babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Gun control in Canada

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Gun control in Canada
Alienrocker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2026

posted 18 November 2003 04:43 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
In the movie Bowling for Columbine, Canada was described as having 7 million gun owners.

What kind of gun rights do Canadians have?

What kind of gun control is being discussed in Canada?

Do you feel there is or is not a gun problem in Canada? Thanks for the info


From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 18 November 2003 05:20 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, there are probably books, websites, etc., where you could look up this information.

The movie didn't describe Canada as having 7 million gun owners; it described Canada as having 7 million guns. Big difference. Most of the guns here are long guns as opposed to handguns, which also makes a difference.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 18 November 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are many, many threads that deal in detail with gun control here. Excellent discussions from both sides.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alienrocker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2026

posted 18 November 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for Alienrocker        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I was hoping for some recent views.

Thanks, anyway


From: visiting central CT, USA from Rigel IV, Quadrant 9 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 18 November 2003 06:56 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The views on these threads are very recent. There have been long threads here on babble with lots of recent views, and heated debate. It is worth checking these out to get an idea of the range of opinion here. Just click on the Search link (below the babble masthead on any page) and do a search for Gun in the thread title and you'll have lots to read!

For facts and figures about firearms in Canada, I would suggest:
The Canada Firearms Centre, the government agency in cahrge of gun registration. They have a research section that may be useful:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/default.asp

You can also try Statistics Canada:
www.statcan.gc.ca


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 22 November 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadians have no gun rights nor legal Canadian gun owners have respect from the gun-grabbers and some government officials.

The privacy of Canadian gun owners is intruded at greater extent that privacy of an average Canadian.

There is a constant fear of confiscation. But the question is what is government waiting for ? Well, few issues. They know that crime won't stop with confiscation. It WILL even get worse. As what happened in Australia. They know that they will piss off significant number of Canadian law abiding citizens. That will cost them a lot. From separation to civil reisistance. Also, some people won't surrender their guns, which may lead to a trouble nobody really wants. So, thanks Providence, enough government officials elected to go middle of the road which is allowing people to keep guns but still maintaining a strict form of control.

Government punishes law abiding citizens because gov is incapable of dealing with real criminals who don't comply with the law and who don't care about anything.

Anti-gun movement consists of people who are truly concern about family violence, kids accessing guns and those who have hidden agenda of transforming social fabric of Canada. The first group has a clue what they want and many gun-owners agree on a reasonable gun-control. The second group consists of individuals of dubious or overblown qualifications. They use direct lies, distorted and faked statictics and other scientific stuff, intimidation and threats to gain more followers and to deal with their opponents.

There are actually around 20 million guns in Canada. Most are long guns. Only 1/3 of guns are registered. The registry system is so useful that RCMP says that in 70 years of handgun registry not one single crime was ever solved using that registry.

Also, if you want to look at the societies with high level of gun ownership. Look at the Switzerland and Norway. They have more guns per capita that Canada and they can own fully automatic firearms. But ltake a look at their gun crime. Very low, very low.

[ 22 November 2003: Message edited by: helicopterbase ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
stevepay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4467

posted 22 November 2003 02:42 PM      Profile for stevepay     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
gun control is stupid, we should be aloud to have a gun if we want one as long as we are not knowen to use it on a person..Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.. I have lot's of friends in the north who need there guns to survive for food and protection and non of them asked the goverment if they can have one..I have 5 guns and I refuse to inform the goverment in anyway, and there are thousands more in Canada like me....the goverment want's to say because I smoke pot I can't have a gun what kind of glue sniffer came up with that one....

[ 22 November 2003: Message edited by: stevepay ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 November 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only 1/3 of guns are registered.

Only fascist fools and criminals (and I'm guessing there's a great deal of cross-over between them) haven't registered their guns. Which neo-nazi website made this claim, HB? And why would you believe it?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 22 November 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the movie Bowling for Columbine, Canada was described as having 7 million gun owners.

As Smith says, that should really be about 7 million guns. The survey summarized on this page says there were about 2.3 million gun owners in 2000.

quote:
There are actually around 20 million guns in Canada. Most are long guns. Only 1/3 of guns are registered.

If you have any source for this, other than the fantasies of the "National Firearms Association" and their ilk, helicopterbase, I'd like to read it.

Edit:

This report says there are likely between 7.5 million and 7.9 million guns in Canada.

[ 22 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stormy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4679

posted 23 November 2003 12:01 AM      Profile for Stormy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lance....

The CFC "survey" was and is a joke. This was a phone survey where a total unknown stranger phoned people and asked..." do you have any guns?, If so how many"?

They actually expected people to answer? Or to tell the truth?
The CFCs own litterature suggests that people keep the fact that they own firearms quiet lest they be targeted for theft....yet they conduct a phone survey??

Second....the CFC is the ONE group that has a vested interest ( beyond the LIEberals) in downplaying the number of firearms in Canada. Why?

Well the lower the number of firearms the better their numbers look in terms of compliance......

Trust me...I happen to know HUNDREDS of gun owners across this nation and I do not know a single one who has registered every single gun they own.

The truth is there are well over 20 million firearms in Canada, and upwards of 5 million gun owners.

The registry is a farce and should be shitcanned....


From: Ont | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 23 November 2003 12:03 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Say, aren't you the "Stormbringer" that was banned from this site some time back?
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 November 2003 12:17 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The truth is there are well over 20 million firearms in Canada, and upwards of 5 million gun owners.

And you know this how, Stormbringer?

I don't think you know any better than your buddy propellerhead. And if the government has an incentive to underestimate -- which I doubt -- you gun nuts have an even more obvious incentive to inflate the numbers. Makes you look like you might actually constitute a movement. I guess you probably have reason to feel insecure about size.

But where are my manners. albireo, care to join me in a glass of *plonk*?

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 23 November 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh God, here we go again. There have, over the last year been several dozen gun control threads on this board. I recall that only one of them was actually rational, where differing points of view were exchanged in a productive manner. I'll have to try to dig it up sometime.

As it happens, I'm opposed to the current federal gun control legislation for a number of reasons, and felt that way even before the huge cost overruns became public. However, I would be totally embarassed to associate myself with the paranoid right wing NRA wannabe whack-jobs that instantly gravitate to any thread that talks about gun control. That's why this is my first last and only post on this thread. Give it up guys, take it back to freedominion.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stormy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4679

posted 23 November 2003 10:23 AM      Profile for Stormy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
Say, aren't you the "Stormbringer" that was banned from this site some time back?

Nope....

I am Stormbringer who MOVED away and have been a bit busy of late building a new home. I was never banned from any place because I am too nice of a guy. However I changed IPs so I could not log in again thus the new moniker.


Lance....

Simple the feds own numbers.

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.

Please note that to arrive at this figure of 10 million firearms we did not:

Add any portion of the more than 6 million firearms manufactured in Canada from the 1920s to present; or
Subtract up to one-quarter of a million guns destroyed by the RCMP between 1978-2000, or
Subtract the 1.6 million firearms exported between 1970-1998.
GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF FIREARMS – 1974-1976
In May of 1976, Liberal Justice Minister Ron Basford published a report that stated: “At the same time, there has been a steady increase in the number of firearms in Canada. Estimates place the number at over ten million in 1974, with almost one-quarter million added to the stock every year. Most of these firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns).” [Emphasis added] The Minister was no doubt referring to an extensive Statistics Canada survey that reported that in 1974 the Firearms Stock in Canada consisted of 11,186,000 firearms.

