Canadian Blue Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I know someone would say this. But seriously, think about that for a second. Cars have one purpose, transport. They ultimately serve a far great purpose in society. Guns were also conceived for only one purpose; an efficient means of killing. Beyond that....??? In that case why don't we ban Tim Hortons, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Bikes, Motor Boats, Trans Fats, Candy, and any other item that we don't believe serve a great purpose in society. The benefit with a firearm is that you can use it for hunting, self defence, and pleasure. I don't know. Do you? If you don't know then why did you automatically assume that if you flipped the bird to someone you'd get shot in the head? Really? Why so? Because people in the District of Columbia, New York City, and Chicago, have seen their share of drive by shootings. Explain please. And while your at it, explain how your fear of threats lurking everywhere and your desire to play armed avenger are not "based on emotions"? You keep on going on and on about how any person who wants to own a firearm wants to play "armed avenger." That's an appeal to emotion, not an actual argument for why all guns should be banned in society. A better question is why you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves in a home invasion if that were to ever happen. If you're logic did hold true then one would expect that shootouts would occur on a regular basis in New Hampshire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Why can't a law abiding citizen arm themselves as well as the criminals do? That's the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 drivers are irrational after all! Part of the reason I no longer own a vehicle and take the bus to work My stress levels have never been lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 A better question is why you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves in a home invasion if that were to ever happen. Our laws need to change to reflect just this scenario. It most certainly will not be easy.Probably best left for another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) Guns were conceived for survival by allowing one to shoot game thus ensuring ones family ate meat. i.e. Efficiency in killing. And no, they were not CREATED for said purpose. Apart from those living in the wild, most of humanity had already domesticated animals for consumption. They were created to help one kill in war. Not to mention for sport ie racing. Just like cars, guns are used for sporting purposes. Again, no. The sporting use, in both cases was a secondary appropriation, but not their purpose. A gun never killed anyone. We all know. But it sure made the act of far easier. Those that enjoy sport shooting, hunting and the like should not be lumped with criminal use of guns. I agree. I don't oppose guns in general. I only oppose the idea of civilians carrying concealed hand guns, which clearly have no use in either hunting nor sport shooting. The emotional aspect of your argument is you just dont like guns. Again, the idea of concealed, widely available handguns. To be honest, I was thinking of a recreational shooting course and membership and may eventually do so. Edited December 16, 2008 by marcinmoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) A better question is why you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves in a home invasion if that were to ever happen. Fair enough. But if that is your sole reason, than what would having the right to carry a concealed handgun accomplish? Would your standard hunting rifle not suffice? But than again, what if the Russians attack. Why shouldn't I be able to acquire a nice RPG or SAM launcher? Why can't a law abiding citizen arm themselves as well as the criminals do? Criminals shouldn't be able to. But if guns become more widespread on the open market, rest assured that criminal elements will have a much easier time doing so on the black market. The benefit with a firearm is that you can use it for hunting, self defence, and pleasure. Feel free to "pleasure" yourself, but in either a designated environment, or with a rifle. How a CCW'd handgun will "pleasure" you at work or on the subway is beyond me (and I would strongly recommend discussing that with your doctor). They would likely happen with or without a ban on guns, Back to M.Dancers question, where did these guns come from? You keep on going on and on about how any person who wants to own a firearm wants to play "armed avenger." That's an appeal to emotion, not an actual argument for why all guns should be banned in society a. How? You've yet to explain. How is my faith in the law and law-enforcement agencies an appeal to emotion. b. Read. I don't care for the banning of guns in general. I care about CCW and ease of access to handguns. Edited December 16, 2008 by marcinmoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 either a designated environment, or with a rifle. Back to M.Dancers question, where did these guns come from? I've lost track....what was my question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Back to M.Dancers question, where did these guns come from? The factory, and gun running. However rest assured even if we were to stop manufacturing weapons in North America I'm sure some will find a way in from Russia and China. a. How? You've yet to explain. How is my faith in the law and law-enforcement agencies an appeal to emotion. Interestingly enough I have an application in the process with a law enforcement agency right now. However their is a simple reason why, the police aren't everywhere. In my stomping grounds response time could range from 10 minutes to well over an hour depending on the conditions. I have full faith in law enforcement, however I recognize that LE can't be counted on at all times, especially if god forbid an entire community were to erupt into mass chaos. b. Read. I don't care for the