wyly Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's not red herring, it's called perspective. The fact is drunk driving kills more people a year than gun violence. Smoking kills more people than gun violence. Cancer kills more than all of that combined. So this is a tragedy, yes. But when you think about it, it's not a big concern. I did not say they were not important. It's just that there are other things that kill people more than guns. And more people have those items than guns. enough of these silly weak analogies and deflections.... guns are purposely designed to KILL, they have no other purpose, their use in that fashion is not an accident it is deliberate... cars were purposely designed as transport not weapons, rarely are they used as weapons, deaths caused by cars are almost entirely accidental... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 The UN can impose more than you think. Think of some of the global entities like WHO, and WTO. The UN did not impose either of these organizations. What kind of crazy paranoia are you spouting??? Countries voluntarily negotiated and signed on to the WTO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) enough of these silly weak analogies and deflections.... guns are purposely designed to KILL, they have no other purpose... cars were purposely designed as transport not weapons, rarely are they used as weapons, deaths caused by cars are almost entirely accidental... I have seen MANY competition firearms that were purposely designed to shoot holes in paper. I believe there's silly, weak insinuation and over simplifying of facts going on from both sides of this argument. Edited July 24, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 enough of these silly weak analogies and deflections.... guns are purposely designed to KILL, they have no other purpose, their use in that fashion is not an accident it is deliberate... cars were purposely designed as transport not weapons, rarely are they used as weapons, deaths caused by cars are almost entirely accidental... What would you call it when someone gets killed by street racers or a drunk. Accidental? They weren't intentionally trying to kill anyone. Not all guns are designed to kill humans, most that are specifically designed for that purpose are either restricted or banned. Quite a few firearms deaths are accidental. But that aside, using anything to deliberately kill is not an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 enough of these silly weak analogies and deflections.... guns are purposely designed to KILL, they have no other purpose, their use in that fashion is not an accident it is deliberate... Sure guns are designed to kill things. But a gun cannot act alone. Someone has to handle the gun in order for it to become dangerous. So do you ban guns, or put in more education on safe use of firearms? They are not deflections or analogies. This is reality. I personally know someone that should not have a firearm in his hand, but he got hired on as a police officer back in my hometown and was issued one. He has already been in trouble for assault and drunk driving. He has wrecked his own car and damaged two police cruisers because of the drink. So how does one prevent that kind of thing from going horribly wrong? And with the culture of police covering for each other when they break the law, how do you combat against that kind of stuff? One day he is going to be involved in something horrible where another person will die at his hands, will you blame guns or the person who had the gun in their hand? Would you treat the death of someone by a police firearm different from that of a death by a firearm owned by a citizen? And this does not even begin to address the issue of illegal firearms and deaths related to that. cars were purposely designed as transport not weapons, rarely are they used as weapons, deaths caused by cars are almost entirely accidental... And the result of accidental or intentional is death. Do you ban cars? No you educate on safe driving and not being an idiot and not to be intoxicated while behind the wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Sure guns are designed to kill things. But a gun cannot act alone. Someone has to handle the gun in order for it to become dangerous. So do you ban guns, or put in more education on safe use of firearms? They are not deflections or analogies. This is reality. I personally know someone that should not have a firearm in his hand, but he got hired on as a police officer back in my hometown and was issued one. He has already been in trouble for assault and drunk driving. He has wrecked his own car and damaged two police cruisers because of the drink. So how does one prevent that kind of thing from going horribly wrong? And with the culture of police covering for each other when they break the law, how do you combat against that kind of stuff? One day he is going to be involved in something horrible where another person will die at his hands, will you blame guns or the person who had the gun in their hand? Would you treat the death of someone by a police firearm different from that of a death by a firearm owned by a citizen? And this does not even begin to address the issue of illegal firearms and deaths related to that. And the result of accidental or intentional is death. Do you ban cars? No you educate on safe driving and not being an idiot and not to be intoxicated while behind the wheel. you can't educate an alcoholic not to drive, even if they kill someone with their car while drunk the car is still not a weapon and they never meant anyone deliberate harm...now you suggest educating criminals in the safe use of firearms? do you think they'll show up to safety classes with their illegal weapons they'll never be given a permit to own? do you think they actually care about innocent victims they shoot when they're attempting to murder some one with their purposely built weapons of death?... I can