Using the Justice Minister’s 1974 estimates I calculated: 10 million firearms + 6,500,000 (250,000/year x 26 years) = 16,500,000 firearms in Canada in 2001.

GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF FIREARMS – 1994-1998
Over the next eighteen years, despite the importation of 5 million firearms, the government lowered their estimates of the number of firearms in Canada from 10 or 11 million in 1974 to 7 million in 1994. A Justice Department briefing note dated March 9, 1994 stated: “In total, it is estimated that 7 million guns are owned by 3 million gun owners…2.7 million households contain 2.7 guns each.” RCMP documents obtained though Access to Information indicate that this number was only the “Low End” estimate and that the government’s “High End” estimate was over 11 million firearms.


The CFCs ONLY data source they have ever used is that ONE poll.....as flawed as it was. Event then they keep reducing the numbers as their co-operation levels failed in an attempt to look good.


Oh yes the dreaded "plonk" the babble tactic of debate when reality rears its head.....nice.
Its good to see that you leftist numnuts have not progressed much since August. ( note mods this is a retort against the rightwing insult above

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: Stormy ]


From: Ont | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 23 November 2003 01:52 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. The government is not planning to confiscate guns, except in the paranoid minds of people who read too much NRA literature.

2. I don't mind people having guns, under controlled circumstances. Hunting rifles/shotguns are fine (for people with hunting licenses etc.). Even a shotgun around the farm is fine. Handguns, given that they exist to kill people, must and should be controlled, which they are. FIne.

3. THe irony I always see in gun control threads is that quite often people who will go to the wall screaming in order to keep their gun, claiming it as a right etc, will then turn around and try to deny rights from others. Same sex marriage being the most obvious. Hypocrisy is the appropriate term in this case.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 23 November 2003 02:10 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
The more I hear from these gun supporters, the less tolerant I become of people who use guns for legitimate hunting (...I have a bit of a problem with hunting for sport, but I figure there has to be some give and take balancing public security and gun control with the tradition of hunting, or that thoroughly wonderful sport of target shooting). The gun lobby never takes that issue very seriously it seems and, judging by the gun supporters I've seen posting here, seems to encourage confrontation and undocumented data and guesstimations passing as legitimate argument. The ability of gun supporters to make such a poor case in support of what they believe in is baffling (...or quite telling). I think these people thrive on negativity.

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 02:13 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

And you know this how, Stormbringer?

I don't think you know any better than your buddy propellerhead. And if the government has an incentive to underestimate -- which I doubt -- you gun nuts have an even more obvious incentive to inflate the numbers. Makes you look like you might actually constitute a movement. I guess you probably have reason to feel insecure about size.

But where are my manners. albireo, care to join me in a glass of *plonk*?

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]



lance,

and what do you know ?

you think that people inside your townhouse are the same as people evereywhere else ? can you see the world outside your "townhouse" ? do you think everybody else wants to eat trashy food, watch garbage both human and other on the streets, and call it "urban" living ?

you think that people don't have pride and dignity ? if you lost a touch with those keywords, well, other people did not.

propeller on my head helps me remove lancing stink. do you copy ? as for the plonk, you deserve one with that toilet unclogging tool .

as for the movement. our "movement" is lead by justice and dignity not by ideological 219 such as your red-hot-sticky potato.

yes. the number of 20 millions guns in Canada is closer to truth than the number presented by the government and lance's "social justice" organizations.

Ask yourself, lancer, why would you let government know you have guns when the same that government constantly threatens confiscation ? Also, one reason confiscation hasn't happened yet is that they know that there are guns possessed by people who don't give damn lancer to a social engineering agenda lanced into their lives.

Government faked data and lowered the number of guns and gun owners in order to justify collosual waste of money. The number of 20 millions comes from historical data of gun ownership in Canada from 1940's to present day. If you look carefully in to government's data you will notice that there is a sharp drop in numer of guns that coincides with enactment of Bill C-68. Government never explained why and how is this ? Did all those gun owners die of a mysterious disease within a short period of time? Compare old gun statistics peirod by period and you WILL find the increadible and impossible discrepancy in numbers as compared to that 2000-2001 "research" study.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 02:16 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
The more I hear from these gun supporters, the less tolerant I become of people who use guns for legitimate hunting (...I have a bit of a problem with hunting for sport, but I figure there has to be some give and take balancing public security and gun control with the tradition of hunting, or that thoroughly wonderful sport of target shooting). The gun lobby never takes that issue very seriously it seems and, judging by the gun supporters I've seen posting here, seems to encourage confrontation and undocumented data and guesstimations passing as legitimate argument. The ability of gun supporters to make such a poor case in support of what they believe in is baffling (...or quite telling). I think these people thrive on negativity.

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]



Isn't that exactly what anti-gun movement is doing ? You just mistakenly revealed the strategy of your team.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 23 November 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by helicopterbase:


Isn't that exactly what anti-gun movement is doing ? You just mistakenly revealed the strategy of your team.


No, why would you think that? Some people here have posted sourced data, which you dismiss as lying or faking in a paranoid, ranting tone that really does little to convince anyone. Why is that?

...I'm not on any team on this issue, except for the one that does not want to see widespread gun ownership as a response to crime and protection. I've lived in societies like that, and a frightened populace is the worst thing that can happen.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
1. The government is not planning to confiscate guns, except in the paranoid minds of people who read too much NRA literature.

2. I don't mind people having guns, under controlled circumstances. Hunting rifles/shotguns are fine (for people with hunting licenses etc.). Even a shotgun around the farm is fine. Handguns, given that they exist to kill people, must and should be controlled, which they are. FIne.

3. THe irony I always see in gun control threads is that quite often people who will go to the wall screaming in order to keep their gun, claiming it as a right etc, will then turn around and try to deny rights from others. Same sex marriage being the most obvious. Hypocrisy is the appropriate term in this case.


Glad to hear somebody rational. I don't mind reasonable gun control. I mind those un-rational individuals attacking gun owners and blaming gun owners for acts of criminals. Society has to be fair and recognize that there are people who like target shooting sport and hunting who are reasonable and don't threat or put in danger other people.

The trouble is that if you look at actions of the Coalition of Gun Control, you will see that they constantly propose unrealistic measures that have no impact on public safety. The stuff they constantly try to sell is just pointed against and affects target shooter and hunters only. Then spieces such as some members of this board accuse gun owners of being paranoid.

I don't deny people a right to do what they want to if that does not endanger others. Gun ownership by honest and law abaiding citizen does not endanger other citizens. Gay marriage doesn't put other people in danger too. Here is the clue. I don't support and approve gay marriages, but if you want it, go ahead, doesn't bother me. I will never say its immoral or no good. It is just your right to do whatever you want. Although these issues are not the same, the principle of having a right to do is. Wanna some pot ? Go ahead. I don' care. Just don't smoke around other people who may be allergic. Just mind your own business and don't bother others. ANd thats it.Pure and simple. No ideology.

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: helicopterbase ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stormy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4679

posted 23 November 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Stormy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by arborman:
[QB]1. The government is not planning to confiscate guns, except in the paranoid minds of people who read too much NRA literature.


