DrTyore
Hey all
I kinda started this conversation in another thread, but I would like to continue it.... I have NO intention to start a flame war (though the asbestos suit is always at the ready).
Essentially, the conversation was regarding guns. Personally, I am not a fan of guns, and feel that 99.9% of the population do have no need to own one. Further, my main outlook on guns is that they serve but one purpose... killing. They are not for protection, they are for attack... the "protection" you get is from mortal threat.
Now Milo, you responded for the artistic merit of the weapon. Personally, I find it difficult to "appreciate" anything in an item that I classify as singularly lethal. However, I can imagine that there can be beautifully made items.... but my argument to this is that if you are in fact looking for the beauty in the object, it does not therefore need to be functional - not unlike show swords and knives.
Mark
Milo
Fair enough, Mark. Though I do not find any utility in an "artful" firearm, I do appreciate the design beauty of something like a Steyr AUG (A.Godunov used one in the first Die Hard movie). I merely mentioned this small subset of the market as an alternative. I will disagree with you about protection, though. A firearm can provide excellent personal protection when the owner is properly trained in it's use. And yes, that protection is derived from the lethal nature of the firearm. That is called deterrent. However, the laws in this country, and indeed the entire concept of "safe storage" of a firearm, render the concept of having one for "home defense" useless. That being said, I still do not see what "like" has to do with it. Do you "like" your steak knife? What about cigarettes? Beer/alcohol? All three are more lethal (in terms of relatable deaths each year) than firearms. Yet none of these things, which you may indeed "like" (I sure like that last one), are regulated to the extent that firearms are in this country. You do not "like" guns. That is fine and good. Do not purchase one. I will not buy one myself. It does not give you (or I) the right to impose our beliefs on others, unless of course we can get a sufficient number of citizens to agree with us, and have the appropriate legislation passed in parliament. So there is my point. Like, or dislike, to your heart's content. But please allow others to do the same. That is freedom
To be specific: I am fine with your dislike of firearms. I am not okay with the concept of there being no valid opposition to that viewpoint, which your initial comments seemed to be leaning towards
pkrfce9
i love guns. big, powerful, 'blow your head clean off' guns. especially for you, mark - holding one in your hands makes your penis larger.
Milo
One other thing. I do not look at it as an issue of need, but rather one of want. I am an adult, as are the rest of us here. If I want to do something, anything at all(within the law), I can do so. If I want to have something that is a legal product, and I have the training and the money to acquire it, why do I have to have a "need" for it? Wanting a thing, and doing what is necessary to acquire a thing (again, within legal bounds) should be sufficient. Thats all I have right now. Sorry for the extra post.
Milo
pkrfce9;147176 wrotei love guns. big, powerful, 'blow your head clean off' guns. especially for you, mark - holding one in your hands makes your penis larger.
Always thought a "big gun" WAS a large penis . . . You know, this is your rifle, this is your gun . . .
lol
DrTyore
Hey Milo
I`m really quite glad you responded.. I`m very much excited to discuss this in an intellectual, non-aggressive format.
Regarding the protection aspect of firearms, you already spent my trump card of the regulations surrounding storage of the weapons. However, I would also like to discuss the idea of guns as a deterrent. Numerous studies have shown that deterrent-based approaches to prevention are ineffective.
Further, as for the discussion about steak knives, cigarettes and beer / alcohol. Yes, there are deaths directly and indirectly associated with these items, as well as many others including automobile accidents, home electrical wiring, and shoveling snow. However, there is a distinct difference in my opinion between guns and other potential implements of destruction. A knife's purpose is to sever things, be it rope, material, or food. Alcohol's purpose is to cause a state of inebriation, and so on and so forth. I have yet had someone provide me with a viable alternative utilization for a functioning firearm.
I am not imposing my rights / will on anyone. I don't like the idea of guns, but I'm not flying the rally flag to melt them all down. However, I concede that there is obvious need for guns in some circumstances. Police utilize firearms and I don't think many would argue the need for them in their role. I will even cede the fact that many people enjoy sport shooting. However, since any such shooting is required to be in a regulated facility, gun ownership is not necessary as the clubs themselves could "own" them and rent them out.
