Summations Only

I think Texas has more guns than D-Day.

I think taking persoal responsibility is a good thing but Canadians are more used to a collective state of preparation. Here. of course, guns aren't even on the radar when it comes to preparedness.

When we lived on the farm, my dad kept a .22 over the kichen door. One day he got up from the supper table and took it down to shoot (at) a fox that was approaching our chicken house. Later on, he used it to shoot our old dog. Before I was seven, I shot a snowbank with it. (Take that, winter!)In the more than fifty years since, I have seen exactly one handgun in civilian hands (not including antiques in collections). I know lots of people who have rifles and shotguns for hunting but I've never met anybody who had a firearm for "protection".I live in Canada's "murder capital" (4 or 5 per 100,000 - almost none of them gun-related).

Maybe marc has been watching too many Guy Ritchie movies.

Suppose an armed robber has taken the money and is running away. You point your weapon at him but you do not fire because you don't perceive an immediate threat. If he turns to shoot at you (and the instinct to use his weapon may well outweigh the instinct to run), you are ready to shoot first. In the above scenario, a Canadian police officer would not fire his/her weapon; he/she would give chase on foot and fire only if the alleged perpetrator turned to fire. The "threat" is therefore empty.

Just that pointing a gun at somebody doesn't necessarily mean you intend to shoot them, only that you are prepared to shoot them if the need arises. I wouldn't call it a threat at all. If the cop says, "Put the TV down or I'll shoot," that would be an empty threat because the alleged thief knows that the cop won't shoot unless he has to. The cop's gun is ready in case the alleged thief pulls his gun (or throws the TV). It's no more a threat than starting your car is a threat to drive.

Police targets don't have legs.

Try to keep up. Police are not trained to, "Shoot them in the legs." It's always, "Shoot to kill."

Is it?I was responding indirectly to jar's comments about being ready to shoot. In my example, jar would be ready to shoot the fleeing perpetrator if and only if the perpetrator turned to shoot. He would be prepared to preent that behaviour if necesary.I don't know if that is jar's position but that's the position I was suggesting.

Not at all. They should not have that authority. To that extent, I agree with marc9000.The problem in the US is that "self-defense" cuts both ways. If the police can shoot an alleged felon for simply having a gun on his person, the alleged felon is more likely to use it.If you give your police too much authority to use violence, you initiate an arms race between the criminals and the police - and then the gneral public don't want to be the only ones left out.

Really? I got the same thing from crashfrog a couple of years ago. In Canada, it's one shot. We're pretty tight with our ammunition. I'm just playing devil's advocate on both sides. I think gun control is important in the civilized world but in the US it's a lost cause. You might as well try to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a sponge.

In Canada the police are limited to defending themselves and defending civilians. "We" do not ask them to stop crime by shooting alleged felons. "You" do. He/she is supposed to apprehend the perpetrator, using lethal force if and only if he/she or a civilian is drectly threatened - i.e. if the perpetrator throws up his/her hands and doesn't go for his/her weapon, the police officer is definitely not supposed to use lethal force.

I was addressing you to clarify what (I think) jar meant. I think he advocates adjusting somebody's behaviour by being ready to shoot them if they don't adjust their behaviour voluntarily. If I'm wrong, jar can correct me.

If a weapon is visible, a Canadian police officer would draw his/her weapon and point it at the alleged perpetrator. He/she would not be authorized to fire unless there was a more imminent threat by the alleged perpetrator to use the weapon.I keep saying "alleged" because when the police arrive they don't necessarily know who the perpetrator is. You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a program, as Bugs Bunny would say.What if the alleged perpetrator is, in fact, the homeowner who is carrying his own TV and his own licensed firearm out his own window for reasons of his own? Police encounter situations stranger than that - and just as legal - every day. And honest citizens are likely to be just as hostile to police as real felons in such a situation.That's why Canadian police are not authorized to shoot people for just having a weapon or even for hesitating to surrender their weapon. An actual threat is required.

We have alcohol control too. Are the people who argue against gun control arguing against alcohol control too?