Please explain exactly why I have 13 firearms at this very moment that are destined to be confiscated and DESTROYED with NO COMPENSATION. While you are at it can you explain why I have several friends who have already had LEGALLY PURCHASED firearms confiscated and destroyed? HMmmm


2. I don't mind people having guns, under controlled circumstances. Hunting rifles/shotguns are fine (for people with hunting licenses etc.). Even a shotgun around the farm is fine. Handguns, given that they exist to kill people, must and should be controlled, which they are. FIne.

The control of handguns has been around since 1934 with NO positive change. Criminals it seems do not care about controls....maybe that is why they are criminals in the fist place??


3. THe irony I always see in gun control threads is that quite often people who will go to the wall screaming in order to keep their gun, claiming it as a right etc, will then turn around and try to deny rights from others. Same sex marriage being the most obvious. Hypocrisy is the appropriate term in this case.

This is a red herring of the highest order. One simply has nothing to do with the other. The right to life and the tools to do so is a basic right. I do not know of any RIGHT to marry ever existing.


From: Ont | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 02:34 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

No, why would you think that? Some people here have posted sourced data, which you dismiss as lying or faking in a paranoid, ranting tone that really does little to convince anyone. Why is that?

...I'm not on any team on this issue, except for the one that does not want to see widespread gun ownership as a response to crime and protection. I've lived in societies like that, and a frightened populace is the worst thing that can happen.


I agree with you about widespread gun use and ownership. Not everyone should have them.

Data ? Beacuse to figure out that those data is faked you just need to do a little research.

There was a professor in the US who was fired for faking data and using it in his pro-guncontrol
book. Just a little glimpse of how honest gun-controllers are and how the other "side" is paranoid.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 23 November 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Data ? Beacuse to figure out that those data is faked you just need to do a little research.

Why should I? You've apparently done all that work yourself and come to a conclusion based on undocumented (and likely biased) sources. Sounds like a major waste of time to me. I don't care what happens in the States with respect to this issue. And what do you have against sources and links, anyway?

quote:
This is a red herring of the highest order. One simply has nothing to do with the other. The right to life and the tools to do so is a basic right. I do not know of any RIGHT to marry ever existing.

Stormy dismisses something as a red-herring while simultaneously proving that it isn't. Extra style points for that one.

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Only fascist fools and criminals (and I'm guessing there's a great deal of cross-over between them) haven't registered their guns. Which neo-nazi website made this claim, HB? And why would you believe it?


Giz:

Gun owners come in different political "colors" and "shapes". Some lefties also hunt and target shoot. AS well as some liberals. Some conservatives hate guns, etc.

Shooting sport is just a sport , for honest , law abiding people. For criminals , shhoting is a way of dealing with competitions on our streets.

For nazis and communists, gun control is a necessary tool for control of population. How could Jews resist Hitler when they surrendered their guns. How could normal people resist comunistical stalinists and maoists when they had no guns.

So putting gun owners in same basket with nazis is something only a fool can do.

Canadian gun-owners are successors of those who fought on Juno beach and tried to maintain the foothold on beaches of Dieppe. So, calling them nazis is equal to a treason.

A lot of gun owners are current members of police and military. If you listen policeman closely you will hear how much they "love" gun registry. And ask Canadian soldiers about how could that registry money be used to make their job easier.

20 million number source is all over the internet. If you wan tot find it, you'll find it easier. If you don't trust any of taht source go to library, compare old statistic data and just think a little. If you have fairly opened mind, you will see that, sometime, somewhere, gunowners of Canada, DIED and DISAPPEARED, and guns misteriously flew away within few months ! SO the 2001 statistics could justify money spent on registry.

Wander why people are paranoid ?

Wander why people who never been into guns befor, suddenly find intriguing interest ?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hintreland:

I'll find the source for you. Don't worry. There is a research done by a professor from Simon Fraser University.

Why I did not put a link ? Well, I will. Sit tight.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 23 November 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The privacy of Canadian gun owners is intruded at greater extent that privacy of an average Canadian."

This a reasonable compromise given that the average Canadian does not own something designed with its first purpose being to end life.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:
"The privacy of Canadian gun owners is intruded at greater extent that privacy of an average Canadian."

This a reasonable compromise given that the average Canadian does not own something designed with its first purpose being to end life.


Good idea ! The trouble is that this idea is going to be stretched on a wider scope of your life.

Yeah, typical pro-gun rebuttal question. Are you more dangerous with your car than someone with his legally owned gun ? Or, what about criminals who don,t register.

Sure, guns are dangerous and you are rightfully uncomfortable with your neighboor having a gun. But is he uncomfortable with you having that gas tank for your BBQ, or you having that big SUV ? Hell, you can run him over when he doesn't suspect. I know, your SUV is registered but, hey, gas tank is not and thats a big bomb, fellow citizen.

Anyways, how do you like an idea to have ID card with biometrics on it ? Do you have anything to hide ? Is your private life your life or a movie for the government ?

Will government ever go after your internet connection because SHE will be concerned that you knowing too much is no good for the government ?

OK, Ok, it just a paranoia.

Well, many people see the issues in the gun control agenda. They see the staging ground for more rights grab. The people who are not really big fans of guns see the interest in defending of gun rights. Because removal of those rights WILL be stretched to the other pores of our lives. The biggest trouble is that so called issue of public safety is used as a smoke screen for executing some other plans that satisfy narrow circles of power.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 23 November 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm reluctant to add my two cents worth here; the willingness of the left to blithely place their trust in the State is, to me, incomprehensible.

They almost universally contend that the same institutions that bungle almost everything they touch, that waste literally billions of our tax dollars on the most bizarre and inane crap, that are riddled with corruption and patronage, that repeatedly demonstrates that ethics, integrity, honor, responsibility, and accountability is the curse of naive fools, should nevertheless be trusted not to utilise registration of firearms to ultimately disarm its citizenry.

Here's a fact for you:

Handguns have been required by law to be registered since the late '30s.

During a 20 year period from 1973 to 1993, Stats Canada found that, of the annual average of 147 homicides involving handguns over that time, less than 4% of said guns were in fact registered. (For those mathematically challenged, this means about 6 out of 147.)

In 1994, Stats Canada quit documenting this particular data...because the State's registration records were such a disaster as to be considered impossible from which to gather reliable information.

Registration leads to confiscation?

Absolutely.

It did in the USSR.

It did in Nazi Germany.

In Britain, the actions of one single looney in Scotland led to a kneejerk reaction by government mandating the banning thereof, and confiscation thereof all registered handguns in the nation. It is a fact that Olympic shooters in Britain now must practice their sport outside the country.

In Australia, a similar single incident led to a similar kneejerk reaction by government that saw the banning and confiscation of all semi-auto and pump action rifles and shotguns...at a cost of at least $600,000,000.

In both countries, neither action affected subsequent crime rates involving firearms. In fact, crime rates worsened...to the point that British policemen, who have patrolled the streets unarmed for decades, are now petitioning the government vehemently to be allowed to carry sidearms for their own protection.

There is no other reason to register firearms than confiscation. Certainly there is a barrage of propaganda being proliferated upon the population to persuade the uneducated and uninformed...always the targets by government of such propaganda...that there is rationale for spending $1.5 billion to equip the State with the necessary means to affect ultimate confiscation and thus, disarmament of Canada's civilian population.

