bush_cheney2004 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 There is no argument...another member posted a falsehood about policies that I rebutted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Healthcare is most certainly not a constitutional right in Canada. Possession of firearms is an enumerated right for U.S. citizens, affirmed by the highest court in the land. It's a right. 1. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers. Legally,that sentance would stand up in any court of Canada as an enumerated right for Canadian citizens to healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 There is no argument... That's typical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Like the NRA and Republicans who instantly call for more guns? Guns are efficient killing machines, possession of which leads to more deaths and increased chance of death regardless of storage practices. Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30 If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in. https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full Again, your data used in your "evidence" includes those engaged in criminal activity.......likewise, with its inclusions of suicide figures, it further paints a distorted picture, as already demonstrated, Canada has a near equal rate of suicides as the Americans, replacing guns as the number one method with rope........ With that said, I won't argue that a semblance of safe storage, combined with a safety course for novice owners, wouldn't lower household accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Very bad idea....would make such guns inherently unreliable when they need to work. These ideas are not new. Its a great idea...or are you worried that that rabbit you wanted to shoot for dinner might get away.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Nobody in this thread is talking about putting chips in bullets but that said...if you can make a bullet that has an on-board computer that steers itself towards a target you can make a bullet that steers away from one too. If microelectronics can in fact survive the shock of being fired IN a bullet, GPS/RFID chips can also survive the shock when they're merely embedded in the stock, clip, barrel, whatever. Well no, they can't......basic physics, as the stresses felt on a bullet and a recoiling gun are completely opposite (see Newton's Law), furthermore, a "smart bullet" is only subjected to stressful tolerances once, where as the average firearm, 10000+ times. This is evident by two clear examples; first the developer of the defunct smart gun had to design their gun around one of the lowest velocity cartridges, .22 rimfire, using less powder then a ramset nail gun. The second fact, nobody has yet to develop, civilian or military, scopes and optics that don't require frequent zeroing and calibration due to the recoil of a gun, hence, far more delicate electronics would not survive.......a modern smartphone can survive upwards of 50-100 foot pounds of pressure once before deforming, and even upwards of 150 foot pounds of pressure before case separation....this is a one time deal. A 30-06, 180 grain cartridge exerts over 20 foot pounds of pressure with a single shot, and a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck exerts upwards of 50 foot pounds of pressure per shot, hence the cumulative pressure of 1 or 2 loaded magazines would destroy the embedded electronic device................... Edited June 25, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Shouldn't have. It was a great idea Not if you believe in market capitalism........Nobody is in the market for $1500+ gun, chambered in .22 (with subsonic ammo) that is not reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Another "smart gun" idea that never worked out: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 They probably said the same thing about making cars safer once....can't be done, waste of time trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) They probably said the same thing about making cars safer once....can't be done, waste of time trying. Nope....lessons learned in auto racing were readily adopted for automobiles. Safety is now sold as improvement and upgrade options. You can buy a "smart car" right now....uses GPS...from the United States....you're welcome. Edited June 25, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Another "smart gun" idea that never worked out: Too bad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Nope....lessons learned in auto racing were readily adopted for automobiles. Safety is now sold as improvement and upgrade options.The state also outright forces people to comply with many safety improvements and upgrades - so much for that rebellion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Enough to make alarms sound when a gun gets too close to a school, a mall or any other crowded public space. If it's about protecting schools, then let's get some perspective on how serious a problem that actually is. Here's the list of school shootings in Canada: Brampton Centennial Secondary, Brampton, 1975 - 2 dead, plus the attacker St Pius X High School, Ottawa, 1975 - 1 dead, plus attacker Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, 1989 - 14 dead, plus attacker Concordia University, Montreal 1992 - 4 dead W.R. Myers High School, Taber Alberta 1999 - 1 dead Dawson College, Montreal, 2006 - 1 dead, plus the attacker That's 23 deaths in shootings at schools and colleges, plus 4 dead perpetrators, over a span of 40 years. While I am not trying to make light of any deaths, I would once again point out that you guys are advocating an extreme measure to combat a problem that-- statistically speaking-- doesn't exist. How much do we spend to keep our children, communities and capitalism safe from lightning strikes and terrorism? I don't think we spend any money protecting Canadians from lightning. I think we spend entirely too much money protecting Canadians from terrorism. I think it would be a mistake to compound that mistake by wasting billions of dollars to fight what's actually a very minor cause of death in Canada. If you want to spend billions of dollars to save lives in Canada, let's talk about improving healthcare. If you really want to talk about saving lives, let's talk about fighting smoking and obesity. If you want to talk about reducing violent crime in Canada, let's talk about rethinking our policy on drug prohibition. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) If it's about protecting schools, then let's get some perspective on how serious a problem that actually is. Here's the list of school shootings in Canada: Brampton Centennial Secondary, Brampton, 1975 - 2 dead, plus the attacker St Pius X High School, Ottawa, 1975 - 1 dead, plus attacker Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, 1989 - 14 dead, plus attacker Concordia University, Montreal 1992 - 4 dead W.R. Myers High School, Taber Alberta 1999 - 1 dead Dawson College, Montreal, 2006 - 1 dead, plus the attacker That's 23 deaths in shootings at schools and colleges, plus 4 dead perpetrators, over a span of 40 years. While I am not trying to make light of any deaths, I would once again point out that you guys are advocating an extreme measure to combat a problem that-- statistically speaking-- doesn't exist. I don't think we spend any money protecting Canadians from lightning. I think we spend entirely too much money protecting Canadians from terrorism. I think it would be a mistake to compound that mistake by wasting billions of dollars to fight what's actually a very minor cause of death in Canada. If you want to spend billions of dollars to save lives in Canada, let's talk about improving healthcare. If you really want to talk about saving lives, let's talk