• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as I hate to agree, even partially with the "counter" argument, I think fear may have a lot to do with it.

One theory is that the possibility of violent personal human aggression is what drives a lot of human behavior, such as... How can the spectre of one single serial killer, taking the lives of a small number ( 2-3 ) people paralyze an entire city of maybe a million people? When we face masses of death and destrucion daily on our roadways, with sickness and diseases such as cancer and heart attack. Why aren't we staying in our homes and running in fear every time we see an automobile? Why are people still smoking and eating burgers?

Evolution has ingrained in us a phobic response to even the remotest chance of violence in the form of attack from another human being.
Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur. That is why we train our soldiers and law enforcement officers through stimulus/ response conditioning ( Pavlov?) to overcome that inate phobic response that can turn the majority of us into victim's rather than warriors.

This theory is based on Dave Grossman's work, but I have as yet to finish the volume.......Hope I made some sense.

It'll have to wait though, I'm at the range today,

Stay Safe
 
Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur.

I don't understand exactly what you (or Grossman) means here.

1- Being prepared makes aggression SEEM more likely
2- Or Being prepared MAKES aggression more likely
 
Seems like some of you guys should move to Oregon....

From the StatesmanJournal.com

Career day photo of soldier with gun puts school district in a bind

CAROL MCALICE CURRIE





Special to the Statesman Journal

This picture of Marine Cpl. Bill Riecke of Salem  and two unidentified soldiers, while they were stationed in Iraq, has come under the scrutiny of the Salem-Keizer school district.

March 25, 2005

Unless they want to risk violating the school-district's zero-tolerance for weapons policy, Salem-Keizer student marksmen cannot have a pistol embroidered on their letterman jackets. Teen hunters are not allowed to wear silk-screened T-shirt images of themselves standing with rifles and bagged bulls.

And now, a high-school freshman who wants to hang a picture of her brother serving in the military is finding similar prohibitions because the image features a fully automatic rifle and a machine gun.

Last week, Shea Riecke, a freshman at McKay High School, tried to take a snapshot of her brother, Cpl. Bill Riecke, a Marine currently stationed in Twenty-nine Palms, Calif., to her social studies class.

She wanted to display the picture with those of other McKay grads' career choices. Riecke's teacher, Rick Costa, encourages the exhibits.

   
But Riecke's photo created a little controversy. Actually, it kicked up a sandstorm of grief for the family and school-district officials because of the photo's content. It pictures the Marine hefting a big gun while decked in military desert camies (camouflage). It was taken while he was stationed in Iraq; he will be redeployed there this summer.

The image of Shea's brother does not necessarily convey military service, said Simona Boucek, Salem-Keizer's communications coordinator, and the automatic weapons are the most prominent feature in the photo. The soldiers are pictured casually in a nondescript room.

School officials denied the photo on the grounds the guns in the picture violated district policy. Riecke's mother, Connie Riecke, appealed to district officials including Superintendent Kay Baker. Connie Riecke said she has not heard back from the district but was told that it probably could be displayed if she consented to having the weapons removed, via computer, from the photograph. Riecke said her son insists that it run as it is or not at all. She agrees with him.

"I don't think our school policies are meant to rewrite history. It doesn't make any sense to me," Connie Riecke said. "Are they going to go through every textbook and take out pictures of the Civil War that have soldiers carrying guns? Are they going to go through the library and take out all the Time magazines that feature soldiers with guns? I don't think so."

Connie Riecke said she understands the district's policy but thinks it should make an exception in this case.

"I want educators to be truthful," Riecke said. "This is a career choice, and children need to know that this is an important but dangerous job."

She believes that if the district allows military officers to recruit in high schools, it shouldn't conceal realistic images like the one of her son.

"It's a difficult issue for the district," Boucek said. "We'd be happy to honor her son and his service to our country, but it has to be a photo that's more appropriate for the classroom."

Boucek said an official portrait in dress uniform would work.

"We understand the girl's concerns, but our policy prohibits any display of weapons. This photo just isn't right for a classroom," Boucek said.