This is the same government that was scathingly reprimanded by the head of the RCMP for presenting deliberately distorted statistical justification for C-68.

This is the same government that told us C-68 would cost us net $2 million...and now tells us it will cost $1.5 billion.

This is the same government of which three successive Justice Ministers refused to even so much as apologise for, let alone admit to, a billion dollar fiasco that, in any other venue, would have seen them brought up on charges of fraud and gross criminal negligence.

This is the same government now led by the man who merrily approved these budgets, and then signed the cheques to pay for this criminal fiasco...and who now blithely shrugs off the entire matter by saying, to paraphrase: "Well, I could have done a better job of that one I guess."

All of this mindlessly supported by the "left", who at the same time are busily preoccupied with protesting private corporations who clearly cannot be trusted to do anything in the public's best interest, and/or are ripping off consumers at every opportunity.

By the same "left" who are burning effigies of Bush in front of any and every camera they can find because they're worried that such obvious demigogues at the head of State are the single greatest threat to the freedom and security of citizens everywhere...but nevertheless are blindly willing to give the State, and thus such potentially dangerous men who lead it, ever the more power to do exactly that.

Interestingly enough, in the US gunownership is considered a right and is enshrined in their constitution...

And in Canada, it is not.

The supposedly menacing to freedoms and rights leader of the US will not tolerate gun registration.

While the supposedly benign and benevolent leadership of Canada is hellbent upon registration...cost be damned.

In the same manner that only a fool would give the keys to his home to a proven thief for safe keeping...

Would a fool...I repeat, a FOOL...bestow the tools of absolute power to his own government.

History, going back as far as one cares to, is a litany of otherwise unimaginable horrors against mankind committed primarily by governments against their own citizenry.

And yet, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence and such ghastly historical fact, the "left" persists with this quite literally obsene, if not outright paranoid, dogma of the supremecy of the "collective"...read, State...at all costs over the freedom and rights of the individual.

It is "individuals" who die on battle fields in defence of freedom and in defiance of tyranny, not "collectives".

It is "individuals" who are protected by constitutional rights and freedoms, not "collectives".

It is "individuals" who are thrown into concentration camps, who are tortured, who are murdered by their own governments, not "collectives".

And it is "individuals" who will pay the ultimate price for negligence, for idealism, for blind adherance to dogma, and for sheer stupidity in the apathetic acquiescence of their own individual power over to the State.

In the 20th century, some 160,000,000 citizens were murdered by their own governments.

How many more will perish in the 21st century?

In a world in which individual freedom, privacy, and security is quickly becoming all but a mythological fancy of a bygone era.

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: sir_springer ]


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
web page

this will tell you whats wrong with the numbers:
web page

web page

web page

web page

web page


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 23 November 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some interesting references:

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics26.doc

Note, from the graph, the sharp rise in firearms related crimes over the last 20 years in Britain...and in partiular, firearms related homicides over the last 10 years.

Would certainly appear that registration and banning of handguns has worked wonders for them, eh?

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics26.htm

Last paragraph:

quote:
Firearms, excluding air weapons, were used in 9,974 recorded offences in 2001/2 – an increase of 35 per cent compared to 2000/1. In 24 per cent of these offences the firearm was fired.

Yep, working like a hot damn, eh?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf

Found an interesting table here, based upon an international comparison of crime stats. On page 17 you will find what is called a "Victimization Risk" comparison, which presents stats on the percentage of citizens of various countries who were a victim of a crime at least once or more in that year.

You will note that the US demonstrates a lower risk factor than Canada in every category. It also rates lower than Australia, England and Wales, and Scotland.

Switzerland, where pretty much everyone owns a firearm, rates even lower still.

Striking, isn't it, that this runs in apparent stark contrast to the image most people hold of the US.

And Canada.

Reality versus illusion created by propaganda and the media.

And so it goes...


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 23 November 2003 07:12 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do we know that the regulation of handguns hasn't prevented a lot more murders and fatalities? We don't. Instead we are getting the specious argument that most of the crimes that have happened weren't with registered guns. Well duh. How many crimes were prevented by guns? How many were escalated from something minor into a gunfight?

Nobody knows, nobody tracks those statistics (probably because nobody can). YOu guys are barking up the wrong tree.

I have nothing against gun ownership. WHen I lived in the country, I owned a couple of guns. I also used several more in the military. Guns are, however, built for killing.

My point with the same sex marriage argument is that it is often the same people making two contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they defend my neighbour's right to own a gun, which might conceivably harm me. On the other, many deny my neighbour's right to marry someone, which can't in any way harm me. Either we support civil liberties or we don't, amny try to straddle the line.

I'm not convinced that gun ownership is a civil liberty, but if we take the position that it is, we must also take a position supporting other civil liberties.

If you are concerned about self defense (in Canada ) take a martial arts class, it will be more effective, and you wont' have to scramble in the glove box for it when you need it. If you want to hunt, fine, but why not register the gun, so if it does get stolen it can be found again. If you want a handgun for target shooting or whatever else, fine, but register it because it is made to kill people.

I think cars are very dangerous as well, which is why I am very happy that people are forced to register them, and that they need a license and a minimum level of knowledge to drive them. To be honest I'd like to see a lot more stringent standards in drivers, and licenses removed for much less than they currently are (like maybe 3 speeding tickets).

We don't live in the wild west. Violent crime goes down every year, despite what we read and hear in the media. Gun ownership is understandable and perfectly legit in some cases, but they should be controlled.

Yes, criminals will still have handguns. How many people killed by handguns in Britain last year? How about the USA? Which model would you like to emulate?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stormy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4679

posted 23 November 2003 08:48 PM      Profile for Stormy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee arbor...do you think I can get a refund on my new Walther P99 .40?


I took it out to the range last night and I'll be damned if I did not kill a single person.....

For something which was built for the soul purpose of killing.....it sure does a bad job.


From: Ont | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 23 November 2003 09:49 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the "left" persists with this quite literally obsene, if not outright paranoid, dogma of the supremecy of the "collective"...read, State...at all costs over the freedom and rights of the individual.

I applaud the honest use of quotation marks in the above quote, which clarify that the meaning of the word "left", as subsequently defined by the author, is related solely to his own, limited understanding of it. All comments about the "left", as viewed in this context, will provoke little argument, since few people posting here actually "persist" with such values. Happily then, we reach consensus without stress, strain or strife. And all because of two little quotation marks. Grammar is key to diplomacy, and ought to be taught that way.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 10:05 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:

I applaud the honest use of quotation marks in the above quote, which clarify that the meaning of the word "left", as subsequently defined by the author, is related solely to his own, limited understanding of it. All comments about the "left", as viewed in this context, will provoke little argument, since few people posting here actually "persist" with such values. Happily then, we reach consensus without stress, strain or strife. And all because of two little quotation marks. Grammar is key to diplomacy, and ought to be taught that way.


And that would make you a superior intelect. Why not simply ignore those quotes. Does this observation make you a great diplomat also ? Isn't diplomacy like a tree, branching everywhere the meanings of words ?

Ever wondered if you "hang" on the wrong branch ?

Aren't those quotes ?