Further, civilians too have some use for guns - farmers protecting flocks from predatory animals comes to mind. However, rifle type firearms tend to be best suited for these, and would not require a fully automatic, 30-round magazine gun.
Mark
Milo
Thanks, Mark. That's one aspect I hate about discussing this with our neighbours to the south. Regardless of what side they fall on, they go ballistic WAY too soon for a rational conversation.
I'm not sure which studies you are referring to with regards to the deterrent nature of firearms. I am speaking strictly from the aspect of either open-carry or concealed-carry, and the deterrent factor in those situations can be backed up.
With respect to knives, I have a few that are specifically designed to be lethal, and NOT to any particular cut of beef. I bought them because I wanted them and, in the field I was in at that time, they had their (potential)uses. Now they are stored safely in my home. My point is, whether there is a viable alternative to a firearms main purpose is not relevant. If a person wants one, and is willing to jump through the necessary hoops to get one, have at it says I. As for renting one from a "Gun Club", no serious target shooter would ever go for that. The first thing we did on the range with our FN's, back when I served, was to sight them in. At the time, I could put a grouping of five rounds into a 3" diameter circle from 300 yards. Trying the same thing with a friends weapon yielded a somewhat poorer (5") result. Too great a margin of error to put up with for a competitive shooter. The better the shooter, the more personalized the firearm.
As for your last paragraph, that is more to do with regulation. As far as I can recall, thirty round mags, and full-auto, are not legal in this country. That is regulation that I support. I think that you and I may be closer than you think on this issue. I have no issue with reasonable regulation of firearms. I just happen to think that we have that now, and would even support some relaxation of the legislation in certain areas (and tightening in others)
Kristy
Milo;147177 wroteI am an adult, as are the rest of us here. If I want to do something, anything at all(within the law), I can do so. If I want to have something that is a legal product, and I have the training and the money to acquire it, why do I have to have a "need" for it? Wanting a thing, and doing what is necessary to acquire a thing (again, within legal bounds) should be sufficient. Thats all I have right now. Sorry for the extra post.
Normally anarchy and freedom of choice rank pretty highly with me...but in this instance I can't help but think that your qualifying remarks of "(within the law)" and "(again, within legal bounds)" are a little naive sounding. The law is not infalliable, and reasonably often it is not even a great guideline for the general needs OR wants of the people it restrains or enables.
Guns are only used for killing, 'deterrents' are ineffective and I just can't see a reason to allow guns for the general population... I do feel that there are great reasons to disallow them.
Milo
Right. Because prohibition worked so well with alcohol when that was tried, or narcotics now. No offense Kristy, but that is a non-starter.
The only thing I was referring to with my bracketed comments was an attempt to recognize certain legal requirements that we have in this country. I cannot rent an automobile without a valid driver's license (I think), nor can I just go out and purchase a firearm tomorrow. I was not being naive, or trying to equivocate, just recognizing the reality of the situation. There are certain regulatory requirements to go through to obtain a firearm. Thats all I was getting at.
As to whether or not the current laws are reflective, if the majority of the population favors prohibition, I could care less. If true, fine. Pass the legislation. It will not affect me in the slightest. Nor will it make anyone safer than they are today. All it WILL accomplish is to deny responsible citizens something they currently enjoy, sort of like the legislation against card rooms.
One final comment, the biggest issue usually seems to centre around hand-guns, at least in the GTA. What a lot of people do not realize is that, for all intents and purposes, handguns are pretty much banned anyway, and have been since 1939. The legislation is just so restrictive as to make it nigh on impossible to get that type of licensing.
DrTyore
Hey
I've not got any specific studies on hand right now, but there are numerous studies showing (albeit mostly regarding the criminal prison system), but also psychology experiments that show deterrency is not an especially effective tool.
If guns were truly a deterrent, would it not then make sense that the United States would have significantly less gun violence considering the ratio / availability of guns down south?
As for the open versus concealed weaponry, I'm sure there's a difference between the effectiveness when compared to one another, but I wonder how either of them rate in effectiveness compared to overall reduction / "protection".