just picture your fantasy scenario...criminals tossing aside their guns because they've had lessons in gun safety and know it's irresponsible to shoot rivals in neighbourhood BBQ's...yup that'll happen for sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) now you suggest educating criminals in the safe use of firearms? do you think they'll show up to safety classes with their illegal weapons they'll never be given a permit to own? Of course not... that's exactly the point. The only people who are at all affected by stricter gun laws and more restrictions are law abiding owners who do not contribute at all to the problem. Stricter gun control laws will have no influence on the motives of criminals who use guns in crimes. This will not contribute one bit to the solution to the problem of criminal gun violence. There are two separate groups when it comes to people who posses guns, legal owners and illegal owners. You cannot lump the two groups together. We already have laws in place that address illegal gun ownership and crime committed with illegal guns. If you think that tougher laws in this category may be the solution, I can support that. But throwing more laws and regulations on the shoulders of the group who contribute nothing to the problem is counter-productive and punitive to law-abiding people who use guns as a tool, or enjoy them for recreation. Edited July 24, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Of course not... that's exactly the point. The only people who are at all affected by stricter gun laws and more restrictions are law abiding owners who do not contribute at all to the problem. Stricter gun control laws will have no influence on the motives of criminals who use guns in crimes. This will not contribute one bit to the solution to the problem of criminal gun violence. so now you're claiming all laws are ineffectual?...that's bogus...criminals do consider laws before they commit crimes, they decide if the risk/gain is worth the potential punishment if caught...in the case of criminals we need to increase the risk for them and restrict their ability to acquire weapons... for law abiding "nut cases" we need to restrict the amount of damage they can do...if we can't identify the "nut cases" then we need to restrict the types of weapons that can cause havoc on a large scale ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 you can't educate an alcoholic not to drive, even if they kill someone with their car while drunk the car is still not a weapon and they never meant anyone deliberate harm... It's called involuntary manslaughter here in Canada and can get you life in prison. A drunk drivers retarded decisions/actions resulted in another person's death. Has stricter laws for drunk driving reduce the number of incidents? Or will better education result in fewer deaths? now you suggest educating criminals in the safe use of firearms? do you think they'll show up to safety classes with their illegal weapons they'll never be given a permit to own? do you think they actually care about innocent victims they shoot when they're attempting to murder some one with their purposely built weapons of death?... You are changing it up here. First it was legal gun owners, and now you are talking about illegal gun owners. And of course you cannot educate criminals, it's why we call them criminals. 'Dad I want to go into organized crime'. 'Well son, would that be private sector or government?' I can just picture your fantasy scenario...criminals tossing aside their guns because they've had lessons in gun safety and know it's irresponsible to shoot rivals in neighbourhood BBQ's...yup that'll happen for sure... Neither your scenario or mine will reduce the amount of deaths related to illegal gun owners. The rules only hinder legit gun owners. Taking away the guns won't solve that either. The criminals will simply use something else as a weapon. And if I am to protect myself against illegal and legit gun owners with a chip on their shoulder, I want to make sure I am packing, and that I get the first round off. My father used to have several hunting rifles. He had stored them properly locked up in a cabinet, with trigger locks, and the ammo was locked in another box inside the cabinet. All the rules and regulations made it more of a hassle for him to properly adhere to the law. So he gave them up. The more laws simply piss off legit gun owners who do everything to try and abide by the law. The criminal element will never adhere to any regulation. So no matter a gun or any other weapon, you are still faced with the same problem, people are going to die. Less guns will result in less deaths related to guns. Deaths related to other weapons would increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 so now you're claiming all laws are ineffectual? I didn't say that, but you implied that this particular law is innefectual when you admitted that criminals will not adhere to gun laws but law abiding citizens will. As I said, we have laws in place that deal with people who choose to use guns to commit crimes. Maybe making these laws, and more importantly, the consequences of breaking them tougher may make a difference. in the case of criminals we need to increase the risk for them and restrict their ability to acquire weapons... I agree, if you are talking about the weapons that are mainly used by criminals...illegal weapons. if we can't identify the "nut cases" then we need to restrict the types of weapons that can cause havoc on a large scale ... These weapons are already restricted in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 So why don't we legalize grenades? They are a fun form of target practice. As long as they are used by legitimate grenade users, then there is no problem. Criminals will get illegal grenades regardless of the laws. Any takers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 So why don't we legalize grenades? Any takers? We? As in Canada? In