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: helicopterbase ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 23 November 2003 10:29 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
How do we know that the regulation of handguns hasn't prevented a lot more murders and fatalities? We don't. Instead we are getting the specious argument that most of the crimes that have happened weren't with registered guns. Well duh. How many crimes were prevented by guns? How many were escalated from something minor into a gunfight?

RCMP said that when asked by an ATI request presented by Gary Breitzkrutz, MP. just go to his web site.

Police in Toronto and in other cities said that wast majority of crimes are comitted with so called nonregistered handguns from the underworld. You could read it in any newspaper. Also you could hear what chief Fantino said about gun registry. If you really want to see those articles, just check any newspaper you want, especially the sun.

quote:

Nobody knows, nobody tracks those statistics (probably because nobody can). YOu guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, there are people who track those statistics.

quote:

I have nothing against gun ownership. WHen I lived in the country, I owned a couple of guns. I also used several more in the military. Guns are, however, built for killing.

But that doesn't mean that target shooters kill others on shooting ranges. Also I have never seen a gun walking down the street and shooting by itself. I heard of idiots carrying guns and shooting around. Wouldn't dealing with those idiots make more practical sense ?

quote:

My point with the same sex marriage argument is that it is often the same people making two contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they defend my neighbour's right to own a gun, which might conceivably harm me. On the other, many deny my neighbour's right to marry someone, which can't in any way harm me. Either we support civil liberties or we don't, amny try to straddle the line.

Well, gun owners are not a homogenous group. Some oppose, some have no trouble with gay marriage. Same gays have guns too. To defend themselves against those who are violently hostile aginst them. I worked with some gays in an armored trucking company. They were and still are gun owners.

quote:

I'm not convinced that gun ownership is a civil liberty, but if we take the position that it is, we must also take a position supporting other civil liberties.

Actually it is. Under condition that you don't endanger other citizens or property. Once you becaome a danger, you lose those liberties till the end of your life. Most of people either gun owners or not, have NO TROUBLE at all with other liberties. Under very simple and very short sounding condition. No political strings attached. That condition is: Nobody is hurt. Thats it. Those who violate the rule are out forever.

quote:

If you are concerned about self defense (in Canada ) take a martial arts class, it will be more effective, and you wont' have to scramble in the glove box for it when you need it. If you want to hunt, fine, but why not register the gun, so if it does get stolen it can be found again. If you want a handgun for target shooting or whatever else, fine, but register it because it is made to kill people.


Well.
Martial arts vs. modern arts ? Which one would you choose ?
Anyways, it is not about registration, its about unjustified confiscation. Guns in Europe are registered since 19th century. Yes Nazis used that registry to confiscate. But todays nobody complains because they in Europe have better property rights protection than Canadians do. The property right is not sufficiently protected within the law of Canada. There is a Supreme court rulling that Canadians don't have right on private property. The fact is that many Canadians don't know about that.

quote:

I think cars are very dangerous as well, which is why I am very happy that people are forced to register them, and that they need a license and a minimum level of knowledge to drive them. To be honest I'd like to see a lot more stringent standards in drivers, and licenses removed for much less than they currently are (like maybe 3 speeding tickets).

No problem. Drive but don't crash others.

quote:

We don't live in the wild west. Violent crime goes down every year, despite what we read and hear in the media. Gun ownership is understandable and perfectly legit in some cases, but they should be controlled.

Reasonably controlled, yes. But not confiscated without market value compensation.

quote:

Yes, criminals will still have handguns. How many people killed by handguns in Britain last year? How about the USA? Which model would you like to emulate?

How about Switzerland, Vermont, Norway, Sweden, Finland ?

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: helicopterbase ]

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: helicopterbase ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 23 November 2003 11:01 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is a Supreme court rulling that Canadians don't have right on private property.

Which case is this? I'm a law student myself, I'd be interested to know.
And what exactly do you mean by "have right"? Have a right to defend it? To use it as the dwelling owner pleases? Are you even talking about a dwelling necessarily? Or do you mean all personal property? And are you sure that you mean no right whatsoever?

[ 23 November 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 November 2003 12:56 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stormy:
Gee arbor...do you think I can get a refund on my new Walther P99 .40?


I took it out to the range last night and I'll be damned if I did not kill a single person.....

For something which was built for the soul purpose of killing.....it sure does a bad job.


Well, good for you. SO far you seem balanced and rational, and able to control yourself. Why do I have to take the brunt of it (as in get shot) if that changes? Shouldn't there be mechanisms in place to minimise that possibility? I think so. I'm not worried about YOUR safety, I'm worried about my own.

There are responsible gun owners. I was one, though I don't own a gun now. The problem is that there are people whose degree and level of responsibility can and does change. That's why a child is 7 times more likely to be killed by a gun if there is one in his/her house.

My neighbour is a bit of a nasty old drunk. I know he has at least one gun, and I know he's pretty wasted by about 8 o'clock each night. So far he hasn't done anything, and I don't expect him to. As far as I know he hasn't broken any laws. Doesn't mean he's not a threat if he gets it onto his head to start waving the gun around and shoot someone.

So you want to take the gun away AFTER he does that? Maybe use part of the proceeds to pay for my burial? My wife's?

It's an extreme case, but so is the idea that registration is a prelude to confiscation. Registration is an attemp[t to keep a handle on guns. Poor management of the registry in the past is not a reason to ditch gun registry, its a reason to improve the management of it.

Yes, most guns come from the illegal underworld. How do they get there? They are stolen, mostly from responsible gun owners who aren't planning on committing any crimes. Someone broke into my house a month ago, but all that was here to steal was some minor property. I have no doubt they'd have taken my gun if I'd owned one.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
stevepay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4467

posted 24 November 2003 03:49 AM      Profile for stevepay     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
guns get here from the USA evryone buy them there..I remember about 10 years ago I was able to buy 2 guns in missisippi buy just showing I was in a holtel for 3 day in that state..
From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 November 2003 06:44 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canadian gun-owners are successors of those who fought on Juno beach and tried to maintain the foothold on beaches of Dieppe.

Add 'registered' to the beginning of this claim and it might have minor merit. Although I know several veterans who never wanted to touch a gun again. Why do you dismiss their sacrifice?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 24 November 2003 07:46 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about Switzerland, Vermont, Norway, Sweden, Finland ?

Well, how about them?

Switzerland:
"Switzerland is a prosperous and stable modern market economy with low unemployment, a highly skilled labor force, and a per capita GDP larger than that of the big western European economies."

GDP/Capita (2002) $31,700
Household income by percentage share:
Lowest 10%: 2.6%
Higest 10%: 25.2%
Distribution of family income (Gini index) 33.1
Unemployment rate: 1.9%
NB: Switzerland has mandatory military service.

Norway:
"The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises). (...) With arguably the highest quality of life worldwide..."

GDP/Capita (2002) $31,800
Household income by percentage share:
Lowest 10%: 4.1%
Highest 10%: 21.8%
Gini index: 25.8 (1995)
NB: Norway has mandatory military service.

Canada:
"As an affluent, high-tech industrial society, Canada today closely resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and high living standards."

GDP/Capita (2002) $29,400
Income distribution:
Lowest 10%: 2.8%
Highest 10%: 23.8%
Gini index (1994): 31.5

United States (can't find these for Vermont as easily):

"The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,600. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. ... The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. ... Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups."