banning of guns in general. I care about CCW and ease of access to handguns. That's a decent argument, however the current situation in Canada is far different. CCW isn't even an issue, especially when the current opposition party is seeking to put bans on more and more weapons, including semi-automatic rifles. At the very least can you agree to the idea that a person should be able to own a handgun for protection of their home if they see it fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 The factory, and gun running. However rest assured even if we were to stop manufacturing weapons in North America I'm sure some will find a way in from Russia and China.Interestingly enough I have an application in the process with a law enforcement agency right now. However their is a simple reason why, the police aren't everywhere. In my stomping grounds response time could range from 10 minutes to well over an hour depending on the conditions. I have full faith in law enforcement, however I recognize that LE can't be counted on at all times, especially if god forbid an entire community were to erupt into mass chaos. That's a decent argument, however the current situation in Canada is far different. CCW isn't even an issue, especially when the current opposition party is seeking to put bans on more and more weapons, including semi-automatic rifles. At the very least can you agree to the idea that a person should be able to own a handgun for protection of their home if they see it fit. One family weapon per house hold.. Be it a lead filled sawed off bat - or a knife tucked away to ward off the rare but possible inturder - but you must be skilled with the weapon and it must never be brandished but kept out of sight and knowledge - A gun is the same - first as far as home protection - never allow anyone to know there is one in the house hold (legal gun of course) - that help to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands - and lastly - have the mindset of a peace officer who can proudly say - " I have never had to draw my gun during my 30 years on the force." Those who can not handle themselves in a physical confrontation or those that can not defuse an attacker verbally - should not have a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 or a knife tucked away to ward off the rare but possible inturder Do you think a knife would be effective in preventing one of those home invasion defecations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 (edited) Top most violent cities in the US as of 2007 census (100,000 people /cases) Bluffton SC Detroit MI St Louis MO Memphis TN Oakland CA Baltimore MA Atlanta GA Miami FL Philly PA Cleveland OH Stockton CA Milwaukee WI Washington DC Buffalo NY Toledo Ohio Overall Crime rate Detroit MI Baltimore MA St Louis MO Newark NJ Washington DC The one interesting thing about the top 5 cities in overall crime rate. HIGHLY and I mean HIGHLY LIBERAL areas. Also Texas does not have a city till 18 Edited December 20, 2008 by moderateamericain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Fair enough. But if that is your sole reason, than what would having the right to carry a concealed handgun accomplish? Would your standard hunting rifle not suffice?a. How? You've yet to explain. How is my faith in the law and law-enforcement agencies an appeal to emotion. b. Read. I don't care for the banning of guns in general. I care about CCW and ease of access to handguns. Criminals have guns and will always get guns. Even if the destroyed all the guns in the US and stopped making them people would just smuggle them in like cocaine. Guns will always be available. Handguns are easy for criminals to get already. With a CCW it wouldn't make it any easier for a citizen to get a handgun. They would still need a valid FAC and firearms safety course as they do now. Plus an additional CCW permit which would include further safety and use instruction. They would be restricted from the same places they are in the US such as anywhere that serves alcohol or where kids are, etc. We, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves by use of reasonable force. Many rapes and murders would have most likely been prevented if the young women or old lady was carrying a small caliber handgun in their handbag. If the thug is going to use unreasonable force to rape and/or kill me or mine I'd like to be able to legally return the favor in defending myself. Hardly ever do you hear of an upstanding citizen who has registered guns killing over drug debts. Or using his legal guns to partake in a home invasion. Or to rape a young lady at gunpoint. Or to kill a young family in the parking lot of the local WalMart. If you don't like guns then don't own any and don't get a CCW permit but don't tell me that I cannot defend my property or my family. That is my responsibility to decide how and when I need to take action not yours. All the places that have brought in CCW permits have seen drastic reductions in crime. Is this because all of the CCW permit holders are turning into Charlie Bronsons at night and killing all the thugs in sight? