They're at it again

[mirror]

I'm told that there is meeting being planned at the cesspool of corruption (the UN), with goal to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done.

[B. Max]

I'm told that there is meeting being planned at the cesspool of corruption (the UN), with goal to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning the ownership of civilian firearms is on every policestaters wish list. It makes it a lot easier when kicking in the front door to get into those homes to do their dirty work. Show me a gun grabber and i'll show you a wanta be tyrant.

[CrazyCanuck]

I'm told that there is meeting being planned at the cesspool of corruption (the UN), with goal to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reasonable?!? You can't honestly say you think trying to ban guns worldwide is a reasonable step to address the non-problem you're talking about. Thats gotta be one of the dumbest and funniest posts i've read on here. Why don't they also try and ban the world from using any fossil fuels to reduce the negative impact on the ozone?? You know why?...cause those ideas are thoughtless and silly.

[newbie]

Dumb is in the mind of the beholder. Put me down for an international gun ban.

[mirror]

An international civilian gun ban!

That would be a good mission for Frank McKenna to lobby for rather than the useless ineffectual work he has done so far for Canada. He might as well be working for the White House with some of the ludicrous comments he has made since assuming office.

Once again Canada could show some courage to other societies and lead the way like we have in the past with other issues.

[Toro]

The UN wants to ban guns? Are you serious? Does anyone have a link to that? First they want to tax the Internet, now this? What are they trying to do, make themselves even more irrelevant? The UN ain't too popular down here in the States. This would be a gift to the GOP. They could go back and say, see, I told you we needed to appoint John Bolton. But I can't believe that any high-level UNers would be stupid enough to propose this.

[mirror]

I'm told that there is meeting being planned at the cesspool of corruption (the UN), with goal to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning the ownership of civilian firearms is on every policestaters wish list. It makes it a lot easier when kicking in the front door to get into those homes to do their dirty work. Show me a gun grabber and i'll show you a wanta be tyrant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where in the world do you get this stuff. You sound like something from another planet. People are trying to deal with reducing violence and all you do whine about losing your stupid guns. What in the world do we need guns for any more? Apart from being used to kill people and animals that is. I fully support taking all guns away from civilians and that would not make me worry about a police state. It actually would make me feel safer because police would not feel the need to use their guns anywhere near as often, and their constant demand for bigger and bigger guns with more firepower would diminish. What worries me are the wackos who think it is OK to kill people to defend their property, etc. No material posessions are worth taking another person's life.

[mirror]

Toro.........just curious. what do you need a gun for?

[kimmy]

Toro.........just curious. what do you need a gun for?

Spoken like a city-dweller.

My great-grandma always kept a rifle in her porch, and used it often, right up until she died a couple of years ago. She often had coyotes in her yard, and bears occasionally visited as well.

One of my cousins, a dog-breeder, has had problems with badgers. 3 of her prize-winning German Shepherds cornered a badger; 1 of the dogs was killed outright and the other two were maimed so badly they had to be put down. Another time she spent 4 hours sitting on the roof of her truck while a badger growled at her; finally her neighbor came to visit, saw the problem, drove back home, returned with a rifle, and killed the badger.

-k

[BHS]

Where in the world do you get this stuff. You sound like something from another planet. People are trying to deal with reducing violence and all you do whine about losing your stupid guns. What in the world do we need guns for any more? Apart from being used to kill people and animals that is. I fully support taking all guns away from civilians and that would not make me worry about a police state. It actually would make me feel safer because police would not feel the need to use their guns anywhere near as often, and their constant demand for bigger and bigger guns with more firepower would diminish. What worries me are the wackos who think it is OK to kill people to defend their property, etc. No material posessions are worth taking another person's life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual, you ignore the bigger picture of the situation. Banning guns will only take guns away from people who own them legally and handle them responsibly. It will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from having guns. Guns and gunpowder are easy to manufacture, easier than methamphetamine because the materials and the know-how are already everywhere. Driving the gun culture underground won't do a thing to end gun violence.

[PocketRocket]

ARGUS:

(A couple paragraphs deleted for space considerations)........

So, in context, what I was asking was for you to support your claim that most gun violence in Canada is black-black followed by asian-asian.

That was my post. You responded with:

What I said about Toronto is pretty much the same for Montreal and Ottawa. I watch the news and regularly read the newspapers for both cities. It's a stream of non-white faces. In the West, as Kimmy pointed out, Blacks are fewer in numbers. On the Wet coast the crime is Asian in nature. In parts of the west its aborigines. The fact is that street crime involving guns is primarily coming from street and youth gangs, and these gangs are primarily ethnic in origin.