GDP/Capita (2002): $31,600
Income distribution
Lowest 10%: 1.8%
Highest 10%: 30.8%
Gini index: 40.8 (1995)
Unemployment rate: 5.8%

I might also point out that the low crime rates in Norway and Switzerland aren't due to every house having an assault rifle (which are REGISTERED, since they're military-issue), but because THERE AREN'T AS MANY POOR PEOPLE, and THERE'S LESS OF A GAP BETWEEN WHAT RICH PEOPLE EARN AND WHAT POOR PEOPLE EARN.

So, yeah, let's live like Norway or Switzerland. Hoo-ah! Bring on that welfare state with complete registration of private firearms! Tax the filthy rich and nationalize industry, then redistribute that wealth to help the poor! Yay!

(Guys, you're making our case for us with comparisons to Fennoscandinavian countries)

Edited to add: All data from CIA World Factbook

Edited again to add: Here's some info on Vermont vs. the USA averages (all year 2000, presented Vermont/USA):

Persons of White ethnicity: 96.8%/75.1%
Homeownership rate: 70.6%/66.2%
Unemployment rate: 4.1%/5.8%
High School graduates: 86.4%/80.4%
Bachelor's degree or higher: 29.4%/24.4%
Persons per household: 2.44/2.59
Persons below poverty line: 9.4%/12.4%
Persons per square mile 65.8/79.6

I could go on.

So, Vermont is a largely rural, low-population density state with higher than average education and homeownership levels, low unemployment, and is essentially a monoethnic white population.

Once again, we have here a population that's stable, aging (I didn't post figures but it has fewer than average children and more than average senior citizens), has low income disparities, no large urban centers (its population is lower than that of the city of Winnipeg alone) and is well-educated. In short, Vermont fits the Fennoscandinavian model of economy far better than that of mainstream US (or Canadian) society. It is, in short, an exception, rather than the rule.

[ 24 November 2003: Message edited by: aRoused ]

[ 24 November 2003: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 24 November 2003 01:21 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Please explain exactly why I have 13 firearms at this very moment that are destined to be confiscated and DESTROYED with NO COMPENSATION. While you are at it can you explain why I have several friends who have already had LEGALLY PURCHASED firearms confiscated and destroyed? HMmmm

Why do you need 13 guns anyway. I don't hunt (I do respect people who will get up in early on cold fall mornings, tramp around in the bush and drag 200 lbs of dead weight back to their trucks and I never turn down the offer of game) but I talked to some people who do and you only need 4 guns. A 22 calibre, something of higher calibre and two shotguns.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 24 November 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who cares? Why do you need more that four pairs of socks, three shirts, one jacket, 600sq ft, or two pairs of glasses?

You don't 'need' them so get rid of them.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 24 November 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The issue of confiscation without compensation has always disturbed me about our new gun control laws, as well as there being no right of succession (ie., if you die, you cannot leave your gun to your estate---at least that's my understanding)
From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 24 November 2003 03:50 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are guns...and then there are guns. Criminals prefer certain kinds, obviously. Let's melt any kind of gun that isn't strictly meant for hunting game. That way the hunters can hunt and the ranchers and farmers can protect their animals, and the state can focus its resources on protecting us from other kinds of guns (and gun handlers, aka criminals), which have no business being at large in the civilian world. The inconvenience of not being able to enjoy target practice with an assault weapon is insignificant compared to the potential tragedy, however slight, of the thing being stolen by a criminal. And of course people ought to be compensated for the loss of these possessions.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 November 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Firearms are dangerous . . . if I have a license to use dynamite, and I die, I cannot leave the dynamite to my children without certain conditions being met (ie. my child must have a license to own such material, or maybe they can own it, but have to have it stored in a lcation where only licensed people may have access, or they may only be allowed to own the stuff while it is in trust until sold.)

Some items, society determines, can be a hazzard, so they put certain restrictions on the use and ownership of such . . . nothing strange or dastardly about that!!

One of you pro-gun guys should rush out and try to buy a box of dynamite, or a vile of small pox, or a carton of Tylenol III!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 24 November 2003 04:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The difference, as Foxer has pointed out many times, is that in its natural state, dynamite is ver dangerous. It can destabilize and explode on its own.

A gun, in its natural state, will not kill anyone. It must be loaded, cocked, pointed in the direction of a person, and fired.

Go get a pound of plutonium and a gun and put them side by each on your kitchen table. Then just sit there and wait for one of them to kill you. Any guesses on which one does it first?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 November 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no problem with providing fair market value for confiscated firearms. Makes sense. If they are illegal firearms and shouldn't have been purchased in the first place, then forget it. If they have been redefined as dangerous SINCE THEY WERE PURCHASED, then it seems fair to compensate.

The trouble with waiting until a gun is used illegally or dangerously before imposing controls on a person's gun usage is that using a gun dangerously tends to result in serious injury or death for a third person. Shoot your own foot or head off, you probably shouldn't have a gun anymore. Shoot my foot, or head, you never should have had a gun in the first place, and I'm paying the price for that.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 November 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some items, society determines, can be a hazzard, so they put certain restrictions on the use and ownership of such . . . nothing strange or dastardly about that!!

Right. Like, what's the most number of times you can drink and drive? Four? Five? It's certainly no more than 8! Then your car is immediately confiscated (isn't it?) and you're not allowed to drive ever again (or maybe I'm mistaken and it's "you're not allowed to drive until the next time you need groceries at the Big Box").


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 24 November 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who cares? Why do you need more that four pairs of socks, three shirts, one jacket, 600sq ft, or two pairs of glasses?

With the exception of my socks non of the above is capable of harming anyone.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 24 November 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:
There are guns...and then there are guns. Criminals prefer certain kinds, obviously. Let's melt any kind of gun that isn't strictly meant for hunting game. That way the hunters can hunt and the ranchers and farmers can protect their animals, and the state can focus its resources on protecting us from other kinds of guns (and gun handlers, aka criminals), which have no business being at large in the civilian world. The inconvenience of not being able to enjoy target practice with an assault weapon is insignificant compared to the potential tragedy, however slight, of the thing being stolen by a criminal. And of course people ought to be compensated for the loss of these possessions.

This is just a kneejerk short term unrealistic soution to a greater problem. Why should we punish hundreds of thousands of Law Abiding, Target Shooting Canadian citizens compromised of Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Policemen & women, Firefighters, you name the profession and I'll bet there are some target shooters in there, just because some crook MIGHT break into their house? Not to mention the costs involved with compensating for these firearms. It cost the Austrailian taxpayers 600 million dollars in the pistol buyback with zero effect on reducing crime. Actually pistol crimes went up after the buyback. C-68 as it stands would have done nothing to prevent the Lepine incident and that was what it was designed to do in the first place.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 November 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's the limit on the number of cars you can own? Or knives? Baseball bats? Chainsaws? Planks of wood with big rusty nails in them? Bottles of paint thinner? How about buckets?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 24 November 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You could gouge out someones eyes with the glasses, smother them with the jacket, or strangle them with the pants.

Like yours, my socks could be reasonably construed as WMD's.

p.s. I will, upon demand of the UN, provide complete proof that my toxic sock inventory has been destroyed.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 24 November 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

Yes, most guns come from the illegal underworld. How do they get there? They are stolen, mostly from responsible gun owners who aren't planning on committing any crimes. Someone broke into my house a month ago, but all that was here to steal was some minor property. I have no doubt they'd have taken my gun if I'd owned one.