The district's caution is understandable, especially when earlier this week, a 16-year-old Minnesota student went on a shooting rampage at his high school, killing five students, a teacher and a security guard. He also killed his grandfather and the grandfather's companion before the attack at the high school, where he later killed himself.

This is a tough choice.

I don't believe that the minds of our high-school students are so malleable that they can be changed by the presence of a photograph, and sanitizing frightens me when government does it, so I wince if schools are doing the same.

But how do we know where to draw the line in this hot desert sand?

::)

 
I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.  I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.  If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.

The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.  How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.  I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.  The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.  I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.  I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.  Who here has?  Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?

Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.
 
Brad Sallows said:
I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.   I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.   If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.

The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.   How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.   I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.   The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.   I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.   I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.   Who here has?   Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?

Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.

Here, here!

Couldn't have said it better myself. :salute:
 
Infanteer said:
Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric.  As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).

Ok, you got me there. A little underhanded shot to those of you out there that are. You know who you are.

If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention".  If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?

Unfortunatly this is to simplistic. Yes, I have done so as well, but reducing payoffs is not going to reduce your crime very much. Those people who still need to feed their habits are still going to risk it.And yes, it is a form of prevention, but not a particularly efficent one.

Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).

Agreed. But since we are not just talking about reducing crime here, but crime commited with guns. We are always going to have that core of hardtimers who will not be able to be rehabilitated and thus need the time to fit the crime. But as I have stated before, most violent crime is based on one time flashes of anger/bad judgement. Add a gun to this and you have a more likely chance of death. I'm sure Bruce can attest to the majority of those in his attendance to this fact? One time stupid or bad decisions with a weapon. Maybe because of drugs or alchohol, who knows.

Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all.  I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend.  How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??

No doubt. There are many that deserve to stay in. Especially if Bruce works at a Max. However, the greater portion of the prison population are not in max nor are they lost cases. The chance of reoffending is high. Granted. So should we not let these people have another chance at leading some kind of normal life? My wife works as a correctional officer as well, so I have a bit of an idea.

The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry.  Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are.  That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.

Granted. It was to simplistic. However the point still stands that more police often make people wonder what is going on and "is this a dangerous place". It does affect the pychie.


As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts.  All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.

Agreed. I do think there are some things that need to be toughened up, including gun related crimes. As well, there should be tougher standards on some criminals when they appear before their NPB hearings. However, prevention still is the word of the day when it comes to all of this.


Are you going to back that?  More "junk food" here.  How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?

Good for them. Who the hell are they? The fact remains that guns (in whoevers hands) have the potential to kill. Period. Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone. Unless you want to revert to that of an african tribal way of ripping each other apart, and/or bashing each other on the heads with whose concealed bats?


As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada".  Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.

Agreed. However if you increase the "gun" culture to that of the US, then your more likely to have Billy doing just that. Canadians just don't think along those lines. Its not part of our national way of thinking. Change that, and you risk it happening more often. Will it "never" happen? Of course not. No one can say that.

You're the one who states that "Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."

Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear. I don't intentionally put myself into harms way by walking down dark alley's, nor through that blacked out park. Common sense. If I did, you bet I would have fear.

Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it?  Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general?  Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".

I can throw the same back at you. I'm hardly a sole authority on this, not can I make/change how people think. I can just voice my opinion on what they hold in their hands, not their heads.

Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue.  A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.

Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring.  This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.

No doubt. If they do so, then they should be charged for the crime and sent to prision. But I think your priorities (and John's) are a little screwed up here. Is a car worth a life? Is your wallet? If you equate an inanimate object the same value as a persons life, then what can I say? I just shake my head.

If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves).  You should be mindful that others may not share such a laissez faire attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.

As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object.

As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them. We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?

Okay - I'll just break out my copy of Das Kapital and do that tommorrow.  ::)

How are you going to do this?

As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences.  Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.

Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"?   I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.

You go do that. Let me know what you find out. I never said it was a magic pill. No such thing. There will always be criminals no matter what. However, think of the drop in crime if we did get rid of poverty? No need to sell drugs or body or both to pay the bills/feed the kid. Not as much dispair and drinking/drug use to kill the pain.

Will it work? If we put our minds to it.