about fighting smoking and obesity. If you want to talk about reducing violent crime in Canada, let's talk about rethinking our policy on drug prohibition. -k Honestly Kim, I'm disappointed that you would attempt to disconnect guns to the racist crimes in the U.S. and try to diminish the gun crimes in Canada. Edited June 25, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 While I am not trying to make light of any deaths, I would once again point out that you guys are advocating an extreme measure to combat a problem that-- statistically speaking-- doesn't exist. Yep, Honestly Kim, I'm disappointed that you would attempt to disconnect guns to the racist crimes in the U.S. and try to diminish the gun crimes in Canada. A gun was the tool used to express this persons racism, it isnt the cause, most of us agree there are too many easy to access guns in the USA, but most of them are not used in racially motivated murders, so that really isnt relevant. And yes, the issue of gun crimes should be diminished in Canada, very few people, outside of known criminal activity, are harmed with a firearm, if you take that away far more people are stabbed, far more. At some point you and others are going to have to come to grips with reality, we will not ever stop people from killing each other and while guns make it easier we had no problem doing it long before guns existed, and here in Canada just as many, and lately more people are stabbed to death than shot and far more regular (non criminals) are hurt with knives than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Honestly Kim, I'm disappointed that you would attempt to disconnect guns to the racist crimes in the U.S. and try to diminish the gun crimes in Canada. I'm not trying to diminish anything. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that gun crimes in Canada are statistically speaking a very minor threat to public safety. I am trying to point out that spending billions of dollars to implement some kind of wide-spread gun control is, rationally speaking, not a very good use of money compared to other possible uses for the money. Canada's gun laws work really well! I think that when we have all these drug-gang mooks shooting each other in the Lower Mainland, we should consider that perhaps the problem isn't guns so much as it's drug prohibition. And better gun control wouldn't have made Dyllan Roof any less racist. It might have deprived him of a way of turning his racist anger into violence, but it's highly speculative to assume he wouldn't have found a different way of lashing out. Arson and bombs, for example. -k Edited June 25, 2015 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) And better gun control wouldn't have made Dyllan Roof any less racist. It might have deprived him of a way of turning his racist anger into violence, but it's highly speculative to assume he wouldn't have found a different way of lashing out. Arson and bombs, for example. -k But that is what is highly speculative. Had Roof been less accessible to a gun, these 9 people would still be alive. I'm not sure how else to explain it. Edited June 25, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 But that is what is highly speculative. Had Roof been less accessible to a gun, these 9 people would still be alive. I'm not sure how else to explain it. Or maybe he would have gone and found a gas can and burnt the church down with the people inside it. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Or maybe he would have gone and found a gas can and burnt the church down with the people inside it. And maybe the parishioners would have had a better chance to escape. People don't seem to understand the consequences of a gun shot to other circumstances. Edited June 25, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Or maybe he would have gone and found a gas can and burnt the church down with the people inside it. And maybe the parishioners would have had a better chance to escape. If he were of a mind to murder the people in the church I'm sure he could have chained the door shut. This is hardly hi-tech. Maybe he was too dumb to figure out any other way to commit a mass murder without a gun, maybe he wasn't, we don't know. We do know that he was a hard-core racist who intended to start a race-war, and no amount of gun control would have changed that. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 If he were of a mind to murder the people in the church I'm sure he could have chained the door shut. This is hardly hi-tech. Maybe he was too dumb to figure out any other way to commit a mass murder without a gun, maybe he wasn't, we don't know. We do know that he was a hard-core racist who intended to start a race-war, and no amount of gun control would have changed that. -k So you are defending gun control. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 So you are defending gun control. Thank you. I'm all in favor of some level of gun control. I'm in favor of careful screening of applicants. I'm in favor of delicensing people with criminal records and drug problems and taking their guns away. All of these things could have prevented Roof from buying a handgun. However, gun or no gun he was a racist who was determined to kill black people, and you can't legislate that away. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) However, gun or no gun he was a racist who was determined to kill black people, and you can't legislate that away.I see no difference between him and the people who kill in the name of god. We should call them all terrorists and stop treating them differently depending on the group being targeted for terror. And as far as terror goes in the US this guy was more deadly but wounded a lot less than the boston bombers who did not have guns. I would say the human tragedy caused by the boston bombers was much greater. Edited June 25, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 If he were of a mind to murder the people in the church I'm sure he could have chained the door shut. This is hardly hi-tech. Maybe he was too dumb to figure out any other way to commit a mass murder without a gun, maybe he wasn't, we don't know. We do know that he was a hard-core racist who intended to start a race-war, and no amount of gun control would have changed that. -k But it's not a given that he would have figured out an alternative or even been so committed to it if he didn't have a really really easy means of carrying it out. And if he had found another way, there's no guarantee the results would have been as lethal. I'm all in favor of some level of gun control. I'm in favor of careful screening of applicants. I'm in favor of delicensing people with criminal records and drug problems and taking their guns away. All of these things could have prevented Roof from buying a handgun. And pretty much all of those sensible gun policies would be considered intolerable violations of individual rights to the American gun lobby. However, gun or no gun he was a racist who was determined to kill black people, and you can't legislate that away. This is true, but also beside the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a slam dunk...gonna take away their right to vote too ? A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has ruled unanimously that a federal law barring people who have been committed to mental institutions from owning guns is unconstitutional. The court found that the ban, which prevented 73-year-old Michigan resident Clifford Charles Tyler from owning a gun because he was institutionalized for a month in 1986, is a violation of his Second Amendment rights. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/19/mentally_ill_right_to_guns_cincinnati_ruling_says_institutionalized_second.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.