My impression of Montreal was that the majority of gun-related problems were a result of the Hell's Angels/Rock Machine biker war (neither of which have a majority membership which is either Black or Oriental).

However I readily acknowledge that I may be mistaken.

As I said, it's very difficult to find statistics on this because race crime statistics are largely forbidden, except, for some reason, when it comes to natives. 

I wasn't aware of this.

We do know from stats that a greatly disproportionate number of natives are in prison 

Granted.

You can occasionally get glimpses in the local media - for example, the Ottawa Citizen, in March of last year, let slip the fact that half the youths in local detention centres were Somalis. Half. The story wasn't even on crime, but on somalian youth workers. That little tidbit just slipped out. But everyone knew that whenever we read about "swarmings" on the bus or at muggings at the transitway or mass shoplifting and assaults at shopping centres by "youths" they were talking about Somalians. Even if it never made it into the media. 

I would ask you to cite, but if it never made it into the media, then it's hard to prove either way.

For sake of this discussion, I'll take it as granted.

  Finding national statistics, though, are virtually impossible, and I'm not about to spend hours googgling for it to satisfy you. 

Why not??? It would be a perfect world if everyone spent all there leisure time thinking up ways to satisfy me, and only me

I think that despite the abscence of clear statistics people generally know who is commiting the street crime in their city.

Possibly. Possibly not. Most people hear about street crime on whatever newscast they watch/hear.

Much street crime is never reported. A brawl outside a bar is oftern over and done with before police arrive, and is never heard of except by those direct witnesses.

Beatings by gangs in which no one is killed are often the same.

Who knows how much crime goes unreported???

No one, for exactly that reason; it's not reported.

But your points are well taken.

My asking you to cite sources was not simply to be a smart-ass, it was simply because I dislike sweeping generalizations.

But, as I said, I understand the points you were making.

[PocketRocket]

ARGUS:

Just tried a GOOGLE search on street crime occurences ratio by race.

Gotta admit, you're right on the mark there.

Pretty tough to find stats for this in Canada.

[Black Dog]

Banning the ownership of civilian firearms is on every policestaters wish list. It makes it a lot easier when kicking in the front door to get into those homes to do their dirty work. Show me a gun grabber and i'll show you a wanta be tyrant.

This particular tack always cracks me up. Like a tyrrany-minded government, with its virtual monopoly on sophisticated weaponry, is going to worry about a bunch of crochety duck hunters with .303's.

[BHS]

Banning the ownership of civilian firearms is on every policestaters wish list. It makes it a lot easier when kicking in the front door to get into those homes to do their dirty work. Show me a gun grabber and i'll show you a wanta be tyrant.

This particular tack always cracks me up. Like a tyrrany-minded government, with its virtual monopoly on sophisticated weaponry, is going to worry about a bunch of crochety duck hunters with .303's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell it to the four mounties who got shot in Alberta.

[Black Dog]

Tell it to the four mounties who got shot in Alberta.

Well, given that Jim Roszko was one of those criminal types you were talking about, I don't see how he has any bearing on the discussion of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

[BHS]

Tell it to the four mounties who got shot in Alberta.

Well, given that Jim Roszko was one of those criminal types you were talking about, I don't see how he has any bearing on the discussion of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, whatever. You say that a tyrannical government has nothing to fear from crochety duck hunters because a .303 is no match for a rocket launcher (or whatever sophisticated weaponry you were thinking of) and I'm merely pointing to an example that indicates you might be wrong.

[Black Dog]

Hey, whatever. You say that a tyrannical government has nothing to fear from crochety duck hunters because a .303 is no match for a rocket launcher (or whatever sophisticated weaponry you were thinking of) and I'm merely pointing to an example that indicates you might be wrong.

Are you suggesting that illegal semi-automatic weapons (like the kind Roszko used to ambush the four RCMP officers) are the norm on Canadian farms? If so, why do "law-abiding" citizens need such weapons?

Clearly, Jim Roszko was not the norm when it comes to gun owners.

Anyway, the bigger point here is that a tyrrany minded government wouldn't dick around with trying to confiscate guns. There's far easier ways to do it.

[BHS]

Are you suggesting that illegal semi-automatic weapons (like the kind Roszko used to ambush the four RCMP officers) are the norm on Canadian farms? If so, why do "law-abiding" citizens need such weapons?

Clearly, Jim Roszko was not the norm when it comes to gun owners.

Anyway, the bigger point here is that a tyrrany minded government wouldn't dick around with trying to confiscate guns. There's far easier ways to do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm suggesting that a bolt action .303 can kill you just as dead as a semi-automatic.