Is it easy and will it solve all our problems? No way and maybe by half. There will still be plenty of rich folk who need white stuff to stuff up their noses and who are depressed beyond functioning. There will still be hard core nut cases who just need to commit violence. There will be plenty of people (rich and poor)who still want to make a fast buck illegally by selling the crap.

"Living in his shoes for a while"?  Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony?  It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".

Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line.  Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?

Not at all. Just that we should look at the underlieing problems of society and try to solve those problems instead of quick "blow their heads off"/"throw em jail" fixes. And since when is it an obligation as a citizen to protect themselves by harming/taking a life of another human being?

So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns.  I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:

"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."

I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").

Actually I find them quite fun myself. I'm a very good marksman and I find a slight rush and ego boost when I'm at the range and do well. However if it comes right down to it, I don't NEED handguns. Nor do I see a particular sence in them beyond their usefulness as a military/para military weapon. Citizens do not NEED them for anything beyond the "feeling" that they want one. Its a rush/ego boost. I'll post a message later with a few ideas that more principal for you.

Tell that to a victim of a violent crime.  If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here.  As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"

You bet. I'll let them know that in order to prevent that crime, they have taken another persons life. That person is now dead. Even if they are informed that the person was just wanting to steal their DVD player to sell it for drugs. Thus revenge or justice is satisfied. We'll see how they feel about that after it sinks in a bit. They just killed someone. Boy I think they'll have a party now.

Its more likely they'll realize the horror of what they have done, and will need a lot of professional help. If not, then I just shake my head.

The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested.  Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".

Maybe not all of them. But then I say you are closed minded and if you cannot understand the cause and effect of what it means to live in poverty, then you will never be part of a solution.

I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as "yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution".  Good job painting with a broad brush though.

Thank you. I was aiming at those who have scream thus. You Inf are always very reasonable with your arguments and I love debating with you.

As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data.  All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments.  You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy.  Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?

Granted. I will post another message later with some logical break down for you. However as I have said before. There are NO figures or stats out there without counters. So to fall on them is useless. Its just spouting figures that people can either ignore or refute.

And I believe that the person who quoted Grossman is seeing some of my points as valid.

Thanks
 
Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).  Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.  Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.  Get the picture?  If someone doesn't value his own life enough to take responsibility for it and avoid highly hazardous behaviours, why should I?

>Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone.

Sure.  Now prove the benefit is worth the cost.  How many people were killed and injured in the US last year during an exchange of gunfire between lawful carry permit holders over trivial matters, or no matter at all?
 
"As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object."

The life of my family is.  My life is.  Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?  Nope, his life isn't.
He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.  I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.  I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D

A man's home is his castle.

Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
Go ahead.  You won't will you?

No.  All Talk.

When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.  Because it won't work.  It goes against human nature.

Now, level with us Zipper.  This isn't about the guns, is it?  You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?

You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?

Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?

Tom
 
I wasn't going to post anymore but I can't help it.

Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear.

Either:

1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
2- You don't read the newspaper
3- You're willingly ignorant and/or dumb

Pick one (ok, 2 and 3 overlap).   If it's 1), please tell me where this is so I can find out if they need IT people there. Really, I mean it. I actually read the newspaper here. People get attacked, raped, and killed. It happens, it could happen to me or you, and I won't be the guy on page 6 saying â Å“I never thought it could happen to meâ ? making the HAF (Home Alone Face ;)).

I'm guessing you fit in to 3. You either choose to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or whenever you read them, you detach your reality from them in a clinical fashion.   I'll go with detaching yourself since you mentioned something about studying criminology. You actually live here to, and every time you read about a crime, remember that YOU or someone close to you could have been the victim. Boom, just like that; it can happen to anybody. If this doesn't get the wheels spinning in your head, you need to get it examined.

As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them.

You're argument that CCW would create an â Å“auxiliary police forceâ ? has already been debunked, please lay off it.

We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?

The only thing a person like me takes into his own hands is responsibility for himself, his actions, and his life. For example, if I get into a car accident, I blame myself; things can almost always be prevented if you pay attention. I would carry a gun for that 1% of times I can't prevent bad things from happening to me. It would seem you, on the other hand, would prefer to offset all of your major responsibilities to someone else; that is a piss poor way to live your life if you ask me, and is the major reason why our society is slowly breaking down.  

