• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Depends

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • No

    Votes: 73 85.9%

  • Total voters
    85
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Canada has no second amendment, but don't Canadians have about as many guns as Americans have?
Is the right measured by a gun count?

I only own one firearm. The gun I own is illegal for a Canadian to own. I can carry said gun with me in my home, in public, around my city, to other territories and states. A Canadian cannot do the same in Canada.

A Canadian who owns several rifles has less gun-rights then I do with my one gun.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Canada has already lost it's right to keep and bear.

We never wanted one, we saw yours and thought it was a stupid idea. There is just so much potential for abuse it is astronomical.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

I can carry said gun with me in my home, in public, around my city, to other territories and states. A Canadian cannot do the same in Canada.

Technically concealed carry is legal in Canada but getting a permit is actually impossible. All the provincial firearms officers will never issue any concealed carry permits.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

We never wanted one, we saw yours and thought it was a stupid idea.
.....or the federal parliament began producing gun control laws to hinder the RedRiver Rebellion. Canada maintains strict gun control laws because if it didn't, there would be another rebellion. There are significant demographics within Canada which don't appreciate certain actions taken by the government. Such demographics are growing in the US, and that's why there's a push here for more gun control.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Technically concealed carry is legal in Canada but getting a permit is actually impossible. All the provincial firearms officers will never issue any concealed carry permits.
That's what Chicago did. They said "sure you can own a handgun, just register it"...and then they refused to let you register it. And that's why staunch gun rights advocates like myself object to seemingly 'reasonable' laws such as registration. We know how these laws were used in the past to remove the right, and we don't want history to repeat itself.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

.....or the federal parliament began producing gun control laws to hinder the RedRiver Rebellion. Canada maintains strict gun control laws because if it didn't, there would be another rebellion. There are significant demographics within Canada which don't appreciate certain actions taken by the government. Such demographics are growing in the US, and that's why there's a push here for more gun control.

There wouldn't be the ones that are rebelling are the Freeman on the Land movement and I think it is reasonable to seize their guns and arrest them. Should we let them have guns hell no. There would be no rebellion as almost everyone but those pathetic Freeman on the Land support Canadian gun control.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

We never wanted one, we saw yours and thought it was a stupid idea. There is just so much potential for abuse it is astronomical.

How so, using your rules only criminals have the guns.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

There wouldn't be the ones that are rebelling are the Freeman on the Land movement and I think it is reasonable to seize their guns and arrest them. Should we let them have guns hell no. There would be no rebellion as almost everyone but those pathetic Freeman on the Land support Canadian gun control.
If there would be no rebellion, then there's no logic behind Canadian gun control.

This is all besides the point, though, that Canada has no right to keep and bear to guard against, to then refuse police confiscation as we would here in the US.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

How so, using your rules only criminals have the guns.

First of all you get people who want to won what are now prohibited weapons and we have people running around with handguns.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

If there would be no rebellion, then there's no logic behind Canadian gun control.

This is all besides the point, though, that Canada has no right to keep and bear to guard against, to then refuse police confiscation as we would here in the US.

We don't think it is reasonable for people to run around with handguns and 30 round Ar-15s. We are afraid what individual and stupid people will do with them.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

We don't think it is reasonable for people to run around with handguns and 30 round Ar-15s. We are afraid what individual and stupid people will do with them.
Which is why you have no problem handing such items over to the police.

We think such items are reasonable and prudent for your typical adult to own, and so we have a problem with the police holding them "for" us.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

If there would be no rebellion, then there's no logic behind Canadian gun control.

This is all besides the point, though, that Canada has no right to keep and bear to guard against, to then refuse police confiscation as we would here in the US.

Sorry, did you say that if there's no rebellion, then there's no logic behind gun control?

What about reducing the number of guns in the country, and thereby reducing the number of shootings?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

What about reducing the number of guns in the country, and thereby reducing the number of shootings?
That's a myth, if not a lie:



Sources used in the video:



Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
.

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>
Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


<snip>

 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Sorry, did you say that if there's no rebellion, then there's no logic behind gun control?

What about reducing the number of guns in the country, and thereby reducing the number of shootings?
The history of gun laws in Canada reflects political struggle, not crime prevention. With regard to Canada, gun control has little to nothing to do with crime prevention.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

To answer the question posed by the OP...why would conservatives have to 'demand' that those weapons be returned?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Is there no provision to muster even the unorganized militia during any impairment to the domestic Tranquility of any State or province?

