Guns
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
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
Comments
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
Always thought a "big gun" WAS a large penis . . . You know, this is your rifle, this is your gun . . .
lol
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
***************************************************
Speaking of the pro-gun people, they've lost one.
TheStar.com | entertainment | Heston an actor of epic contradictions
Pardon? I'm sorry...I got distracted..
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
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.
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.
I'm uh... kinda looking for the winky-smiley face there brother...
Mark
P.S. and ineedanick! Whooo!! Vicious!!
You're an idiot.
A complete idiot. I'm shaking mad at what an idiot you are. Such a fucking idiot.
Ban me forever if you want, but wow, you're a regal fucking moron.
If not, please see my previous post.
You have got to be kidding me? You bash someone for having an opinion, and for expressing it, and you clobber him, THEN say if he wasn't serious you're sorry? Bad form. As far as I'm concerned you're way over the line in your post...WAY over the line.
I've purposefully avoided getting involved in this debate, it's worse than discussing religion imho. NOTHING gets people's blood boiling faster than this subject. But for you Dino to come out and spout that bullshit for someone's opinion on this particular subject is nothing short of cowardly. Try inputting some defense instead of just bashing a member like that.
Okay.. now, I don't know dino, I do know pkrfce9, and I'm guessing there's more to the story behind his post. I too personally would be appalled by anyone that fully believe the things he said however.
Mark
I'm pretty sure pkrfce9 WAS kidding, but what I don't see, AJ, is how your post could ever help and I DO see that Dinobot was expressing his outrage-to which he is surely entitled (and rightly so if he took the post seriously)
After which Dinobot's repost says to me that though he spoke his mind, he's willing/hoping to be wrong about his interpretation, actively seeking clarification and will reap what he's sown if he is off base.
I like that Dinobot had the balls to stand firm and express strong opinion
Wow... now this has gotten sensitive and I am torn between two sides here. I agree with AJ that it was not necessary to just come out and attack pkrfce without verifying his true intention by the post, but I also KINDA see where pkrfce is getting (maybe just not on such a sadistical level).
Can we try to have a civil debate though without busting out the name calling? Dino, I know your response was in response to a heavily opinionated post (which you obv. don't agree with), but I think coming back with a well constructed response would be more effective then just saying "you are an idiot".
As far as I am concerned, the post, as written, is idiotic. Maybe the guy who wrote it is not an idiot, I'm not sure.
There is not currently, and has never been a pro death penalty argument that holds water.
It is innefectual as a deterrent, and obscenely biased along the lines of race and socio economic status.
I have to run to a meeting, but when I come back, I'll add some links if people are interested in actually educating themselves about this issue.
I am sorry for hi jacking the thread if I did, and I am also sorry if my comments took away from the enjoyment of the forum for others, but I stand by what I said.
Those of you who know me know that I'm a mild-mannered guy (I hope).
I actually spent some time in the armed forces after high school and had a lot of exposure to small arms, as well as some much more dangerous weapons. Several of my friends from that time have served in Gulf War I, former Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Not a brag, I just want to establish my POV. I've willingly put my money where my mouth is (but thankfully never got called on it).
I actually think that there isn't enough exposure to guns in our society.
One one hand, we (Canada) have never known war the way most of the rest of the world has. Our cities have never been bombed and our civilians have never been killed indiscriminately. Can you think of another country for which this is true? We live in a country where we have established institutions to provide a basic level of care for every essential need. _If_ there was ever real civil strife, or we were ever invaded, then the "government" would take care of it. Once these things happen though, the government is already gone or compromised. You are the only one responsible for your own liberty and security. The willingness and ability to take up arms and use them is part of that.
The other side of the argument is the role that guns play in general today. (IMO) Most of the kids who are using guns in gang related activities today don't really understand the ramifications of shooting someone and are willing to pull the trigger over any insignificant slight, just to establish street-cred or whatever. It's obviously a big problem, but isn't really about guns so much as the attitude towards life (and death) that these kids have, and the underlying reasons. In my step-dad's day, they were cutting each other up with switch blades. Guns are easier and faster than switch blades, but the real issues are the same.
So....yes, guns are for killing, and that's why you should know how to use one. You may have to protect your life/family/country someday. Guns should also be taken out of the hands of criminals, but because they are willing to use them negligently. The people who should be trusted with weapons are the ones who are least inclined to use them. Once they need to be used, use them expertly.
First of all, I think Dinobot is a she, not a he.
Now, lots to answer from last night. I'll start with 800over
The deterrent I was referring to was related to open carry and concealed carry firearms, and studies which appear to show a reduction in personal crime stats as a result (ie less muggings, car jackings). Mark and I have already stipulated that, in Canada at least, you cannot legally store a firearm and have it as a practical means of home defense. Of course, when the Zombies come for you, all bets are off. Handguns do not need to be illegal here (imo) because of the extreme difficulty in acquiring them legally.
I'll assume pkrfce9 is either kidding or trolling. Either way, this was meant to be a civilized discussion, so I'll ignore it entirely. Ditto for Dino's response (and the follow on clusterfuck), although for different reasons.
Someone mentioned the proliferation of firearms in the USA and the proliferation of gun crimes. All I will say in that regard is that correlation is not causation. I believe (please note I said believe) that it is more a result of the War on Drugs, and it's corresponding laws. When you have people doing federal time for an ounce of Pot, or less, there are going to be follow-on issues. How else do you explain Switzerland, which has as high a per capita rate of gun ownership as the USA (if not higher), yet has far less gun related crime. I believe there is a cultural basis as well, but as I said, I have not seriously researched any of this. Just spitballing, is all.
One thing Dinobot said is true though (here comes another thread topic), the death penalty is not a deterrent to anything, except the continued breathing of the victim. That is all I've got, except: I do not think we need to change our legislation regarding firearms ownership. The remaining legislation surrounding firearms SHOULD be souped up somewhat, as far as I'm concerned. I like the idea of reverse-onus for parole, and mandatory minimums for illegal gun use. Good luck to those of you trying to change the laws, regardless of which direction you're trying to sway them.