Wanting to arm myself with more then my car keys is not about machismo. If you ever choose to understand what it means to be responsible for yourself you'll start to realize that you're ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself alive. And once you actually start to â Å“play outâ ? the worst case scenarios (i.e. someone trying to kill you) you'll quickly realize that your odds of survival diminish greatly when you are unarmed. I don't like taking chances, I like stacking the odds in my favor, all the time, and for the likely as well as the unlikely possibilities. Spare tire? Check. Fire Extinguisher? Check. Backup of my hard drive? Check. Credit card number written down in case they get stolen? Check. Means of self-defense? ... uh well, if I have time to call 911, they might get there after I'm dead.

All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: I'm a pragmatist and a libertarian and you're a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.   Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.

I'm looking for a headhunter in the US that does IT jobs and tech visas. Anybody know a good one?
 
Not yet.  Too bad they don't need fifty year old soon-to-be-retired-Crewmen.  ;D

Tom
 
Ok, I cannot help but laugh.

Infanteer - Ok you haven't said anything. And I admit I threw out that shot about radical and all, but you have to admit these last few posts above about commie and facist are rather funny. ::)

Brad Sallows said:
Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).   Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.   Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.  

Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

TCBF said:
The life of my family is.   My life is.   Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?   Nope, his life isn't.
He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.   I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.   I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D

A man's home is his castle.

No argument there. And I'm surprised you are able to show so much restraint. Good for you.

Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
Go ahead.   You won't will you?

No.   All Talk.

Actually if they had one, I would think about it. It could go right beside the neighboorhood watch and the "I use green power" signs.

When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.   Because it won't work.   It goes against human nature.

Human nature? LOL!! Is that right up there with God given rights? As Captain Kirk said, "I choose not to kill...              ...today." that is what separates us from our barbarian ancestors.

Now, level with us Zipper.   This isn't about the guns, is it?   You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?

You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?

Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?

LOL. You didn't read did you? I could have swore I posted that I considered myself a small c conservative. You know? Fiscal responsiblity, strong military, good government, healthy social programs?

Guess thats to far left for you and rw4th eh?

rw4th said:
Either:

1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
2- You donâ ™t read the newspaper
3- Youâ ™re willingly ignorant and/or dumb

Pick one (ok, 2 and 3 overlap).   If itâ ™s 1), please tell me where this is so I can find out if they need IT people there. Really, I mean it. I actually read the newspaper here. People get attacked, raped, and killed. It happens, it could happen to me or you, and I wonâ ™t be the guy on page 6 saying "I never thought it could happen to meâ Â? making the HAF (Home Alone Face ;)).

Iâ ™m guessing you fit in to 3. You either choose to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or whenever you read them, you detach your reality from them in a clinical fashion.   Iâ ™ll go with detaching yourself since you mentioned something about studying criminology. You actually live here to, and every time you read about a crime, remember that YOU or someone close to you could have been the victim. Boom, just like that; it can happen to anybody. If this doesnâ ™t get the wheels spinning in your head, you need to get it examined.

Actually if you have read my posts, I was born and raised in T.O. Spent most of my life there and now I'm out west. Never lived in a small town, never want too. Read the paper every day and watch the news too. I find the BBC is usually the most objective, how bout you? I bet you watch CNN and Fox don't you?

All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: Iâ ™m a pragmatist and a libertarian and youâ ™re a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.   Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.

Thats obvious. And which fact does not support which law? As for my opinions. They are that. Opinions. Which is what this board and thread are all about. But I guess disagreement is not what you came here for? I have no problem with those who disagree. In fact I disagreed with lots of things when I first came here, but with good points and facts, I changed my mind on a number of issues. I think Infanteer could vouch for that. As for more people thinking like me. My god I hope not. Although being in the majority from time to time does feel good. ;D

Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.

Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.

Lets break it down shall we?

Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).

Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.

Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.

Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.

Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.

There you have it.

