
    This is done not in furtherance of crime control or any other lofty purpose because you cannot explain that logically, the pieces don’t fit and never will.

    What you have are people who are dedicated to the destruction of this country and it’s principles and concepts. Gun control is simply a part of that greater goal which is control of the people and their assets and really, more deeply, their minds and thoughts, through the management of their information and the indoctrination of both their children and they themselves.

    The people driving this have no interest in freedoms that they do not approve of and/or control. They are not willing to offer freedom and liberty to their fellow man, in return for their own freedoms, as the founders indicated was their intention. They want control of everything and the seat at the head of the table as well. They want these things because they believe that they know better than the founders, how things should be. They believe that they have found a system superior to ours, in the principles and concepts of Marxist philosophy, and they mean to seize power and impose it, using the wealth of the people and laws and personnel of the state.

    This is a conspiracy theory which has no basis in fact, we are constantly informed. But an objective person need not look very far to find a vast and exponentially growing information base, which proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless of course you choose to suspend facts, logic and objective judgment.

  17. Are gun control advocates cowards? No more so than gun rights advocates. Neither group is willing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  18. Yes, they are. So is anyone who is not willing to protect themselves against criminals, but wants an armed cop to show up and protect them. This has been analyzed best by John Snyder, in “A Nation of Cowards”. Enter that title in Google, and keep a copy of it for your anti-gun acquaintances.

  19. Re: Title

    Perhaps, but more to the point, they are potential VICTIMS. By choice. They ‘feel’ that if you can’t talk your way out of any confrontation, well, then, it isn’t worth discussing. Hmpnh. Mutter, mutter… The problem is, if someone confronts you with intent to egregiously harm you, there IS no ‘talking’. There is only ACTION. Without a gun, the action is to kiss your butt goodbye, you’re toast.

    That is the fact. Nothing any gun control jackwagon can say will change that. Unfortunately, it takes actually surviving a scenario like that to convert them. Maybe.

    As to ‘homo’s’ assertion, yes, at the radical organizational level (and the power-elite level) the reason is quite different. It is to impose dictatorial control of the whole population of the planet. America is the burr under their saddle, the bone in their craw, the foiler of their plan.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA.

  20. I’m exhausted from reading that thread. Up there somewhere there were a few comments about the mandatory training idea and whether or not it would help. I think it might, but not all that much. In order to be helpful the mandated training would have to be what Farago does, or what some of you other guys do. But, obviously something like that could never be expected of the average gun owner. Most gun owners are not the Captain Ahab, monomaniac types that some of you are. So, the level of training that could be required won’t make all that much difference.

    However, a comprehensive system of gun control laws would make a difference, if what we’re talking about is making the gun owners or the CCW guys better, as a whole.

    Background checks on every gun transfer. Licensing of all gun owners, which would not only require the training but also a thorough mental health screening. When a person passes those two requirements and buys a gun, that gun is registered to him. The registration would have to be renewed after three months and yearly after that. The gun owner and his license as well as the gun would have to be presented to the authorities in order for that renewal to be granted.

    Now, each of these steps would eliminate some of the worst cases. Gradually the quality of the entire group would rise. Meanwhile, gun flow into the criminal world dramatically diminish.

    • Yessirree, ladiees and gentlemen! This here ineffective ‘n’ fruitlessly pointless gun control legislation can be had for the tidy sum of about $3,250,000,000 per year! Only three billion dollars a year, ‘n’ you too c’n have the same kind of useless gun control that hasn’t worked in other countries!

      What’s that, you say? We are already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit? Well, hell, boy, you’ll hardly notice this little drop in the bucket then!

      Now, form an orderly line, ‘n’ step right up… wait, why’re y’all leavin’!?

    • Mike, you stated, “Meanwhile, gun flow into the criminal world (will)dramatically diminish.”. Most of Europe has performed this experiment and the thesis has been proven a invalid.

      Further, we will NEVER allow our fundamental and specifically enumerated right to self defense and its concomitant right to the tools/means that enable the full exercise of that right to be predicated on your stated scheme; “Background checks on every gun transfer. Licensing of all gun owners, which would not only require the training but also a thorough mental health screening. When a person passes those two requirements and buys a gun, that gun is registered to him. The registration would have to be renewed after three months and yearly after that. The gun owner and his license as well as the gun would have to be presented to the authorities in order for that renewal to be granted.”. Sorry, Pal, that’s just not how rights were designed to work in this country. Of course, to the simple and the ignorant and the elitists, your scheme sounds perfectly reasonable, and I’m sure that they truly believe and know beyond any doubt whatsoever that if your scheme is implemented all will be right with the world and we’ll all be able to live in blissful peace, harmony and brother/sisterhood. What naive rubbish. Even a cursory glance at the history of the human race shows that we are the most predatory, blood thirsty creatures to have ever walked the planet. I, for one, will not go along with the drum circle unicorn breeders fanciful ideas of what’s good for me and mine, thank you very much. Besides, Mike, we know full well, as do you, that’s not what you and your fine friends end game is all about. Trying to play us for simpletons and fools only diminishes our view of your intellect and the sincerity of your cause.

    • Yet here you are, placing a plea to the 80 million law abiding, when you should be talking to the two groups responsible for more than 95% of the deaths from use of firearms. The career criminals/gang members and the crazies who commit suicide.

      The government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members.

      http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/index.html

      Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves.

      Shall we review police studies in Chicago and MYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

      http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf, http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

      So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 95% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.

      Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968, where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don’t have to follow the laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc….

      Amazing how the criminals don’t have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons!

      After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn’t be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

      Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008

      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf

      Brady Check report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

      We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source? Uh last we checked, that means over 50% of those rejected committed a prosecutable felony

      We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows. Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 95.52% in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001

      http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940.

      Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. Yet more laws will prevent criminals and terrorists from getting a firearm, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah, and the moon is made of cheese and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, right!

      So explain again how any laws will control the felons who are never affected by the laws to begin with, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, the insane comments of the antis like Mike are so funny!

  21. I suppose I am a gun control advocate by the TTAG definition. For example, I think felons, nuts, and minors should not own firearms; it should be damn difficult to get hands on a machine gun or other NFA weapon; and all firearms should be registered, like automobiles and house cats. These are all examples of gun control. Maybe some of you are gun control advocates, too.

    I don’t carry a firearm in public, open or concealed, but I don’t consider myself therefore a coward, not by any means. I just don’t need one in order to be sufficiently safe on the street. That’s my personal choice, and maybe some of you libertarians could go look up libertarian in the dictionary and then go mind your own fucking business. I don’t like being called a coward, I suppose, but I don’t take it very seriously either. I guess the definition of coward varies. The bravest, toughest person I ever knew was my great grandmother and she wouldn’t allow firearms in her house. I think people might have funny definitions of bravery, and others might like to shoot off their mouths half-chambered.

    So opinions sure do differ, but my definition of coward might go more like this: A man milling around outside the Toys R Us wondering if it’s safe for him to go in without his bubbie… I mean handgun. This will help in calculating the risk factor:

    http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *