The reason Canada will not allow someone with a DUI into the country is because it is considered a felony in the country. It is usually a misdemeanor in the U.S. It is my understanding that you can go through a process in Canada which will essentially give you a Canadian pardon so that you can enter the country. A guy told me that it costs about $500.

I see no valid reason why anything alcohol related should be treated any differently than any other crime. Unless someone has had an accident or hit someone I don't see the crime. They have not harmed anyone. I am not supporting drinking and driving, but I agree that they have gone way overboard when it comes to anything alcohol related. At one time, if you were caught driving and drinking the cop would more than likely drive you home. Now, they take you to jail whether you are driving or not. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

I am a believer in second chances. I think that if someone commits a crime and does his time that he should be given a second chance. Unfortunately, that doesn't often happen, especially with certain convictions. I don't think that a criminal conviction should follow you the rest of your life. We all make mistakes. What if every mistake that each of us makes was never forgiven? It would eventually destroy our self esteem and ultimately result in our going back to our old behavior and mistakes. These laws actually reinforce the bad behavior that they think that they will prevent. What if you got a speeding ticket 10 years ago and because of the ticket you could not find a job? How about a parking ticket? You cannot get auto insurance because of those tickets. You may not be able to hold a drivers license because of a parking ticket. You were caught speeding and that is a crime. You go over your time on a parking meter and get a ticket. It is also a crime. We don't think about speeding and parking tickets as being criminal offenses, but they are. If we forgive those crimes then why should a DUI or DWI be any different?

How about if you get a ticket because you MIGHT speed. Your car can exceed the posted speed limit so you may speed. Since the potential for committing a crime exists then you should be convicted of speeding or perhaps reckless driving if your car has the capability of doing more than 15 mph over the posted speed limit. And perhaps you should be ticketed and convicted of illegally parking because you MAY not put money in the meter when it expires. The potential exists that you could get tied up and not be able to get to the meter before it expires. Therefore, you should be ticketed and convicted.

The fact that you can be convicted for DWI for refusing to take a breath test, or because you may or may not have been drinking and either have the keys in the ignition or on your person is no different, or should not be treated any differently. I don't know why we feel that we can stomp on the rights for some behaviors and not others.

 

Jay B said:

No, you didn't mention NC. I wouldn't say that I am ashamed of it, but it is not my prefered location. But, it does have a reputation of being somewhat backward, less metropolitan, and therefore it is possible that many people up in the hills here may have never been on an airplane. Since I have been flying commercially since I was about 15, and used to be part of an aircrew in the Air Force, it would follow that I have been on an aircraft. I sometimes forget that there actually ARE some people who haven't been on one. I took offense to your question. I now believe that you didn't MEAN it to be as condescending as it sounded to ME.

Both you and GMAN questioned this response, so I will ask BOTH of you to scroll up to post #21 where I first made the comment in reply to YOUR statement about airlines having a process for allowing "will call" transportation of a weapon. I was not saying that Florida had an "insignificant number of tourists." I was saying that of ALL the tourists that fly into Florida each year, the number who want to check, bring, and retrieve their GUN at their destination is "insignificant" compared to the huge pool of tourist "targets" for these criminals. I just don't think this small number figured into the plans of the carjackers. Clear now?

Because GMAN does. He's distinguishing between THEM and all other tourists who fly into Florida.... and I believe he does so to make the point that Canadian gun laws are to blame for THEIR citizens being unarmed when they get to Florida.... making them a "sure" target.

The site I mentioned was a government / law enforcement site. I was simply stating that there are official sites that attribute the lower crime rates to police and legal actions. The only sites I found that attributed it to more liberal gun laws were NRA sites or rightwing BLOGS. I found it interesting that BOTH types of sites claimed the same statistic, but completely different causes. Now, you may not trust the official sites.... but that doesn't mean they are comparable to a get rich quick website.

You're entitled to your opinion and belief. I believe otherwise. If they're not so smart, I doubt that they even consider whether or not their intended victim has a CCW permit or a gun in the house (let alone the CAR.) Are they brave? I don't know.... I think it takes a certain amount of "bravado" to commit a gun crime. Many armed crimes are committed out of desperation. I doubt that the possibility of an armed citizen is going to alter their decision. I don't know.... but, I think their major concern is usually whether or not they will get caught and go to prison. When carjacking became more difficult (removing the stickers) and more risky as to sentencing.... I believe these criminals moved on to something else.

I bet if I did a little more googling, I could find statistics for states whose crime rates declined over the same period and where the gun laws were NOT liberalized. Therefore.... I conclude that it is NOT a "cause and effect" relationship. The NRA wants you to believe that it IS.