Why do I call these unnecassary? Because other then someone wanting, collecting (a form of want), one. There is no practical need for them at all. There up there with the need to smoke. There is no need and it can kill you or someone else who doesn't want to die.

They are simply there as a want. I want to protect myelf? Well, use your head and build a panic room if your that scared.

I want one because this is a free country and I may one day need it to defend myself against the government. Ok? Maybe 200 years ago this would have washed. But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.

Thanks

;)

For those who are looking to go south?

Bon Voyage!
 
MCG said:
This has gone stupid.

Agreed.

I've said my peace. The agreement is to disagree (Although I would like to hear from Infanteer. ;D). Except on the original question. The registry should be shut down. Waste of money.

Thanks
 
Well, there you go.

Zipper:

1. Good work with the small c, neighbourhood watch, and the green outlook.  Keep it up.

2. I will not interfere with your right NOT to possess articles of property collectively known as firearms, if you do not interfere with my right TO possess such articles of property.

There.

I realize that no data, history, studies or stories will ever change your mind, so that's that.  Good luck, and if you do ever come around to our way of thinking, I hope it is through calm reflection and not personal trauma.

I am taking a few of my FN rifles to the range this week, I'll let you know how much fun I had after I get back.

:)

Tom
 
Zipper said:
Ok, I cannot help but laugh.

Well don't feel bad where all laughing at you so you may as well join along.

Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

Recoil?   I know it is a poor answer - but if someone was coming to cause myself or my family harm - tap tap.   My biggest concern is not allowing my son to see the body and finding a steam cleaner at that hour of the night.


Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.

Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.

Sports?   I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...

Lets break it down shall we?

Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).

This should be neat...   ::)

Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.

Well firstly most LE departments are putting Rifles INTO cars - why handguns are an ineffective tool - Rifles kill.

Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.

Firstly PLEASE show me where the Geneva Convention deals with this...    I woudl hazard a educated guess you actually meant the Hague Convention - in which the rules of Land Warfare are encompassed?   -- I figured you did - so I enclosed this link so you can read them -   http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art23 and please do try to find the issue on shotguns, HINT you won't.   We (yes the CF) use shotguns so get off your incorrectly assumed moral high horse.


Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.

Other than they are concealable and a good secondary weapon, nothing you state above is true.   Mines kill many more non military deaths - Oh but they are banned   ::).   Olympic pistol events?   Service Pistol etc...    and LEGAL personal protection.

Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.

I am not even goign to comment on this - you sound like some half retarded reporter.

There you have it.

You are RTFO.   I really dont know if you truly beleive this, or just like to spout BS for the sake of making someone who has done a small semblance of research look like a honour student?

But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.

No it does not - what it means is I dont have to pay any attention to the fact that your an oxygen thief.   The only restriction on my freedoms are when they specifically interfer or endanger you.   I have a RIGHT to own guns - However I cannot discharge them AT you, my rights end at your nose...



 
Sports?  I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...

Heh, I've always wondered why gunowners need to find justification for owning guns besides killing people. Isn't killing people good enough? Its the only reason I've ever needed,, so if an intruder breaks into my house with the intent of harming me or my family or even my property, I can KILL him. Why is that such a bad thing? It's certainly a more noble reason than punching holes in paper or the senseless slaughter of innocent, defenceless wildlife. Guess that's why gun haters  seem to think I'm from Mars.

Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.
 
"Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol"

Variety is the spice of life.

Tom
 
Britney Spears said:
Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.

I totally disagree - the discipline it takes to master those sports, makes for a very effective pupil for more military related shooting sports.

If the shooters have the fundamentals mastered it is much easier to have them step out of flash fire CQB drills - and when you tell them to take a 'tactical breath' and release the shot for more precise shooting, they fall into it way better than those who have not gotten a excellent grip on the fundamentals.



 
I was going to play the response game, but after trying to find a cohesive counter-argument from Zipper and failing to do so, I realized that it was not worth the energy to take the time to respond to someone who only argues my posts with "junk food" (lots of fluff with no value) posts like "More Guns = More Crime", "Handguns are made to kill people", "Most Crime is committed in the heat of the moment", or "Crime is due to poverty" or (my favorite) "Who the Hell are the Gebusi" (which indicates that you don't even want to consider that I might be correct about a weak correlation between firearms and crime).

