Neither of us KNOW what a hand gun ban would do but unlike you I'd definitely like to see what would happen with one before I dismiss it out of hand....that would be open minded observation.
Mole, I would like you to do a little research. Look up how "easy" it is for Joe citizen to acquire a RPAL in this country. Then look up the restrictions that go into how a handgun must be stored, the restrictions on how it must be transported, etc.
As I said before, handguns in this country are effectively banned already, and have been since before WW2. My opposition to an outright ban stems from the fact that I can state without fear of contradiction that such a ban would have virtually zero impact on gun crime in this country. So please, in the spirit of "open-mindedness", do the research and get back to me . . . until then, I am pretty much finished.
So please, in the spirit of "open-mindedness", do the research and get back to me . . . until then, I am pretty much finished.
Milo, I was going to bash your deductive reasoning skills but upon your suggestion of research, I found it's actually your comprehension that is sorely lacking. My arguments were clearly exposed as US-centric.
I have already stated that the US could do with some tightening to accessibility, but maintain that it is the psychoses that needs to be treated, not the guns.
Bullets don't kill people . . . hell, bullets in guns don't even kill people. Now, bullets leaving guns at brake muzzle velocity? Those will do some damage.
Bullets don't kill people . . . hell, bullets in guns don't even kill people. Now, bullets leaving guns at brake muzzle velocity? Those will do some damage.
And there's the answer. Sales of guns that don't fire are the only ones allowed. The vast majority of law abiding citizens would never know the difference and anyone who comes back raging that their gun is inoperable, gets an immediate psychiatric evaluation.
Bullets don't kill people . . . hell, bullets in guns don't even kill people. Now, bullets leaving guns at brake muzzle velocity? Those will do some damage.
I guess that I just believe that it is always better to err on the side of individual liberty and freedom, rather than state control and dominance. The overwhelming majority of legally purchased firearms never end up used in the commission of a crime, so I see no reason for a ban. But what the hell do I know? I think the RIDE program is a waste of money, too.
- Myself for being right, and having it proven repeatedly throughout the week. Hopefully it'll stop now though.
- Hellmuth's Mole for standing on the side of reason
- GTA Poker for proving that most CPF'ers aren't actually reading the material in posts, but just waiting for the first thing they can latch onto to use in an attempt at humour.
"That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."
Mole, I would like you to do a little research. Look up how "easy" it is for Joe citizen to acquire a RPAL in this country. Then look up the restrictions that go into how a handgun must be stored, the restrictions on how it must be transported, etc.
As I said before, handguns in this country are effectively banned already, and have been since before WW2. My opposition to an outright ban stems from the fact that I can state without fear of contradiction that such a ban would have virtually zero impact on gun crime in this country. So please, in the spirit of "open-mindedness", do the research and get back to me . . . until then, I am pretty much finished.
Would you believe that an outright ban on Handgun ownership in the US would reduce Canadian illegal handgun availability? A large portion of guns used in crimes in Canada are sourced in the US.
"That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."
And Colorado has the most relaxed laws for gun ownership and concealment. People love to mention how people need to be allowed to have guns to protect themselves. It almost never happens.
Sadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....
*sigh* it has been shown time after time that talk of self defense is just that. First instincts are to flee and protect under cover. Hindsight talk of "well I would have just pulled out my (insert name of pens enhancing weapon here) and blown his head off" is based 99% on total bull shit.
*sigh* it has been shown time after time that talk of self defense is just that. First instincts are to flee and protect under cover. Hindsight talk of "well I would have just pulled out my (insert name of pens enhancing weapon here) and blown his head off" is based 99% on total bull shit.
Sadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....
Why would you think this? You have nothing to back this up. Where do you come up with this assumption? The laws in Colorado allow concealed weapons in public places. No one in the theatre had a gun. You think the average movie goer in Texas is armed? Please.
What's funny Ned is that you think Texan's would be more likely to have prevented this.....but in fact maybe Colorado is more likely to have such a tragedy is because they have more guns. More guns does not equal more safety.
So a guy in full body armour with a gas mask throws tear gas into a theater and then comes in with a gas mask and an AK-47, firing about a shot per second, and you are going to pull out your handgun with people running, diving, and screaming all around you and put a bullet in the guy's head?
Much more likely scenarios IMO:
- the shooter sees you and hits you with about 4 bullets before you can even get one shot off
- you hit someone who runs between you and the shooter
- with tear gas in your eyes you can't see the shooter well enough to take aim at his head
I don't care if Americans want small handguns in their home to defend themselves (or have their kids shoot them by accident) but AK-47 assault rifles are simply not necessary for any non-military situation. I guarantee you the American founding fathers did not anticipate AK-47s when they wrote the second amendment. At that time they had crappy guns that could barely hit a house from 100 yards away and probably took minutes to reload.
So a guy in full body armour with a gas mask throws tear gas into a theater and then comes in with a gas mask and an AK-47, firing about a shot per second, and you are going to pull out your handgun with people running, diving, and screaming all around you and put a bullet in the guy's head?