As for the knife argument, I can indeed imagine that there are knives designed strictly for killing, however, I can imagine you could extrapolate that I would not be in favour of the production of those either.
Also, one argument that you are presenting is not relevant to the conversation. You are saying that because guns - although regulated - are legal people should be able to have them. As it stands now, yes, I agree with that if for no other reason than the semantics... however, my argument is that guns and gun ownership should not be allowed.
Mark
Milo;147182 wroteThanks, Mark. That's one aspect I hate about discussing this with our neighbours to the south. Regardless of what side they fall on, they go ballistic WAY too soon for a rational conversation.
I'm not sure which studies you are referring to with regards to the deterrent nature of firearms. I am speaking strictly from the aspect of either open-carry or concealed-carry, and the deterrent factor in those situations can be backed up.
With respect to knives, I have a few that are specifically designed to be lethal, and NOT to any particular cut of beef. I bought them because I wanted them and, in the field I was in at that time, they had their (potential)uses. Now they are stored safely in my home. My point is, whether there is a viable alternative to a firearms main purpose is not relevant. If a person wants one, and is willing to jump through the necessary hoops to get one, have at it says I. As for renting one from a "Gun Club", no serious target shooter would ever go for that. The first thing we did on the range with our FN's, back when I served, was to sight them in. At the time, I could put a grouping of five rounds into a 3" diameter circle from 300 yards. Trying the same thing with a friends weapon yielded a somewhat poorer (5") result. Too great a margin of error to put up with for a competitive shooter. The better the shooter, the more personalized the firearm.
As for your last paragraph, that is more to do with regulation. As far as I can recall, thirty round mags, and full-auto, are not legal in this country. That is regulation that I support. I think that you and I may be closer than you think on this issue. I have no issue with reasonable regulation of firearms. I just happen to think that we have that now, and would even support some relaxation of the legislation in certain areas (and tightening in others)
Milo
You stated that guns and gun ownership should not be allowed, yet in previous posts you have mentioned legitimate uses for firearms within the "civilian population". I "get" that you do not like them. Fine. All I am saying is that, until enough people agree with that point of view, the legislation will remain unchanged. As I have stated previous, prohibition will not be effective.
Milo
Separate comment to deal with the USA portion, sorry.
A lot of jurisdictions have the same sort of storage regs that we have in Canada, thus eliminating that aspect of deterrence as we have previously agreed. There are several studies of crime stats in areas that have allowed concealed carry of firearms which appear to show a reduction in crime against the individual (ie the crooks don't know who's packing so less people get mugged).
As to why their gun crime rates are so high, I think you will agree that things like three strikes legislation, and the federalization of what used to be misdemeanor crimes, are factors which may induce a criminal to not come along quietly, so to speak.
Beyond that, I am not interested in discussing the USA. This is about Canada, is it not?
Kristy
Easy there snarky-pants ;) I'm not debating prohibition, I'm waxing poetic about my own contradictions between wanting to allow the competent and intelligent persons (like yourself) to decide for themselves, and eliminating (as much as possible) an object that serves no positive or productive function and a better balance between these two.
Milo
You know I love you Kristy. And I'm not wearing pants, as it's almost bed-time. My only point was that the genie is out of the bottle with regards to prohibition. And as far as eliminating hand guns, our current legislation has effectively done that. Wasn't going to use this but, what the hell . . .
I have served in the Reserves when I was younger. I tried, shortly after I left the military to jump through the hoops necessary to obtain the licensing necessary to acquire hand-guns, and was turned away. I have no criminal record, and no medical records (psych, etc.) that would otherwise make me ineligible. And, with the training I received through the military, I was probably better trained in firearms safety than most. Still, no joy. I soon lost interest in firearms in general, so I no longer care, one way or the other, if they become proscribed in law. I just do not like the idea of infantilizing the general population.
Graham
I just read the whole thread and am kinda lost in what the debate really is here.
Mark... you say no guns at all, whatsoever, correct? If so, do you think this will really stop people from getting them into the country from the US?