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 (edited) Criminals have guns and will always get guns. Even if the destroyed all the guns in the US and stopped making them people would just smuggle them in like cocaine. Guns will always be available.Handguns are easy for criminals to get already. With a CCW it wouldn't make it any easier for a citizen to get a handgun. They would still need a valid FAC and firearms safety course as they do now. Plus an additional CCW permit which would include further safety and use instruction. They would be restricted from the same places they are in the US such as anywhere that serves alcohol or where kids are, etc. We, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves by use of reasonable force. Many rapes and murders would have most likely been prevented if the young women or old lady was carrying a small caliber handgun in their handbag. If the thug is going to use unreasonable force to rape and/or kill me or mine I'd like to be able to legally return the favor in defending myself. Hardly ever do you hear of an upstanding citizen who has registered guns killing over drug debts. Or using his legal guns to partake in a home invasion. Or to rape a young lady at gunpoint. Or to kill a young family in the parking lot of the local WalMart. If you don't like guns then don't own any and don't get a CCW permit but don't tell me that I cannot defend my property or my family. That is my responsibility to decide how and when I need to take action not yours. All the places that have brought in CCW permits have seen drastic reductions in crime. Is this because all of the CCW permit holders are turning into Charlie Bronsons at night and killing all the thugs in sight? I don't think so. The same thought process for gay marriage should be the same process for gun control and CCW. Its none of our darn business how people choose to live there lives. Edited December 20, 2008 by moderateamericain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 The same thought process for gay marriage should be the same process for gun control and CCW. Its none of our darn business how people choose to live there lives. Nice strawman btw. This is a gun control thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) Criminals have guns and will always get guns No. Here, most DO NOT. They are too hard and too pricey to come by (luckily). And remember, almost all illegal guns start off legal. Guns will always be available. Not at relatively low prices. Supply- Demand & Price elasticity. Geez. All the places that have brought in CCW permits have seen drastic reductions in crime Like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, etc? Many rapes and murders would have most likely been prevented if the young women or old lady was carrying a small caliber handgun in their handbag. So big cities with high handgun ownership rates have lower levels of rape? So why than does Canada have lower incidence of rape than the U.S? They would be restricted from the same places they are in the US such as anywhere that serves alcohol or where kids are, etc. Convenient. Now thugs can simply wait outside hospitals, schools and bars to rob people. Nurses watch out. If you don't like guns then don't own any and don't get a CCW permit but don't tell me that I cannot defend my property or my family You don't get it, do you? I don't know you, and for all I know, you could be a rapist or a goof and have yet to act on your urges. Maybe you walk in on your significant other cheating and do something out of anger. Or you could be mentally stable now, pass the appropriate tests, and one month later, loose your marbles, or have never been diagnosed or confined. Wasn't the Virginia Tech Massacre with a legal weapon? In other words, how do I know that you want to use said gun for defensive rather than offensive purposes. I don't. And thus, I see your carrying of a handgun in the open to be more a THREAT to me and my family. And yes, eliminating threats to my loved ones DOES concern me. Edited December 21, 2008 by marcinmoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) No. Here, most DO NOT. They are too hard and too pricey to come by (luckily). And remember, almost all illegal guns start off legal. This is utterly false and absurd that you actually believe this. Most of the guns on our streets are smuggled in from the USA. That is a fact. Why do you think no one is backing you up Convenient. Now thugs can simply wait outside hospitals, schools and bars to rob people. Nurses watch out. You don't get it, do you? I don't know you, and for all I know, you could be a rapist or a goof and have yet to act on your urges. Maybe you walk in on your significant other cheating and do something out of anger. Or you could be mentally stable now, pass the appropriate tests, and one month later, loose your marbles, or have never been diagnosed or confined. Wasn't the Virginia Tech Massacre with a legal weapon? If you cannot argue properly then just leave MLW. There is no place here to personally attack me cause you, seemingly, cannot control your temper. In other words, how do I know that you want to use said gun for defensive rather than offensive purposes. I don't. And thus, I see your carrying of a handgun in the open to be more a THREAT to me and my family. And yes, eliminating threats to my loved ones DOES concern me. Again just because people have a 'Right to Carry' doesn't mean that we turn into Charlie Bronson nation. Almost every state has RtC laws and you don't see upstanding citizens offing each other. You see gang bangers killing each other and victimizing the normal citizens. By denying the RtC it makes society a society of victims. Let's allow people decide for themselves how and to what degree they can defend themselves and their families. The rest of your post I ignored and dismissed as bizarre and strange therefore needed no comment. Edited December 21, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 (edited) No. Here, most DO NOT. They are too hard and too pricey to come by (luckily).And remember, almost all illegal guns start off legal. This is so false as to be laughable. I don't know about you but I can assure you that if I wanted to I could go out now and be back in a few hours with a sawn off 12 gauge or 9 mil that are illegal. These weapons are pretty easy to obtain if you know where to go and have the money, most of the time they're cheaper than buying them legally. As for the rest of your post I just don't have the time or inclination right now to address so many fallacies and misconceptions, lets just say that you're way out in left field and leave it at that. Edited December 21, 2008 by AngusThermopyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted December 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 Well, when Harper becomes a majority registering Rifles and Shotguns