Potentially there is, but it would have been a law from the early 1800s and if it exists, it has no planning for it, and I would suggest no one knows about it
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster



We can debate all day long, with such a wealth of disinformation, about whether gun control reduces the murder rate. There is NO debating, gun control reduces the shooting rate. That is just true.


Murders in the UK


We can talk about the homicide rate in the UK if you like (which I'd be happy to do, because the statistics are with me), but there is no discussion about gun-murders. There were 44 in the UK in 2012.

Get that? 44. Out of a country of 65 million. That's because there are no guns here. There is absolutely no debating that banning guns has resulted in fewer gun deaths.

To talk more generally about murder, there were 640 in the UK in 2012, again, out of a population of 65 million -- about a fifth of the US population. In the US, there were 12,996 murders in 2010, of which 8,775 were committed with firearms.

I don't know what level of education you've had, but you can do the basic math, no matter what: The US population of 310 million is 4.7 times greater than the UK population of 65 million. Shall we round to 5? Fine.

In the UK, there were 640 murders. Multiply that by 5, you have 3,200. Compare that to the US, which had 13,000.

In the UK, there were 44 gun-murders. Multiply that by 5, you have 220. Compare that to the US, which had 8,775.

There is no arguing with this math. It is indisputable.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Recently the extent of the political pressure the RCMP got when it seized firearms from people's unsecured homes during the summer flooding in High River, Alberta was revealed. The Conservatives demanded the seized guns be returned to the owners. What the RCMP like to point is most of the firearms (more than 600 to be exact) they had in storage were voluntarily given to the police to be safeguarded during the disaster along with half a million rounds of ammunition. My question to you is if say your house was damaged and flooded, torn apart, burned, etc. by a natural disaster and have no safe place to store them would you surrender your firearms voluntarily to the police for safe keeping until you could return home and store them safely.

Don't know if it has bee said...but no federal government organization (or funded) may do that here. The Vitter Amendment prevents it. Was a Bush Law (it was shot down...but made it into an appropriation bill in 07).

So hell no. If someone did attempt too...I would have all the information and take them to court when the dust settled. And they would lose all federal money and possibly be shut down.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

The history of gun laws in Canada reflects political struggle, not crime prevention. With regard to Canada, gun control has little to nothing to do with crime prevention.

It relates to reducing gun related crime. The number of shooting, deaths etc from guns in Canada is far lower then the US.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Is the right measured by a gun count?

I only own one firearm. The gun I own is illegal for a Canadian to own. I can carry said gun with me in my home, in public, around my city, to other territories and states. A Canadian cannot do the same in Canada.

A Canadian who owns several rifles has less gun-rights then I do with my one gun.

and how does that work out? What is the murder rate in Canada vs. in the US?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Is the right measured by a gun count?

I only own one firearm. The gun I own is illegal for a Canadian to own. I can carry said gun with me in my home, in public, around my city, to other territories and states. A Canadian cannot do the same in Canada.

A Canadian who owns several rifles has less gun-rights then I do with my one gun.


A small snub nose revolver? or small short pistol?

As for carrying it in your home, really? When watching tv, or going to get a drink from the fridge you carry your gun?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

and how does that work out? What is the murder rate in Canada vs. in the US?

Calgary a city of 1.1 million had around 20 murders last year, which about the average for Calgary. The worst city in Canada for the murder rate is Winnipeg from what I understand, (it has a large number of street gangs)
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Calgary a city of 1.1 million had around 20 murders last year, which about the average for Calgary. The worst city in Canada for the murder rate is Winnipeg from what I understand, (it has a large number of street gangs)

Interesting. That's a murder rate of about 2 per 100,000. Let's compare to a city near where I live and see:


Hmmm.. .45 in 2010, and 35 in 2011.

What can we conclude from that?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Interesting. That's a murder rate of about 2 per 100,000. Let's compare to a city near where I live and see:


Hmmm.. .45 in 2010, and 35 in 2011.

What can we conclude from that?

Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.
 
Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disa...

It relates to reducing gun related crime. The number of shooting, deaths etc from guns in Canada is far lower then the US.

There are 30 million people there. Almost all of them are the same race...or close enough. Who the hell do you have to shoot?
 
Back
Top Bottom