You're right. Jim Roszko is far from the norm. Most legitimate gun owners are responsible people who handle their firearms safely. So why are they always the first people targeted when the government decides to "do something" about gun crime?

By far the easiest way for tyrants to confiscate weaponry is to start by requiring that everyone register their weapons. It's so much easier to confiscate them when you know where they are.

[Black Dog]

I'm suggesting that a bolt action .303 can kill you just as dead as a semi-automatic.

Sure. But if the government/cops/army decided to confiscate all the bolt action .303's, chances are a few guys with bolt action .303s wouldn't be able to stop it.

You're right. Jim Roszko is far from the norm. Most legitimate gun owners are responsible people who handle their firearms safely. So why are they always the first people targeted when the government decides to "do something" about gun crime?

Beats me. then again, if one is a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, what's the big deal with registering your guns?

By far the easiest way for tyrants to confiscate weaponry is to start by requiring that everyone register their weapons. It's so much easier to confiscate them when you know where they are.

I'm still not clear why a tyrant would confiscate guns in the first place when there's so many other, easier was of pacifying the population.

[BHS]

I'm still not clear why a tyrant would confiscate guns in the first place when there's so many other, easier was of pacifying the population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's easier than passing laws to force people to turn their guns in?

[Black Dog]

What's easier than passing laws to force people to turn their guns in?

Letting them keep the guns. Heavy-handed measures like firearms confiscation are unneccesary when propaganda and misdirection work even better.

[BHS]

What's easier than passing laws to force people to turn their guns in?

Letting them keep the guns. Heavy-handed measures like firearms confiscation are unneccesary when propaganda and misdirection work even better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It needn't be heavy handed, if you do it in stages:

Step One: Register all firearms. This is just a safety precaution, and if you're a legit firearms owner, what's the harm?

Step Two: Place a "reasonable" limit on the number of firearms a person should be able to own. (After all, who needs to own a hundred shotguns? You can't use them all at once.) We'll start with an arbitrary limit of 10. If you own more than 10 guns (and we know that you do, thanks to the handy dandy registry system) we're going to have to confiscate the excess. Don't worry, though, you still get to keep your ten favourites. And we'll even sweeten the deal by "buying" the excess from you at $10 a pop. Everybody's happy.

Step Three (and onward): Reduce the arbitrary limit one or two guns at a time, with a simultaneous public education program increasingly emphasising that gun owners are kooks. By the time you get the number down to one gun per kook there's such as stigma attached that the majority of people will applaud when the government outlaws private gun ownership altogether and seizes the remainder.

Coda: Start looking critically at steak knife ownership. (Not a joke. It's already happening in England.)

[Black Dog]

It needn't be heavy handed, if you do it in stages:

Step One: Register all firearms. This is just a safety precaution, and if you're a legit firearms owner, what's the harm?

Step Two: Place a "reasonable" limit on the number of firearms a person should be able to own. (After all, who needs to own a hundred shotguns? You can't use them all at once.) We'll start with an arbitrary limit of 10. If you own more than 10 guns (and we know that you do, thanks to the handy dandy registry system) we're going to have to confiscate the excess. Don't worry, though, you still get to keep your ten favourites. And we'll even sweeten the deal by "buying" the excess from you at $10 a pop. Everybody's happy.

Step Three (and onward): Reduce the arbitrary limit one or two guns at a time, with a simultaneous public education program increasingly emphasising that gun owners are kooks. By the time you get the number down to one gun per kook there's such as stigma attached that the majority of people will applaud when the government outlaws private gun ownership altogether and seizes the remainder.

Sure, whatever. I guess the point I was trying to make is that gun control is not a necessary element of tyrrany, so the equation of a gun registry or gun control with naescent tyrrany is specious at best. Saddam Hussein's Iarq had a high percentage of private gun ownership, but that did not make Iraqi society any more free.

[BHS]

Sure, whatever. I guess the point I was trying to make is that gun control is not a necessary element of tyrrany, so the equation of a gun registry or gun control with naescent tyrrany is specious at best. Saddam Hussein's Iarq had a high percentage of private gun ownership, but that did not make Iraqi society any more free.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. One does not necessarily lead to the other. But private citizens intent on keeping their government from becoming tyrannical have a much harder time of doing so if they're unarmed. I will admit that this won't be an issue in Canada for the foreseeable future. Our government has a hard enough time locking up people who've proven themselves to be a genuine threat to society, let alone bellicose citizens rights advocates (even be they unarmed).

[Toro]

Toro.........just curious. what do you need a gun for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Self-defence and hunting.

But that's besides the point. If the UN really is proposing this - and it would boggle my mind if they did - they are going to make themselves less relevant in the world.