Much more likely scenarios IMO:
- the shooter sees you and hits you with about 4 bullets before you can even get one shot off
- you hit someone who runs between you and the shooter
- with tear gas in your eyes you can't see the shooter well enough to take aim at his head
I don't care if Americans want small handguns in their home to defend themselves (or have their kids shoot them by accident) but AK-47 assault rifles are simply not necessary for any non-military situation. I guarantee you the American founding fathers did not anticipate AK-47s when they wrote the second amendment. At that time they had crappy guns that could barely hit a house from 100 yards away and probably took minutes to reload.
Granted, the body armour would have probably made it a non issue. Better outlaw that too
I like how superneds arguments are all based on complete inaccuracies and zero facts....good stuff
Oh GTA Poker....please stop trying to make me feel bad....I respect your opinion more than you know and it really hurts
But since you do seem to like to get involved, but offer not even an arguement .... by all means....answer this one that nobody seemed to want to touch. Somehow I'll guess you'll just avoid directly answering....
"Why wouldn't they [everyday citizens]have the right? No matter what happens, the 'bad guys' are going to be able to get/make/blackmarket guns....or some sort of similar weapon. This isn't make believe where weapons of this type can just disappear. I could make a basic gun on a metal lathe in a few hours. Why in your arguement should the law abiding citizens not be able to get guns to protect themselves, hunt etc, but the criminals still will? And yes, I agree there should be stricter laws in the U.S. regarding buying firearms...for the record."
The difference in outlook re: guns, in terms of the United States and Canada, is simple. Canada was not born of revolution. Guns in this country have always been "tools of the trade", so to speak. In the United States, guns were the means of overthrowing an oppressive and unresponsive foreign yoke, as well as safeguarding one's life and property in a relatively "open" territory. Thus was born the Second Amendment. A reasoned argument would state that military style firearms in private hands is ridiculous, but the American Constitution's focus on individual liberties means that the gun-obsessed will scream bloody murder (pardon the pun) at any sort of "reasonable" restrictions . . . "Whattaya mean I can't have a bazooka?".
Canada's approach has always been more balanced, giving prime consideration to public safety ahead of personal whim. You can own handguns legally in this country, but the restrictions and regulations are extremely onerous. That is a good thing, imo.
All the talk that pops up after incidents like we have had this week about armed civilians "taking out" the gunmen are pure nonsense. I have trained with firearms of different types all the way up to fully automatic, belt-fed machine guns, and the first thing any competent instructor drills into your head is to be sure of your target before squeezing the trigger. This is more for ammo conservation (in military terms) than for concern over collateral damage, but it amounts to the same thing in the scenarios we are discussing. Further, it is quite a different thing to be shooting with real people down range than it is to be shooting at targets. As tightly controlled as "live fire" exercises are in the military, my first one was still un-nerving realizing that live rounds were in the air, going out, as well as coming in. You knew you were "safe", but you did not feel that way. You would have to be one cold as ice SOB to be able to stand up in that theatre, locate the target (the shooter), sight on him, and get off a clear shot. Even then, with him being armored, all you would have done is let him know where you are, and now he is going to be coming for you, as the biggest threat. The Scarborough shootings give a more likely result of what happens when armed civilians act in self defence in a crowd . . . lots of un-aimed rounds finding unplanned targets.
None of this changes the fact that, in Canada, I do not favour any changes to a firearms legislation, in terms of legal acquisition of same.
What I would like to see is this:
Possession of illegal firearms should be a charge for which bail is NOT an option. Further, there should be no plea bargaining, nor should any of the usual "deals" (time served credits, concurrent sentencing, etc.) apply. In short, if you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you will be in jail until your trial, and you will do ALL the time from EACH charge if you are convicted.
I would also, like to see the government step up enforcement of border security to prevent illegal weapons from crossing our border. But, as the main points of entry are usually Native Reserves which straddle the border, I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Comments
And yet people continually turn to firearms to commit these acts. Hmm.
Mole, I would like you to do a little research. Look up how "easy" it is for Joe citizen to acquire a RPAL in this country. Then look up the restrictions that go into how a handgun must be stored, the restrictions on how it must be transported, etc.
As I said before, handguns in this country are effectively banned already, and have been since before WW2. My opposition to an outright ban stems from the fact that I can state without fear of contradiction that such a ban would have virtually zero impact on gun crime in this country. So please, in the spirit of "open-mindedness", do the research and get back to me . . . until then, I am pretty much finished.
Milo, I was going to bash your deductive reasoning skills but upon your suggestion of research, I found it's actually your comprehension that is sorely lacking. My arguments were clearly exposed as US-centric.
Good night . . .
Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot Night Shoot - YouTube
And there's the answer. Sales of guns that don't fire are the only ones allowed. The vast majority of law abiding citizens would never know the difference and anyone who comes back raging that their gun is inoperable, gets an immediate psychiatric evaluation.
Cus I think I agree with Milo's opinion for once.....:mad:
physics kills people
Aliens?
No GTA had it:
Cartman vs. psychics - YouTube
- Myself for being right, and having it proven repeatedly throughout the week. Hopefully it'll stop now though.
