Guns

Hellmuth's Mole

In before the call for longer/harsher sentences for gun crime as a way to solve the problem.

Lengthening sentences = less incentive to give yourself up rather than kill someone who's about to arrest you for a gun crime.

trigs

pretty sure there are also stats that there's less crime in countries that chop off hands if you're caught stealing.

Milo

DrTyore;323617 wroteStill not done with your bit darb, but am interested in seeing some of those stats when you get them.

Superned, do try and keep up. The previous posts in this thread clearly show my differentiation and opposition to guns vs. knives and other multi-purpose items. Though, I guess brass knucks would go in the fire too.

TLDR - knives, gas, rope, and most other things people say "Guess we'll have to get rid of too" are multi-purpose, they prepare food, fix things, act as fuel for our vehicles. Guns kill, that's it.

Mark

Mark, not to quibble, but I have more than a couple knives which, by design, are meant to be as lethal as any firearm, though one needs to be much closer to the victim to make that happen. We are going to agree to disagree, I guess, because prohibition simply does not work. If it did, booze would be a thing of the past, as would recreational drugs. And, even if you were to get EVERY nation on earth to ban the civilian ownership of firearms, you would still have weapons in the hands of the criminal element, AND YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE. You start to sound more and more like Adam Vaughan on this issue . . . at least his excuse is that he wants to be Mayor of Toronto and, like all politicians, will sell his soul cheaply to get what what he wants. What's your excuse?

trigs

Milo;323631 wroteMark, not to quibble, but I have more than a couple knives which, by design, are meant to be as lethal as any firearm, though one needs to be much closer to the victim to make that happen. We are going to agree to disagree, I guess, because prohibition simply does not work. If it did, booze would be a thing of the past, as would recreational drugs. And, even if you were to get EVERY nation on earth to ban the civilian ownership of firearms, you would still have weapons in the hands of the criminal element, AND YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE. You start to sound more and more like Adam Vaughan on this issue . . . at least his excuse is that he wants to be Mayor of Toronto and, like all politicians, will sell his soul cheaply to get what what he wants. What's your excuse?

do flamethrowers count as guns?

[deleted]

DrTyore;323627 wrotedarb;

And I say this with as much tact as I can muster. When it comes to most of the things you've mentioned here, hell, when almost anyone mentions anything, I usually want the documentation to back it up. You, in particular, will need to show me something because sometimes I have a tremendous difficulty following your lines of thought.

Mark

I admittedly cannot find it. I don't know how to do parliament stuff, the liberals ( think they were the 'opposition') have the info, maybe someone here is a liberal fan or knows someone who can provide it.

But we can take this a different direction, show the proof where harsher sentences reduce the violence. Aren't we just basing everything on the assumption if we abolished laws everything would go to hell, therefore making more laws must make things better.

trigs

darbday;323634 wroteAren't we just basing everything on the assumption if we abolished laws everything would go to hell, therefore making more laws must make things better.

no. either extreme is not good. happy medium.

[deleted]

trigs;323630 wrotepretty sure there are also stats that there's less crime in countries that chop off hands if you're caught stealing.

remember there is a difference between less crime and less violent peoples.

also in country like that the sample is tainted because the government is somewhat openly religious, and they have different education system controlled by the same religious government.

Edit: also many of these countries create extremely violent cultures. But I don't want to be to stereo typing here. But honor killing etc.

To show that mm's reduce violence in Canada you would need to study countries similar to Canada in as many aspects as possible including religious views, government control, and education, and hopefully get a sample set where there were no mm's and then at one point they were introduced.

trigs;323636 wroteno. either extreme is not good. happy medium.

I could somewhat agree but it wouldn't matter we still need to discuss where that medium lies. You think we aren't at it, I think we are well beyond it. I think it is goverment control, that humans allow and do to themselves that stop us as a human race from together looking inwardly and asking what is truly wrong here.

But you had better be sure that laws are the cure, because if laws create immoral people than its a very sad thing that we continue to extend their reach

DrTyore

trigs;323630 wrotepretty sure there are also stats that there's less crime in countries that chop off hands if you're caught stealing.

There's always going to be stealing there's always going to be crime, and there's always going to be death and murder - accidental or purposeful. Guns are responsible for homicides in the range of 151 - 207 people per year for the last 15 years. I did the math, average of 185 lives, per year. 185 people are dead - by gun - every year. This is all in Canada:

Guns in Canada: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

Your example is barbaric - nobody on here who is being serious would say otherwise. The most common "pro gun" I get is the following:

Hunting - Dumb argument. Animal control reasons I can understand, but as a "sport"? Climb back into your Ford F150 truck, likely with the brass testicles on the back, and a pithy decal on the window of Calvin peeing on something, and stop embarrassing yourself.

Target shooting - Great, I can see the allure. All equipment kept secured in regulated shooting ranges, which as a business can offer better security and containment.

Protection - Stats say otherwise. We're all poker players here, we live and die by math. Everyone has a fav hand, of course it should be AA, but we don't, but we all know we're kidding ourselves. Apply this to guns. Statistics show you're more likely to hurt yourself or your family / neighbour / random stranger with a gun you own than any chance a gun protects you from robbery / assault / muggings.