Hobo

 

GMAN said:

I have no disagreement with this statement. However..... every day some "average citizen" kills his wife or employer or strangers because he goes berserk and either had a gun handy, or in the old days, could go buy one at a pawn shop while still in a state of aggravation. The "average law abiding citizen" should have NO objection to a waiting period or criminal background check. Again.... I have no objection to LEGAL gun ownership.

Not if the particular type of guns, or the mega clips are not manufactured. The Federales would be having an easier time of it right now if it were not for the constant stream of assault weapons and ammo flowing south from OUR country... where they are so easily available.

See... this is another of those disjointed statements you make. You cannot prove a cause and effect relationship. Were guns registered back in the "gangland" days of Prohibition and Al Capone? Do we have MORE gun violence (per capita) today??

The fact that gun violence has increased over the years is due MORE to social decay and economic factors, IMHO, than the fact that we have to register our guns. It just CANNOT be proven that registering guns has been the impetus of more violent gun crimes.

And likewise.... I contend that any decrease in violent crimes cannot be "definitively" attributed to relaxed gun ownership laws.

We never had as many fatal air crashes before airplanes were invented. But, we had LESS after more stringent safety regulations were imposed.

Well, I DON'T like to use statistics. That was my original point in this thread. And I'm not SURE I could prove a "causal relationship" between registering and being safer! But, that doesn't make registering any more or less REASONABLE.

But, I will say this: I am aware of MANY crimes that have been solved by tracing the gun back to the registered owner (even if HE didn't commit the crime.) I am also aware of many "gun running" organizations that have been uncovered by our law enforcement agencies due to registration or OTHER accountability records from manufacturers and dealers.

I am also aware of many mass shootings in recent years (going back even to Luby's Diner) where the casualties most likely would have been lower had the shooter not had megaclips and had to stop and reload.

I know that when someone steps into a place of business and starts rapid firing in all directions without stopping for quite some time, there are precious FEW people who might be "carrying" who can lift their head from their hiding place to get off that "hero shot" that you seem to think justifies every part of the NRA agenda.

I don't ignore FACTS. I ignore "supposition."

And as I said... I bet I can find statistics that show a drop in violent crime in areas that did NOT relax their gun laws (or the exact opposite.) So... where is the PROOF that it is a cause and effect relationship?

Not only coincidence, but perhaps "coincidental" with other factors that might actually have bearing on reality. As I stated earlier.... Florida officials claim that the reduction in violent gun crime was due to stiffer penalties at the same TIME they had relaxed gun laws. I'm not saying which is true or the actual cause. YOU ARE THE ONE making such claims.

Hobo

 

Golf answer this then. Why then in Chicago were they have some of the MOST restrictive Gun LAws in the Nation were they Screaming for the National Guard a few weeks ago to STOP THE GUN VOILIENCE. There Locals Citizens have no rights to Slef Defense of any kind the Gangs no it. There are certian areas of Chicago even the Police will not go into in less than SWAT gear. Why because the Gangs are armed to the teeth with better weapons than the Police carry. Normal police weapon in Chicago is a 9mm. Most LK's or GD's or other street Vermin are packing 7.62X39 FMJ or 5.56 rounds that will go thru any vest the Police are wearing.

 

ironeagle_2006 asked:

Probably because Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the country. If the situation is bad enough that they need to call in the guard.... would you rather just have a CIVIL war between the gangs and the citizens? How many innocents would DIE then?

Again.... you cannot prove a relationship between gun laws and ghetto violence! You might prove a relationship between corrupt or ineffective POLICE forces and violence... or between social and economic desperation and violence. But, you can't prove the violence is due to an "unarmed" public.

Somehow I DOUBT this. I don't know of ANY city or state in the country that bans ownership of rifles. Just because citizens MIGHT not be able to own a handgun doesn't mean they are BARRED from owning a gun for self-defense. [note: I am not up on the laws in Chicago. But, I don't buy the "lack of legal self-defense" claim.]

That IS a shame. It seems that the lack of any REAL law enforcement in the area has opened it up to gang dominance.

Well, gee.... I wonder WHERE and how easily the gangs GOT those weapons?? I doubt they got them from CANADA!! :roll:

Okay, you got me here. Not being a gun nut.... I only recognized the terms "9 mm" and "7.62." Would you please be more specific? I don't know what "X39 FMJ" means. But, I DO recognize the reference to "cop killer" rounds that I mentioned earlier.

For the record.... I DO think our police should be better armed! At the very LEAST in areas such as you mention, I believe our police should be armed more like the Israelis!

