Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

**Farley** · 10-10-2013, 07:01 PM

Living in Canada, we have grown up not knowing what it's like to have an abundance of hand guns around. When we see them, they're strapped to a cop and seem unobtainable to the masses and not "normal" to be seen otherwise.
I wont bother arguing whether guns are justified in everyday life, it just isnt an argument that gets won, lost, or laid to rest. What I would like to know is, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is there more gun violence because there's more guns, or is there more guns because of more gun violence? Does violence begat violence and is the answer the problem?

**Rick** · 10-10-2013, 07:06 PM

The numbers suggest that bans increase violence. You only have to look at Chicago and Washington, DC prior to DC vs Heller to see that if citizens don't own guns criminals can run wild. Every place that has the right to carry seems to have a much lower violence issue. Around here about 50% of the population carry. The bad guys know if they pick on someone they may well have to defend themselves.

If you have no way to defend yourself and I want what is yours how can you stop me if I have a gun?

**Farley** · 10-10-2013, 07:14 PM

I guess my next question then would be, were these places "pro" gun before the ban? As in, were they normal everyday items that people got used to having around and very available prior to the ban?
I guess what I'm getting at is did the good guys lose the guns and the bad guys kept them and ran with it, or did the migrate there due to anti gun laws?

**Rick** · 10-10-2013, 07:20 PM

The migration to Chicago had nothing to do with guns. It was do to available work. Illinois has always had restrictions on handguns as far back as I can remember. Chicago, as you know, was home to the Capone gang and downstate where I come from was home to the Shelton and Burger gangs (much less notable) as well as a couple of mass executions over coal mine strike breakers so there has been a fear of violence for close to a hundred years in that state. My guess and that's all it is stems from folks wanting to make a safer life. Unfortunately, the criminal element doesn't abide by the law (hence the name criminal element) and get to prey on everyone else.

I can't address Washington D.C. because I have very little history with it. I worked there but didn't live there.

**Seniorman** · 10-11-2013, 02:47 PM

FARLEY - " ... What I would like to know is, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is there more gun violence because there's more guns, or is there more guns because of more gun violence? Does violence begat violence and is the answer the problem? "

That is an unanswerable question.

If you study history, you'll discover that long before gun powder and firearms were invented, there was unimaginable, unbelievable violence throughout the known world, not including the standard and incessant wars. Millions of men, women, and children have been slain, often at random, often as merely a matter of political or economic course, or often, "just for the Helluvit" by people using sharp pointy sticks (arrows & spears), garrotes, poisons, sharp edged pieces of flint or metal, bludgeons, stones, fire, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. That doesn't even include all the various torture instruments invented by Man to kill people.

The invention of gun powder and firearms merely facilitated the continuing expression of Human Nature at work. I would submit that were there no firearms, the violence and mayhem around the world would be as great in proportion today as it was in "the old days," because the one thing that has never, ever changed in the history of Mankind is Human Nature. Perhaps there is some gene that causes evil in some people.(?) Or perhaps there is some inherent cultural quirk within a culture's upbringing of its people that dictates violence against others. (?)

As far as Canadian "safety" goes, a couple of anecdotes. In 1980 I was hired by Columbia Pictures to be story editor on a teevee series that Columbia was doing in conjunction with a Canadian company based in Toronto. I was sent to Toronto for 12 weeks. While there, I had little time to "explore" Toronto but during the several times I wanted to see the city, I was told by people in the production company who were born and raised there, "Stay out of this or that area. It's not safe at all."

The exec producer was from London, England. When he heard the local residents make the above statement, he said, "Sounds like London." So both he and I stayed out of the areas of Toronto of which we'd been advised not to go.

In 1981, I attended a self defense pistol school in Arizona, called "Gunsite." It was owned and operated by a man named "Jeff Cooper," who was well known for his advocacy of honest citizens being prepared to protect themselves against violent criminals.

While there I became acquainted with a young man from Canada. He was a police officer in Calgary. He had been a RCMP officer, but tranferred into the Calgary P.D. I asked him about the reputed "non-crime" in Canada. He laughed and said, "That's all b.s. It's either misreported or just covered up for political reasons. There is plenty of violent crime in Canada. That's why I'm here. We can't get the proper training for self defense in Canada." Then he added, "Those big prisons we have are not for jay walkers."

Anecdotal? Of course. Valid? I choose to think it is, knowing how politicians skew statistics for their own self interests.

The cry by the gun control people is always the same: "More anti-gun laws, more anti-gun regulations, more anti-gun restrictions and rules, and then violent criminals will no longer be criminals." What utter, dire rubbish.

With or without guns, criminals are going to commit violent crimes against those who can not protect themselves. All the anti-gun laws do is to make it easy for criminals to prey at will, and to punish honest citizens for being honest.

As for carrying a gun in order to perpetuate violence against others... NONSENSE! I (and others I know) carry a gun to PREVENT violence against me and my family by vicious criminals.

I have zero desire to use a firearm for self defense, but have no intention whatsoever to allow some criminal to hurt my family or me.

That's the way it is.

S.M.