goes the way of the dinosaur! People have the right to own guns for hunting and sport why the hell should the Government have a right to take away people's firearms for hunting and Sport shooting.... that is a dictatorship i believe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 Why can't a law abiding citizen arm themselves as well as the criminals do?That's the question. Probably because the politicians know the Canadian public won't stand for it. Its as much a non-starter as outlawing abortion. Gun control in some way shape or form is a reality that will exist forever in this country and its time to embrace that horror. The best thing gun owners can hope for is fewer events that galvanize the public's call for tightening those controls. The question is how to achieve that. I would suggest that voting for parties that insist on maintaining prohibition and the war on drugs has definitely worked against the interests of gun owners. Why Libertarians insist on shooting themselves in the foot by voting for socially conservative parties is a fascinating mystery to me. Why fiscal conservatives have anything to do with the so-cons is another. The only thing more utopian than left-wing social engineering is right-wing moral engineering. The latter is even more futile if not expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 (edited) This is utterly false and absurd that you actually believe this. Most of the guns on our streets are smuggled in from the USA. That is a fact. Why do you think no one is backing you up Wow. You must of thought long & hard on that one. You too Angus. By and large, those guns were bought legally. Whether they end up as illegal firearms in either the American, or Canadian black markets is irrelevant. The point is they were legally acquired. There is no place here to personally attack me cause you, seemingly, cannot control your temper. Is there anything in those hypothetical, yet relevant scenarios that you took personally? ----------------------- As for the rest of your post I just don't have the time or inclination right now to address so many fallacies and misconceptions, lets just say that you're way out in left field and leave it at that. Intellectually riveting, Angus, from the Anne Coulther school of debating. P.S. Do you know what inclination means? ------------------------- Should people be allowed to own RPGs, SAMs all in the name of "self defence" (or pleasure for some) Edited December 22, 2008 by marcinmoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Nice strawman btw. This is a gun control thread. Actual it isnt. Not allowing gay people to marry because its taboo and because of health risk is the same thing as not allowing people to own guns. The same thought process of we know better than you applies. For example "Gays spread aids which is deadly, stop gay marriage." "Guns Kill people, ban guns" Both thought process take away an individuals right to think for themselves. We are saying (as a society) We can not trust you to make the best decision for yourself, so we will make it for you. That is the crux of the argument, its not about guns or Marriage, its about controling your population. And that is why I argue against gun control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 We are saying (as a society) We can not trust you to make the best decision for yourself, so we will make it for you. That is the crux of the argument, its not about guns or Marriage, its about controling your population. And that is why I argue against gun control. Why don't you and everyone else including me go after the freakin' crux then? I argue against prohibition because its about controlling the population. Gays argue against SSM legislation because its about controlling the population. Society is saying it does not want to be controlled. The entire population it seems is saying this. Controlling the population doesn't work...Never did, Never will! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Intellectually riveting, Angus, from the Anne Coulther school of debating. P.S. Do you know what inclination means? Actually I do know what inclination means, how about you? It's almost Christmas and I, unlike you apparently, do not have a lot of time to waste on the Forums right now. Lots of visitors and parties, they take a higher priority than answering some foolish post. Therefore I'm far more inclined to spend time socially with people rather than waste it here. Do you need a further explanation? If you do then don't hold your breath waiting because I'm too busy for your juvenile baiting and posturing right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Why don't you and everyone else including me go after the freakin' crux then?I argue against prohibition because its about controlling the population. Gays argue against SSM legislation because its about controlling the population. Society is saying it does not want to be controlled. The entire population it seems is saying this. Controlling the population doesn't work...Never did, Never will! I dont know if your being obtuse or agreeing with me. No emotional tone to written word. In a democratic or in a Republic (which i prefer) You do not control your population by restricting their freedoms. Same sex marriage is not an epidemic nor is Gun violence. You want to restric an epidemic? Go restrict Cancer sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 I dont know if your being obtuse or agreeing with me. No emotional tone to written word.In a democratic or in a Republic (which i prefer) You do not control your population by restricting their freedoms. Same sex marriage is not an epidemic nor is Gun violence. I wonder why our so-called anti-gun registry Conservative government insists that gun violence IS an epidemic then? Anytime I get close to the crux of the issue it seems to change. You want to restric an epidemic? Go restrict Cancer sticks. Exactly my sentiments too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.