Personally, I used to be highly anti-gun, but on my last visit to Vegas I decided to hit the range at the
Las Vegas Gun Store. I have to say that from a "sport perspective", guns can be a lot of fun and I can understand why a lot of gun enthusiasts would want to protect their right to have them (if they are only being used for sporting purposes).
Don't get me wrong though, I see your point also that the world would be better without them COMPLETELY. Unfortunately, the truth is, that will never happen in our life time as there are now so many out there that we wouldn't possibly be able to get rid of them all.
I completely agree guns like the AR-15, AK-47, plus many other machine guns (I shot some of them in Vegas and though they were fun to shoot, there really is no purpose to have things like that other than to kill or do massive destruction) should not be legal, and as far as I know most are here in Canada.
I think we don't really have an issue with legally obtained guns here in Canada and though there have been a few incidents where guns were stolen from owners' safes, I am pretty sure that the majority of the guns responsible for violence on the streets are coming from the United States.
Unfortunately we can't really turn back time and stop the gun from ever being invented and until the whole world has the same stance on guns the bad people will always find a way to get them. I think the only thing we really can do right now is regulate them and make them very difficult for people to obtain, which is currently being done. I think it used to be a lot easier to get guns and we are now seeing the effects of this ease of accessibility.
Sorry for rambling and back to the real question... What can be done today? The biggest problem I can see with trying to stop selling them completely and stop allowing people to buy them, what do you tell all the people out there that already have them? Do you really want a bunch of angry gun owners ;) (j/k). Agree or disagree with them now, but they are still a right for people to have and for many it has become a huge part of their life. How can you really just decide to take that right away from those people (rhetorical question)?
tekguy22
sorry...didn't see the other topic...it's early give me a break
***************************************************
Speaking of the pro-gun people, they've lost one.
TheStar.com | entertainment | Heston an actor of epic contradictions
Kristy
Milo;147195 wroteYou know I love you Kristy. And I'm not wearing pants, as it's almost bed-time.
Pardon? I'm sorry...I got distracted.. ;)
Ineedanick
What bugs me the most about guns (usually hand guns) are stories like this:
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
(from cnn today...if the link does not work, just go to the cnn website). This stuff seems to happen all the time in the states. In Canada, we tend to hear about innocent bystanders people killed. Haven't there been a couple of recent cases in Toronto?
If only the gun-maniacs, drunk-drivers, warmongers, etc would kill just themselves.
Dave
800OVER
It's pretty obvious that access to guns correlates to gun deaths. (Canada which allows guns has .4 deaths per 100,000...while Japan which has almost no guns or gun culture has .02) The problem is not the legality.....it's the availability. People who own guns legally are not the ones committing the most crimes. Having said that the fact that guns are legal in Canada does make it easier to obtain illegal guns. (Theft, used market etc). The detterent argument is laughable:
Something never heard on the street:
"Hey Jimmy, since we are both not high and of sound mind and body and not desperate or have any criminal intent lets break into that house....
"No way Steve....I heard that guy owns a gun."
Something heard on the street:
"Hey Jimmy, lets break into that house, I've heard he's got a closet full of guns"
"Lets do it Steve"
Guns are not a detterent to crime....just ask Las Vegas what it's gun related crime rate is. That's like saying that capital punishment reduces murder. How often is a reported gun death the criminal? Canadians own almost as many guns as the US per capita yet you never hear about the robber killed by the homeowner. People who carry guns with criminal intent are the ones causing the problem. Handguns should be illegal. The penalty for carrying one, transporting one, using one in a crime should be multiple years in jail. (here I am arguing for jail time as a deterrent...the irony is burning my anus...or maybe that's just the Taco Bell*)
*or the STD I got from 14CARDS.
pkrfce9
the jail time isn't a deterrent. i just keeps them off the street for a while so they can't commit more gun crimes. so that is a good thing. execution would be even better. capital punishment stops potential and actual murderers in their tracks.
we really only hear a lot about the few innocent people killed by guns. most people killed by guns are criminals aka gang members.
having a gun does not deter crimes but it can prevent future crimes. a gang member getting getting killed by a gun saves us all the crimes that punk would have committed.