All of this is said without the slightest inclination to prove that you aren't getting your information from watching Heat (to quote A Majoor).  I'm starting to suspect that your failure to provide a reasonable counterargument in about 15 pages is just trolling.  If it ain't trolling, then you're not listening or you don't want to give me anything to consider that can be grounded upon a realistic and cohesive premise (one that you're willing to back with evidence).

I can see there is no point in debating property rights (which is what the real issue of a CCW revolves around) and criminal statistics (which isn't really related at all, since Criminals can't have them) with someone who doesn't seem to have any grasp for debate at all.

I'll leave this with Art's post concerning the last spin-cycle of this thread, which seems to fit both gun ownership in general and (by extention) a CCW and robust self defence ROE for Canadian citizens.  If you don't think people in Canada can live with individual responsibility, then cover your eyes....

a_majoor said:
Skimming this thread it seems no one is willing to back down. The arguments for banning guns are the same lame ones we hear over and over, but assertions about property rights, comparative rates of crime in gun owning and gun free societies, the utility of various sorts of firearms, rocket launchers, artillery pieces(?) do not seem to be making any impact.

I will offer a few observations in the interest of venting (and pushing my posting count, but that is an altogether different matter  ;D)

1. People do own and use firearms recreational, even military weapons like HMGs. At the really big gun conventions, there are usually days set aside where the big iron is brought out, and owners either fire themselves or let you do it for a price. Some indoor ranges also have submachinegun rentals, and/or allow you to bring malfunctioning houshold appliances or obsolete computers to the range to use as targets. (Working in IT myself, I fully understand that impulse.) Other people go to Oshkosh every summer for the big airshow to see and maybe fly the latest in homebuilt aircraft, or Daytona Beach for motorcycle week, or Detroit for the auto show....people are interested in different things, and it is not up to you or I to decide what they should or should not do. I can suggest a few hobbies I find interesting, and you are free to partake or not.

2. Lots of activities are inherently dangerous. The more danger you potentially pose, the more you need to demonstrate your fitness. Driving an 18 wheeler requires a different licence than driving a car. A pilots licence needs even more rigorous testing (ever thought about the kinetic energy of an airplane moving at @ 300kph?)We currently have FACs to demonstrate suitability to own firearms.

3. There are bigger and better things than "recreational mortars" out there. "Pumpkin chucking" usually involves replicas of ancient and medieval catapults, Batista and trebuchets. Substitute a large rock or javelin, and you have a real war machine capable of smashing houses. Should we ban pumpkin chucking too?

4. Banning rifles to keep them out of the hands of criminals can only be a result of seeing the movie "Heat" too many times. Although the gunfight scene is spectacular, in the real world criminals do not pull AK-47s from under their sweater, because it is too hard to support (ammunition) and too hard to conceal. Pistols are much preferred, Knives are better because they are easier to get, and locally procured materials (a broken bottle, piece of lumber or a pair of Doc Martins) is best of all. I have been assaulted, always by bad guys using local materials, never with knives and certainly never with a gun.

Banning guns and the Gun Registry are solutions looking for a problem. They target law abiding citizens, yet do nothing at all to reduce criminal activity. Indeed, I believe there was an article in the National Post which pointed out the murder rate in Canada has risen since the passage of the Gun Registry bill. If I had to guess at the causal connection, it would be the diversion of one billion (or more) dollars from policing to go to a gesture.

In the end, if you cannot or will not take responsibility for your own actions, then you should not be entrusted with firearms, or a driver's licence or anything else. Property ownership is the practial expression of your political rights, so attempts to restrict property ownership are fundimentally attempts to restrict your rights.
 
And of course this week, I received my SAP (Special Authority to Posess), that allows me to take my FN rifles to the range, only the SAP just goes to the end of MAY, because there are some "changes" coming, and in this business change is always BAD.  So that leaves me several weekends to burn out the barrels on my two C1s and three L1A1s.  I'll start Saturday.  Photos will follow.  Time to cash in the RRSPs for .308 hardball, I guess.

Bastards.

Tom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top