[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by blueash

Ok, I'll look that up at your suggestion..

Gallup poll The Right to Bear Arms: U.S. and Canada

"Canadians were asked, "For each of the following groups, please indicate whether or not you think they should be allowed, by law, to own a gun: the general public." A majority of Canadians (63%) said they do not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun, while 36% said it should"

A poll conducted by a gun advocacy group in Canada (CFI) found this:

"The question was phrased as follows:

In Canada private ownership of firearms is legal for hunting, target practice and other recreational purposes. To own a firearm someone must be licensed by the government and cannot have a criminal record or mental instability. Should private ownership of firearms remain legal in Canada or should private firearms ownership be banned entirely?

· Private firearms ownership should remain legal in Canada - 75.8% -agreed"

Do not confuse that poll with the earlier. They are not inconsistent. One asks if all guns which are presently limited and registered be taken away. The Canadian answer to that is no. The Gallop asks about the general public having guns (in other words not limited to registered hunting, etc as in the second poll), and the Gallop poll says No to allowing it. Please cite your evidence that the majority of Canadians wish they had not given up their gun rights (there is no right to bear arms in Canada and never has been by the way, the law changes as do other laws over the years, but there are no "gun rights")

Turning to England
There was a recent online poll, in other words people who wanted to click could, this is the opposite of a random poll, and the online poll was for a newspaper identified as consistently conservative (think Fox News like). In that poll 85% wanted to repeal the ban on handguns. What result would you expect if the poll were limited to Fox News viewers in the US?

Here is a poll done in a neutral manner:

"ICM interviewed a random sample of 1000 adults aged 18+, by telephone between 31 May and 1 June 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules." Its conclusions were:

" 60 per cent of people think it is too easy to get a gun in the UK. "

So I would conclude, Canadians polls do not show the majority wish to change the gun control policy. I could not find an English poll exactly asking about reversing their gun control, but offer the one above which says that 60% think it is too easy to get a gun. Do you have a non-biased poll to support your claim? Or were you just "shooting from the hip?"

I'm neither Canadian or British and what they do is their business. In America the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows the citizen to own firearms. Until that's changed then the guns stay with the people.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

All polls are too easily rigged by the way they are worded or by the audience polled.

The anti-gun movement claims that passing laws outlawing guns will control gun crime. Everybody conveniently ignores the fact that laws are obeyed ONLY by law abiding citizens. Gun crime will not abate, but law abiding citizens will be a more easy target.

NO form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...alcohol, drugs, cheating on a spouse, running red lights, speeding, rape, murder by any means, child abuse. All of the forgoing have laws or humane condemnations which effect to prohibit, but all are rampant and growing.

Predators will always hunt the weak. ALWAYS.

Not sure if I am presenting the same view as yours. I agree with you.

So many issues today, in my opinion, masquerade and keep beneath the surface this countries underlying moral decay. It, to me, is "the elephant in the room" in so many cases on most issues that we debate from guns to birth control and race.

We will not address our lessening morals, thus we talk and talk on anything else

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

I'm neither Canadian or British and what they do is their business. In America the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows the citizen to own firearms. Until that's changed then the guns stay with the people.

I posted the information in response to a person's claim that polls of Canadians and Brits now showed they regretted having gun control in their nations. I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters. Your statement is accurate although I might modify it to say until the interpretation of the second amendment is changed, that whole well regulated part that the Robert's court felt was not important in its rulings.

[Topspinmo]

I own a lot of smart guns they go off and hit what I am aiming at.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by blueash

I posted the information in response to a person's claim that polls of Canadians and Brits now showed they regretted having gun control in their nations. I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters. Your statement is accurate although I might modify it to say until the interpretation of the second amendment is changed, that whole well regulated part that the Robert's court felt was not important in its rulings.

There are two debates which will always be very lively, Politics and Gun Control. There is a balance between gun ownership and reasonable regulation. However because we have these two groups on the far edges of the debate which shout the loudest nothing ever gets done. There are two types of weapons pistols and long guns. I believe the 2nd Amendment was written with the long gun in mind. There are more problems with pistols then long guns. I've been around firearms all my life and I just had to chuckle when I went to Wal-Mart and saw all the pistol ammunition gone. It was also interesting on how many people I talked to that actually believe the Government was coming for their guns. In this day of the internet there is so much miss information its unreal. The problem is much larger then the actual device used. We seem to have become more violent over the years. One thing I know for sure the debate rages on with few solutions.

[MikeV]

I have a suggestion. If you don't like law abiding citizens owning guns for self defense why not move to NJ or even worse NY. That should make you so much happier.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by blueash

I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters.

The Crusade to refute the errors of the pro-gun posters is noble, indeed.

Perhaps you could spare a moment to correct an error of your own which has been called to your attention, but which you ignore.

-------------------

My statement was simple: " The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers."

You responded , quoting my statement verbatim, and (erroneously) said: "Carl, your statement is incorrect."

You went on to cite one section (only) of the law. You then continued to editoralize: "Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity."

I responded to your patronizing query with a direct, cut-and-paste quote from the law you cited, showing that a later section of the law contained a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers."

It provided that the Attorney General could set rules and regulations for the state and local police to carry "smart guns" on duty.

So, you see, my statement was correct, and you were wrong.

A simple acknowledgement of that fact would be a nice gesture on your part.

.

[buggyone]

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by buggyone

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

So was the prospect of the government recording all of your phone calls.

Hacking that phone would be child's play. However, the more likely scenario is the jamming of the bluetooth transmission, not necessarily by the government but by anyone who knows that as a law abiding gun owner, the only way you can defend yourself is by a "flawed" technology.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

Of course simply putting the gun lock, that comes with the purchase of the gun, on the gun will have the same result.

Locking the gun in an inexpensive gun safe will also keep the gun out of the hands of children.

Did you notice that in the New Jersey "safe gun" law that blueash made such a big deal of linking, the police don't have to carry a "safe gun" until a committee decides whether or not they are reliable? That's because it is unproven technology.

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

.

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=Carl in Tampa;873547]

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

------------

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

[upstate]

Originally Posted by MikeV

I have a suggestion. If you don't like law abiding citizens owning guns for self defense why not move to NJ or even worse NY. That should make you so much happier.

Let's not forget Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

You might direct that inquiry to The Villages residents who have experienced having burglars enter their homes while the homeowners were in their bedrooms.

Besides which, I don't stay in The Villages 24/7/365.


------------------

It did not escape my notice that you had no answer for using the gun locks and putting the guns in inexpensive safes.


.

[MikeV]

[QUOTE=buggyone;873578][QUOTE=Carl in Tampa;873547]

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

------------

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?[/QUOTE]

What business is it of yours why, when or where I feel I need to carry a firearm? Like I've said before about these threads - If you don't like the laws that allow us to own or carry a firearm change the Constitution, oh yeah good luck with that!

[ilovetv]

".....Hacking poses a particularly big threat in high-pressure situations, Johnson said. If police electronic gun security information is stolen like Target’s customer credit card information was this year, he said, the results could be devastating.

Some smart gun models including the Armatix iP1 rely on radio-frequency identification chips -- frequently used on building security system key cards -- which can be hacked and altered. Johnson said it would only be a matter of time before criminals would be willing to pay big bucks for breach technology.

Armatix did not respond to multiple requests for comment...."

Read more: Police wary about 'smart' guns see malfunction and hacking potential - UPI.com