the US some States allow possession Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) I didn't say that, but you implied that this particular law is innefectual when you admitted that criminals will not adhere to gun laws but law abiding citizens will. As I said, we have laws in place that deal with people who choose to use guns to commit crimes. Maybe making these laws, and more importantly, the consequences of breaking them tougher may make a difference.what I said was criminals weigh the pros and cons of breaking the law...life in prison obviously has no effect on someone who decides to kill...but significant prison terms for less serious offenses are considered, if the benefits outweigh the downside of a decision they won't be deterred...does anyone question the marksmanship of bi-athletes and their bolt action rifles... I agree, if you are talking about the weapons that are mainly used by criminals...illegal weapons.These weapons are already restricted in Canada. they're only illegal because criminals can't get a permit to own a handgun, and even if they don't have a criminal record and do attain one they can't carry it around with them...the mass shootings committed by Marc Lapine and Kimver Gil were committed with unrestricted weapons, weapons with a high rate of fire...and Gill from what I read was a member of a gun club, a law abiding gun owner until he flipped out... so if we can't prevent the wacko's from acquiring semi-auto weapons and we can't prevent them from using them on the public it's time to remove them from circulation, single shot bolt action will work just as well for target practice, competition and hunting... this attitude of gun owners not taking responsibility in all this claiming it's not their problem just isn't acceptable...if they want to avoid the discussion of restricting their guns then need to offer some solutions to the problem... so there two separate issues -preventing criminals attaining weapons -preventing law abiding wackos committing mass murder with weapons of potentially massive kill rates.. Edited July 25, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) this attitude of gun owners not taking responsibility in all this claiming it's not their problem just isn't acceptable...if they want to avoid the discussion of restricting their guns then need to offer some solutions to the problem... So you feel that civil law-abiding gun owners need to take the responsibility for the destructive, insane actions of the few lunatics in this country who have decided to murder others? An over the top, ignorant attitude like that is what I find unacceptable. Responsible gun owners have already shouldered an unfair portion of this burden already. so there two separate issues -preventing criminals attaining weapons -preventing law abiding wackos committing mass murder with weapons of potentially massive kill rates.. So what you're saying is that all gun owners can be categorized as either criminals, or potential mass-murdering wackos, and even if they have no intention of committing violence with a gun, should be categorized under this juvenile stereotype you've constructed for the safety of society. I disagree, and find the notion ridiculous. Mass murdering wackos are obviously not law abiding. Edited July 25, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 So you feel that civil law-abiding gun owners need to take the responsibility for the destructive, insane actions of the few lunatics in this country who have decided to murder others? An over the top, ignorant attitude like that is what I find unacceptable. Responsible gun owners have already shouldered an unfair portion of this burden already. so you want everything and will do nothing to find a solution or you'll throw a tantrum and chuck your rattle out of the crib? that's childish and irresponsible... with that kind of attitude you don't deserve to have any guns at all...So what you're saying is that all gun owners can be categorized as either criminals, or potential mass-murdering wackos, and even if they have no intention of committing violence with a gun, should be categorized under this juvenile stereotype you've constructed for the safety of society. I disagree, and find the notion ridiculous. Mass murdering wackos are obviously not law abiding. no what's happening here is you childishly twisting my post...internet troll behavior, that or you have the reading comprehension of a 10 yr old...and I'm leaning to the latter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) so you want everything and will do nothing to find a solution or you'll throw a tantrum and chuck your rattle out of the crib? that's childish and irresponsible... with that kind of attitude you don't deserve to have any guns at all... Do nothing? If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I have offered solutions. Try and stay on topic, flaming/insulting is against forum rules. no what's happening here is you childishly twisting my post...internet troll behavior, that or you have the reading comprehension of a 10 yr old...and I'm leaning to the latter... You're words. I apologize if I misinterpreted your message. Edited July 25, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Do nothing? If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I have offered solutions. I went back and reviewed the tapes. You did have one suggestion and that was more enforcement at the border... I didn't take your suggestions to ban cars all that seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I went back and reviewed the tapes. You did have one suggestion and that was more enforcement at the border... You got it! You want to make a difference in trying to solve this problem, crack down on illegal guns coming into this country, and increase the consequences of illegal gun smuggling, possession and gun violence and enforce it. Resources spent in this area will surely yield better results than stricter laws governing