Mark

DrTyore

Milo;323631 wroteMark, not to quibble, but I have more than a couple knives which, by design, are meant to be as lethal as any firearm, though one needs to be much closer to the victim to make that happen. We are going to agree to disagree, I guess, because prohibition simply does not work. If it did, booze would be a thing of the past, as would recreational drugs. And, even if you were to get EVERY nation on earth to ban the civilian ownership of firearms, you would still have weapons in the hands of the criminal element, AND YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE. You start to sound more and more like Adam Vaughan on this issue . . . at least his excuse is that he wants to be Mayor of Toronto and, like all politicians, will sell his soul cheaply to get what what he wants. What's your excuse?

Milo

I'd disallow those knives too FWIW. I'm not so naive to think everyone's going to give up their guns, but just recognize it's a bad idea to own them, they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark

[deleted]

But getting rid of guns won't fix the problems associated with them.

Milo

A person must be 18 yrs old to acquire a Possession and Acquisition Licence. There is a Minor's Licence but lets leave that aside for now.
Applicants for a PAL, are screened through the CFIS, and National Police database, as well as put through an extensive interview and training process. As an example, your spouse or common-law partner MUST sign your application. Failure to do so will bring a much more intense scrutiny of your application. This process will allow a PAL holder to purchase non-restricted firearms legally in Canada.

There are three types of firearms under the Act: Non-restricted, Restricted, and Prohibited.

Non-restricted firearms are generally your sporting rifles, shotguns, etc.
Restricted firearms are generally handguns, as well as certain rifles, and those generally described as "restricted".

Prohibited firearms fall into the category of fully automatic, too small, cut down, or generally prescribed as prohibited.

It is possible to acquire and RPAL which will enable you to legally purchase hanguns in Canada. however, RPALs are restricted to collectors, target shooters, and applicants who can demonstrate a need for personal protection.

I have a friend who owns several non restricted firearms, and inherited a couple of "questionable" handguns from his father. He already had his PAL, when he acquired the handguns, but needed to upgrade his licence to account for the new firearms. Without telling the authorities about his inheritance, he was initially denied the upgrade. On his second attempt a few years later, when renewing his license on his own, he succeeded in acquiring his RPAL, so his Father's firearms are now legal. But the legal acquisition of firearms in this country is not an easy thing, and has not been since 1939. So, the tragic events of last night, and the Eaton Centre, and so many others are not the result of someone heading down to Bass Pro Shop because they are pissed off, buying a gun, and putting a cap in somebody. They are the result of criminal activity . . . PERIOD.

Final fact: More people are killed in Canada every year through blunt force trauma incidents, than are killed by firearms. But no one seems to be crying out to ban Louisville Sluggers.

Milo

DrTyore;323640 wroteMilo

I'd disallow those knives too FWIW. I'm not so naive to think everyone's going to give up their guns, but just recognize it's a bad idea to own them, they shouldn't be allowed.

Mark

Who says it's a bad idea? You? On what basis? Legally owned and stored firearms are NOT the threat. Go after the criminals, Mark . . . not the law abiding citizen enjoying his hobby. The only difference between guns and any other collectible item is their POTENTIAL lethality if handled improperly. A properly handled firearm is no more dangerous than a power drill.

Also, your "protection" stats are moot as, by legal definition, firearms and their ammunition MUST be stored separately. No one I know who owns firearms will EVER say they have them for personal protection, because they all recognize that Canadian law makes that an impossibility.

Your "fatalities" argument is specious too, or you would be screaming to ban alcohol, personal ownership of automobiles, and a host of other implements that are responsible for more annual deaths in this country than firearms. And, if you were to eliminate the illegal firearms from that stat, how many would be left? Just curious?

Again, target the criminals, please, not law abiding citizens. Freedom is a wonderful thing, why do you hate it so?

SuperNed

Milo;323651 wrote
Final fact: More people are killed in Canada every year through blunt force trauma incidents, than are killed by firearms. But no one seems to be crying out to ban Louisville Sluggers.

But...but...but....Louisville Sluggers have a purpose in baseball...guns are only for killing :D

Hobbes

SuperNed;323654 wroteBut...but...but....Louisville Sluggers have a purpose in baseball...guns are only for killing :D

Nah, you can also kneecap people. Much more fun. :D

[deleted]

Milo;323653 wroteGo after the criminals, Mark . . . not the law abiding citizen enjoying his hobby.

It should say go after the immoral people though, because criminals is a debatable classification depending on who's making the laws.

I see the conservatives always talking about catching criminals, but making laws creates criminals (ex. if brown eyes became illegal, now there are brown eyed criminals everywhere), they should be saying catching bad people. Its a very scary difference to me.

STR82ACE

Give EVERYONE a gun.

Lets see what the little bastards do now.

Milo

Darb, wait until I tell Mark they should legalize drugs and stop spending so much money trying to prosecute pot smokers, et al . . . he might actually go Scanners for real.

Milo

str82ace;323659 wrotegive everyone a gun.

Lets see what the little bastards do now.

fuck no !!!

[deleted]

Milo;323660 wroteDarb, wait until I tell Mark they should legalize drugs and stop spending so much money trying to prosecute pot smokers, et al . . . he might actually go Scanners for real.

really these are the same issue tho because the gangs run these drugs with guns for profit, and if we try to deal with it using Canadian laws we create more violence and crime via Mexican Cartel and international gangs in and associated with Canada

STR82ACE

Milo;323661 wrotefuck no !!!

You're obviously not thinking this through.

« Previous Page Next Page »