Actually 75% of handguns recovered that were used to commit crimes were smuggled from the US. Even the coalition for gun-control accept these stats.
Mabey if you had more personal property that you spent most of your life collecting you would be more inclined to protect it from the criminal element.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 24 November 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mabey if you had more personal property that you spent most of your life collecting you would be more inclined to protect it from the criminal element.

What do you mean, protect it with guns? You mean that just because someone values their "Precious moments" figurines over the lives of other people, I have to tolerate my neighbour having dangerous, unregistered, unsecured guns in his house? Not in a million years, there, Brenda. Gets some bars on your windows, a large barking dog, invest in an alarm system and make sure your household insurance gives you good coverage.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 November 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And besides... (sigh! I know I'll regret wading into this...), you can't protect your property with guns. In particular, you can't shoot someone just for breaking into your house. The law is quite clear. Response to a threat has to be proportional to the threat.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 24 November 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
The difference, as Foxer has pointed out many times, is that in its natural state, dynamite is ver dangerous. It can destabilize and explode on its own.

A gun, in its natural state, will not kill anyone. It must be loaded, cocked, pointed in the direction of a person, and fired.

Go get a pound of plutonium and a gun and put them side by each on your kitchen table. Then just sit there and wait for one of them to kill you. Any guesses on which one does it first?


Dynamite is no more likely to go off by itself than a firearm . . . a vile of small pox sitting on your table will do no harm onits own, and a carton of perscription drugs is also harmeless as any firearm.

As for your plutonium example, is the plutonium in a protective case?? Is the firearm loaded? Is there a lock on the firearm? Is the plutonium case locked? Are the people in the room trained in the handling of plutonium and/or firearms?? You can't just make generic statements like that without at least trying to compare apples to apples.

If the pond of plutonium is locked in a safe lead case, in a secured room full of trained phyisists, and the firearm was loaded with a hair trigger, and no one was trained in the safe handling of a firearm, then I would expect that the chances of being killed by the firearm would be much greater . . . of course, you can also set up the conditions so that the plutonium would be more likely to be the more dangerous of the two items.


You folks make it sound like there has never been any law or regulation on anything except on firearms!!

If all you want is to own firearms in their "natural state" (never loaded, never cocked, never pointed, and never fired) then I will certainly agree that no regulations are required . . . of course, if we were to only allow cars to be owned in their "natural state" (unstarted, no fuel, no tires, undrived, etc.) then we wouldn't require registration and licensing of cars either.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 24 November 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Add 'registered' to the beginning of this claim and it might have minor merit. Although I know several veterans who never wanted to touch a gun again. Why do you dismiss their sacrifice?



Who dismisses their sacrifice ?

Based on your postings, you are the one who has no merit.

Most of those veterans who own guns did not register them. Ask Mr. Oscar Lacombe, a Canadian war hero, about registration.

You called gun-onwers nazis and I am pointing out that your statement is out of mind. I think you don't have the grasp of the whole story. You just jump in with labels, and then you think that you are smart.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 24 November 2003 06:35 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
aRoused:

Switzerland, Norway, Finland, etc are countries that are living proof of high level of gunownership and low crime rates. Our gun-grabbers claim thathigh percantahe of gun ownership leads to more crime and they use an example of USA to support their claims.

Well, the USA is not homogenous on this issue. SOme places in the US have high gun ownership and low crime, some have low level of legal gun ownership and high level of crimes. Depending on where you go.

I mentioned these European countries because they have always had a lot of guns, they are all developed but they have a relatively small crime rate.

Thats it. Anyways, thanks for resouceful economic analysis.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 24 November 2003 06:45 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More clear evidence that gun registration is certainly making a difference in Canada, eh?
__________________________________________________

T.O. police 'tired' as homicide toll reaches 58

CTV.ca News Staff

A weekend of violence has Toronto police calling for backup, as three shooting deaths bring the city's total homicide count for this year to 58.

In the latest shooting death, a 25-year-old man was shot in the chest around 8 p.m. Sunday. Police said he staggered into an apartment pleading for help. He was taken to Sunnybrook hospital with no pulse.

According to media reports, four young men were seen fleeing from the scene. The Toronto Sun said two men had been taken in for questioning.

Earlier Sunday, a 27-year-old man leaving a DJ contest died after being shot while getting into his car. Courtney Alphonso Mullings was shot just before 4 a.m. in a parking lot in an area north of the city.

According to the Toronto Star, the DJ contest began to wind down about 3:30 a.m. and there were people in the parking lot when the victim was leaving. Police believe there may have been some witnesses to the shooting.

Police are also investigating a shooting early Saturday in the parking lot of a Howard Johnson hotel that claimed the life of 18-year-old Rejeevan Selliah.

According to police, two men were seen fleeing the scene in a white, four-door 1989 Chevrolet Corsica, with a red interior and rust spots.

Also this weekend, two men were shot at early Sunday in downtown Toronto and two others were stabbed. The shootings didn't result in any injuries, and the two men who were stabbed were treated and released.

While police are not concerned about a new wave of violence, detectives say gang-related violence is on the rise, and that is putting extra strain on officers.

Staff Sgt. Gary Ellis said officers are "committed, tired, hardworking and resolved to do what they can" to clear the case files.

He said police are working overtime and even cancelling vacations to keep up with the work. Adding to the work load are evolving laws and policies and technological changes.

"I'm signing forms so that they can carry their holidays over to next year because none of them can take their holidays now.

"They're working around the clock," Ellis told a news conference as he updated reporters on the three murders.

He said it isn't the number of homicides, but the fact they are gang-related and take longer to investigate. We have to build a case with each accused," Ellis said.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 November 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That last post has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 24 November 2003 06:59 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why should we punish hundreds of thousands of Law Abiding, Target Shooting Canadian citizens... just because some crook MIGHT break into their house?

Two key words, aside from the irrelevancies of citizenship and professional status: "punish", and "just." If not being able to target shoot with an assault weapon is a "punishment," then the bar is being set very low. Consider the grief of a gun-related tragedy, and compare it to the "punishment" of not being able to shoot at targets with an assault weapon. The word "just" in that sentence does not diminish the potential impact of having one of these offensive weapons stolen. The word slips by as if merely an element of style--yet it signifies that the potential dire consequences of theft, however slight, are acceptable. To whom? Gun-owners who think it's "punishment" to not be able to shoot at targets with assault weapons? Given that value system, I don't think it's appropriate that the risk should be left for them to decide.

quote:
Actually 75% of handguns recovered that were used to commit crimes were smuggled from the US.
This is hardly a good argument for legalizing handguns here, or anywhere. It's a very good argument, however, for getting rid of them south of the border.

quote:
Not to mention the costs involved with compensating for these firearms.
It's never going to be as expensive as the loss of one single life.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 24 November 2003 07:06 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That last post has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.

Your GD right it doesn't!

Gun control crap like registration doesn't do one fucking thing to prevent this kind of crap.

95% + of the firearms related crimes committed in this country involve unregistered weapons being used almost exclusively by people with criminal records already known to police forces.

Yet the government spends $1.5 billion registering the firearms of millions of honest Canadians claiming that it's necessary precisely to prevent firearms crimes.