lawful possession of firearms. I didn't take your suggestions to ban cars all that seriously... Yeah, I also went back and reviewed, you didn't hear that suggestion from me. Nice try, though. Actually, I suggested the opposite when I said that banning an item that has the potential to be used inappropriately to cause harm only serves to penalize people who will follow the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Do nothing? If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I have offered solutions. Try and stay on topic, flaming/insulting is against forum rules. oh really!... who began with "ignorant attitude" you did...and then continued with "juvenile" ...oh! hypocrisy -Noun:The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. ya flaming/insulting is against forum rules, you stay on track and I won't retaliate... You're words. I apologize if I misinterpreted your message.it was straight forward, you chose to twist it to something completely different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Just to catch me up to speed... we're clamoring for new gun laws because some guy committed a mass shooting in a different country with different gun laws from ours? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I think what some of the posters are trying to say is why pick the banning of fire arms as your crusade when there are many more that kill more Candians smoking kills 100 Canadians a day, and cost the tax payers over 25 bil a year. drunk drivers kill 1500 Canadians a year and cost Canadians over 20 bil in damages. fire arms deaths.. deaths by drunk drivers. smoking deaths in Canada. smoking deaths in Canada. deaths from smoking world wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 ...drunk drivers kill 1500 Canadians a year and cost Canadians over 20 bil in damages. Yes, and 'soon' we'll have smart cars that wouldn't let you kill another human even if you wanted too. Notwithstanding we'll have to wait 50 years until the pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel crowd finally decides to get with the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Just to catch me up to speed... we're clamoring for new gun laws because some guy committed a mass shooting in a different country with different gun laws from ours? -k Clamoring? no. Discussing? Yes. The mass shooting.... shootings in Toronto.... 1 year after the Norway shooting... Harper meeting with mayor of T.O. about gun violence... And, what the topic was all about, the report in the OP by Harvard School of Health about how regions with higher gun ownership have higher gun related deaths. I would say that the topic is quite timely in light of all the reasons that I have listed. Don't you? I think what some of the posters are trying to say is why pick the banning of fire arms as your crusade You didn't read the thread, did you? Banning guns is not my crusade. This is a topic that I brought up mainly because I saw the report from the Harvard School of Public Health. Here it is again for those of you who have only read the last 5 posts in this thread: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html ...smoking .... drunk drivers... There are deaths by bicycle, car, dynamite and all sorts of other things.... that does not mean that we should ignore all these preventable deaths by guns and not try and improve the situation. Deaths by other reasons is such an asinine argument to not do something about preventable gun deaths. I know many of the pro-gun owners in this thread like the USA's gun laws and think Canada's should be more liberal in its own gun control measures, rather than more strict. This is why the gun lobby should be completely ignored when it comes to making gun policy. They have no good or new ideas.... just some really lame arguments about why they need their handguns and why they should be allowed to tuck them under their pillows loaded and cocked. Va. boy, 4, dead following accidental shooting 3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-herself Granite-City-boy-killed-in-accidental-shooting gunfire-at-dallas-walmart-injures-four-gun-owner-had-permit Edited July 26, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Legal firearms owners are as responsible for these events as farmers are for fertilizer bombs. Btw, the grenade argument is a laugh, we are already arguing over reasonable limits, firearms are already heavily controlled here, some of you want them controlled into non existence, which is a much more unreasonable view point than most gun owners who happily abide by our gun laws. They also happen to be more law abiding than non gun owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Legal firearms owners are as responsible for these events as farmers are for fertilizer bombs. Btw, the grenade argument is a laugh, we are already arguing over reasonable limits, firearms are already heavily controlled here, some of you want them controlled into non existence, which is a much more unreasonable view point than most gun owners who happily abide by our gun laws. They also happen to be more law abiding than non gun owners. Are you in favour of loosening gun restrictions, similar to what they have in the USA? You are absolutely correct. The grenade argument is as absurd as the gun/car argument... thanks for coming around on that point. What do you think about needing to belong to a gun range and needing to leave handguns at the facility rather than being allowed to take them with you? The facility would have to be properly secured of course. Apparently, handguns are only for target practice and a range is the only place that they are allowed to be used.... legally, that is.... I think that would be a good step in gun safety. Nothing would be banned. Handgun owners would still be allowed to use their handguns like they have always legally been allowed to... win/win! Edited July 26, 2012 by The_Squid 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.