Clinton increased the number of police on our streets. Obama has passed unpopular "bailout" legislation to KEEP them there! In all fairness.... I suppose Dubya and every OTHER president in recent years has supported the ever increasing demands for police forces to combat an ever increasing level of gun violence in America. I am NOT blaming the increasing violence in America on DUBYA!! :clap:

But, last I checked.... there is NO LAW in America against a common and "good" citizen owning a gun (or guns) for self-defense. So the violence problem in Chicago MUST be attributed to some other socio-economic reason, OR the failure of local government to enforce laws and provide for safety.

You (and perhaps WindWalker and Gman) are advocating a return to the Wild West where anyone who wanted to wore sixguns on his hip! to be honest?? I'm not totally AGAINST that idea.... as long as the guns are registered.... and the owners pass a background check! But, even so.... I believe it would lead to MORE deaths, not fewer!

I sometimes wish I had been born back in those days! I am actually a very quick draw and a deadly accurate shot. I like the feel of power as much as the next man (why else would I drive a TRUCK?) I believe I would have used my gun ONLY in self-defense or the defense of others. But, those days are GONE.

If there is some law that makes it legally perilous for a man to protect his own house, I believe that law should be "relaxed." But, Windy's recent post about shooting a thug who was in the street, and only had a KNIFE... and was FLEEING.... is just WRONG! AND in most states, it is illegal! It is tantamount to shooting a man in the BACK who has given up!

But, if we ARM the entire populace.... how will we enforce the laws of decency and restraint? The average American is just NOT THAT SMART!

Windy's story about cleaning up the neighborhood by KILLING the "homeboys," reminds me of old times when people used to run off the riff-raf by discharging a LARGE rifle shot into the AIR! Today, it seems, he prefers to just kill them BEFORE they have even committed a crime! :hellno:

I SEE the points y'all are trying to make. I just disagree with some of the process. But, I WILL say this.... shocker to many of you.... my mind is still OPEN. But, it could ONLY be changed by REAL ideas and discussion... NOT by propaganda from the NRA found in many emails and such.

Hobo

 

Golf IIRC you said you were in the Military. Boy you must have been on line 5 when they passed out the Ammo for the M-15 that is a 5.56mm Round or in Civie use it is a .223 calliber. The AK-47 uses a 7.62X54 round. Both of which are Full Metal Jacketed hence FMJ rounds covered with copper. I guess all the line 5 time has rotted your brain off. What the IDF uses is a Knockoff off the FAL called the Galliel which is a 30.06 round think a M-1 Garand round. They also have a Bullpup style rifle in the same caliber. The UZI is not used expect by the FEMALE FORCES OVER THERE. See in Isreal if your male your part of the IDF they are the POLICE the MP side of it.

What opened up the Gang Dominance up in Chitown was when the Chicago Demoncraps outlawed the Citizens of Chicago to LEGALLY OWN HANDGUNS in Chicago and then only the OUTLAWS HAD WEAPONS.

The gangbangers know they can go in and rob rape do what ever they want and all the people have to defend themselves with is what is in the house. Now if your a Criminal and your packing a .357 versus a man with only his fist who has the LONGER RANGE. IL is so screwed up it is silly we have to undergo 3 Differant Background cecks to even have a Gun in our house. First we have to apply for a Firearms Ownership Identifaction Card then if the State Police say we can get it we are approved for that. Then when we buy the weapon we have the Federal one However the State runs one also. So in addition to the Feds the State can turn you down if they want. Yet the Idiots in Chicago would rather go after the people that Legally own a weapon than go after all the Illegal ones on the street. Why since alot of them it turns out have come from POLICE BUYBACKS.

 

Sounds similar to the way things are done here in CA.
Another example of SF and LA trying to extend their political sphere of influence beyond the confines of their given areas.

 

It sounds to me as though you have already made up your mind, Hobo. Of course, you can ignore the facts. You only need to have lived for a few decades to see the changes that have taken place in this country.

 

ironeagle_2006 said:

When I was in the military (Air Force) I qualified [EXPERT] with the M-16 (not the M-15.) It used a .223 round. High velocity, lower kill rate. But, effective at longer distances. I was NOT a "grunt" who would be expected to have to LIVE with this weapon. Like I said.... I am not a gun type of guy.

Okay.... I get the "full metal jacket" part now (should have known that.) But what is the X54 in THIS case... or the X39 in the previous post?

Hardly. I have plenty of brainpower to spare!

That is your opinion! I suppose these citizens forgot how to fire a RIFLE?? Geez! This is such a TIRED old addage! ANY Chicagoan who wanted to own or DID own a handgun PRIOR to the change in the law, probably ALSO owned some other from of firearm! Gun nuts usually have ALL KINDS of guns! :lol:

What would make one think that the victim has ONLY a FIST?? You see... THIS is an example of rightwing paranoia gone wild! :hellno:

Hobo