- Hellmuth's Mole for standing on the side of reason
- GTA Poker for proving that most CPF'ers aren't actually reading the material in posts, but just waiting for the first thing they can latch onto to use in an attempt at humour.
Mark
Self-delusion is better than nothing, I guess . . . at least you're happy.
"That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended."
And with that, I will sleep better tonight.
New Trajectory: Important Data Trends the NRA Doesn't Want You To Know
Would you believe that an outright ban on Handgun ownership in the US would reduce Canadian illegal handgun availability? A large portion of guns used in crimes in Canada are sourced in the US.
US guns fuel Canada and Mexico crimes, UK gun crime remains rare
And Colorado has the most relaxed laws for gun ownership and concealment. People love to mention how people need to be allowed to have guns to protect themselves. It almost never happens.
Sadly in Texas I doubt it would have turned out even close to as bloody...although Holmes would probably be a distant memory.....
*sigh* it has been shown time after time that talk of self defense is just that. First instincts are to flee and protect under cover. Hindsight talk of "well I would have just pulled out my (insert name of pens enhancing weapon here) and blown his head off" is based 99% on total bull shit.
*sigh*....have you lived in Texas?
Why would you think this? You have nothing to back this up. Where do you come up with this assumption? The laws in Colorado allow concealed weapons in public places. No one in the theatre had a gun. You think the average movie goer in Texas is armed? Please.
States with the most guns - The Daily Beast
What's funny Ned is that you think Texan's would be more likely to have prevented this.....but in fact maybe Colorado is more likely to have such a tragedy is because they have more guns. More guns does not equal more safety.
So a guy in full body armour with a gas mask throws tear gas into a theater and then comes in with a gas mask and an AK-47, firing about a shot per second, and you are going to pull out your handgun with people running, diving, and screaming all around you and put a bullet in the guy's head?
Much more likely scenarios IMO:
- the shooter sees you and hits you with about 4 bullets before you can even get one shot off
- you hit someone who runs between you and the shooter
- with tear gas in your eyes you can't see the shooter well enough to take aim at his head
I don't care if Americans want small handguns in their home to defend themselves (or have their kids shoot them by accident) but AK-47 assault rifles are simply not necessary for any non-military situation. I guarantee you the American founding fathers did not anticipate AK-47s when they wrote the second amendment. At that time they had crappy guns that could barely hit a house from 100 yards away and probably took minutes to reload.
Granted, the body armour would have probably made it a non issue. Better outlaw that too
Oh GTA Poker....please stop trying to make me feel bad....I respect your opinion more than you know and it really hurts
But since you do seem to like to get involved, but offer not even an arguement .... by all means....answer this one that nobody seemed to want to touch. Somehow I'll guess you'll just avoid directly answering....
"Why wouldn't they [everyday citizens]have the right? No matter what happens, the 'bad guys' are going to be able to get/make/blackmarket guns....or some sort of similar weapon. This isn't make believe where weapons of this type can just disappear. I could make a basic gun on a metal lathe in a few hours. Why in your arguement should the law abiding citizens not be able to get guns to protect themselves, hunt etc, but the criminals still will? And yes, I agree there should be stricter laws in the U.S. regarding buying firearms...for the record."
Canada's approach has always been more balanced, giving prime consideration to public safety ahead of personal whim. You can own handguns legally in this country, but the restrictions and regulations are extremely onerous. That is a good thing, imo.
All the talk that pops up after incidents like we have had this week about armed civilians "taking out" the gunmen are pure nonsense. I have trained with firearms of different types all the way up to fully automatic, belt-fed machine guns, and the first thing any competent instructor drills into your head is to be sure of your target before squeezing the trigger. This is more for ammo conservation (in military terms) than for concern over collateral damage, but it amounts to the same thing in the scenarios we are discussing. Further, it is quite a different thing to be shooting with real people down range than it is to be shooting at targets. As tightly controlled as "live fire" exercises are in the military, my first one was still un-nerving realizing that live rounds were in the air, going out, as well as coming in. You knew you were "safe", but you did not feel that way. You would have to be one cold as ice SOB to be able to stand up in that theatre, locate the target (the shooter), sight on him, and get off a clear shot. Even then, with him being armored, all you would have done is let him know where you are, and now he is going to be coming for you, as the biggest threat. The Scarborough shootings give a more likely result of what happens when armed civilians act in self defence in a crowd . . . lots of un-aimed rounds finding unplanned targets.
None of this changes the fact that, in Canada, I do not favour any changes to a firearms legislation, in terms of legal acquisition of same.
What I would like to see is this:
Possession of illegal firearms should be a charge for which bail is NOT an option. Further, there should be no plea bargaining, nor should any of the usual "deals" (time served credits, concurrent sentencing, etc.) apply. In short, if you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you will be in jail until your trial, and you will do ALL the time from EACH charge if you are convicted.
I would also, like to see the government step up enforcement of border security to prevent illegal weapons from crossing our border. But, as the main points of entry are usually Native Reserves which straddle the border, I do not see that happening anytime soon.
With this, I am done. Enjoy your weekend, gents.