What a fucking crock of pure bullshit!

And you saps buy into it like 5 yearolds in a candystore with $20 in your jeans.

You trot out firearms crime statistics like Moses presenting the ten commandments to make your case.

But you ignore the fact that 98% of those statistics involves Hell Angels, drug dealers, street gangs, ethnic wars, and the like...and that not bloody one of them is even remotely stupid enough to use a firearm registered to himself.

Ask the cops on the streets of Toronto or Vancouver if they give a rat's ass about registration.

Or the RCMP policing the rural neighborhoods and farmlands across the country.

Most of them could not possibly care less about such ignorant and useless crap.

But ask them if they could come up with at least a hundred better ways to put that money to use to make their work more effective, and you'll get an earful everytime.

GAWD, how stupid can you possibly get!

[ 24 November 2003: Message edited by: sir_springer ]


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 November 2003 07:36 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You called gun-onwers nazis and I am pointing out that your statement is out of mind.You called gun-onwers nazis and I am pointing out that your statement is out of mind.

I did not, and that is a blatant and slanderous lie. I suggest you apologise.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 24 November 2003 07:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LTJ posted:
quote:
Only fascist fools and criminals (and I'm guessing there's a great deal of cross-over between them) haven't registered their guns. Which neo-nazi website made this claim, HB? And why would you believe it

Quack, Quack, Quack.

Look honey, a neo-Nazi.

No dear, its a duck

Well, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 24 November 2003 07:58 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Only fascist fools and criminals (and I'm guessing there's a great deal of cross-over between them) haven't registered their guns. Which neo-nazi website made this claim, HB? And why would you believe it?


I'd say I, as a gun owner, find this quite slanderous.

I know lots of people who have not registered...and not one of them resembles your description of them.

In fact, I'd say you're guilty of hate mongering.

People who don't buckle under to ridiculous and draconian laws are "facists" and "neo-nazis"???

I suspect that, were the government to pass a law stating that everyone had better be on their roofs picking apples on Thursdays from 7:00 to 9:00 PM, you'd be down at the hardware store within half an hour pickin' out a new ladder.

The Stalins and the Hitlers of this world dream about people like you, partner.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 24 November 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Only fascist fools and criminals (and I'm guessing there's a great deal of cross-over between them) haven't registered their guns. Which neo-nazi website made this claim, HB? And why would you believe it?



Excuse me, is this your post ?

You are implying that gunowners who did not register their huns out of fear of consfiscation, are fascist fools ?

Or I AM ILLITERATE under certain "political" norms
?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 24 November 2003 08:19 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Darwin working hard on this issue, but progress seems slow.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 November 2003 08:57 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are implying that gunowners who did not register their huns out of fear of consfiscation, are fascist fools ?

Yes, I was, though perhaps I should qualify it with 'fascists, or fear-ridden fools made paranoid by them'.

No reasonable registered gun owner has any reason to take offence at anything I said.
I take it the three of you don't meet the criteria.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
helicopterbase
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4252

posted 24 November 2003 10:52 PM      Profile for helicopterbase     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:

Yes, I was, though perhaps I should qualify it with 'fascists, or fear-ridden fools made paranoid by them'.

No reasonable registered gun owner has any reason to take offence at anything I said.
I take it the three of you don't meet the criteria.


I have to tell you point blank that you are mentally retarded !


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 25 November 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have to tell you point blank that you are mentally retarded !

And I'd have to tell you this is a violation of babble policy. And the tit for tat argument really doesn't work. If you have a problem you report it to the moderators you don't toss around the words "mentally retarded'.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 25 November 2003 01:30 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fun part of all this is seeing how worked up the gunpeople get when someone suggests they shouldn't have their silly toys.

Keep venting kids, its really making an impression.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 25 November 2003 01:47 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay its only fun until someone loses a handle. Now you guys know your job. Toy with these gentlemen all you want, but if they get into other threads its your job to clean up the mess.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 25 November 2003 08:23 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I never suggested no one should have guns, arborman.
I have suggested that we need to separate the legitimate hunters and farmers needs from the wackjobs - for example, those who think they must have guns to 'defend themselves' from all those 'dangerous' immigrants and minorities.

quote:
I know lots of people who have not registered...and not one of them resembles your description of them.

And I know lots of gun owners, HF....and not one of them hasn't registered their weapons.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:
It's never going to be as expensive as the loss of one single life.

Two key words, aside from the irrelevancies of citizenship and professional status: "punish", and "just." If not being able to target shoot with an assault weapon is a "punishment," then the bar is being set very low. Consider the grief of a gun-related tragedy, and compare it to the "punishment" of not being able to shoot at targets with an assault weapon. The word "just" in that sentence does not diminish the potential impact of having one of these offensive weapons stolen. The word slips by as if merely an element of style--yet it signifies that the potential dire consequences of theft, however slight, are acceptable. To whom? Gun-owners who think it's "punishment" to not be able to shoot at targets with assault weapons? Given that value system, I don't think it's appropriate that the risk should be left for them to decide.


What is an assault weapon? Why would you be concerned about assault weapons when the obvious choice of criminals and gangbangers is handguns? Your arguement that there are good guns and bad guns is ridiculous. Do you honestly beleive that if we get rid of all the handguns in private ownership in Canada that the gangbangers and bikers and other crooks will turn theirs in or will not be able to aquire them somewhere else? Look to Austailia and England for that answer.


quote:
This is hardly a good argument for legalizing handguns here, or anywhere. It's a very good argument, however, for getting rid of them south of the border.

Handguns ARE legal here.
Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. Our legal system not punishing criminals to the full extend when charged with firearms offences is the problem. Did you hear about the 2 teaches that were shot in Gatineau in their quaint little cottage by 2 stoned scumbags? Michaud, one of the shooter was in police custody 1 week before these shootings, that had caught him with 6 stolen guns. They released him after 4 hours of quuestioning. Why did this happen? Do you think that only firearms related deaths should be focused on? The coalition for gun control does. They claim a small victory for the gun registry because firearms homicides were down from 180 to 150 last year. Yet the national homicide rate was up by 10%. Are these people any less dead if they were killed with a knife or starngled? Are their families any happier because they were not killed by guns? Why spend 2 billions dollars to try and prevent only one form of murder and neglect all the rest?

From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 11:21 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know lots of people who have not registered...and not one of them resembles your description of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I know lots of gun owners, HF....and not one of them hasn't registered their weapons.


Good for you. You might want to address this to Sir_Springer though.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 25 November 2003 11:26 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, the mentally retarded comment was extremely offensive, but so was the fascist comment. The other side has displayed some equally offensive behaviour that should not be ignored here.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I've been noticing that whenever someone starts going on about the gun registry, the unforgivable cost of it goes up by 500 million dollars. We're up to two billion in this thread; do I hear 2.5? Do I hear 3? It actually is a scandal, yet I've yet to see a good analysis on how the government could have overrun the costs of this by so much. Anyone got a good link? (...and no, links from Breitkreuz or the National Review won't cut it)
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 12:06 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. Place the central registry office in a depressed region as a make-work regional subsidy instead of the best priced location.

2. Have politicans and inept anti-gun activists develop the top-level scope of the project.

3. Staff the project with yes men more concerned about their jobs than the project.

4. Allow stupid expenditures, like allowing the registry chief to live in Edmonton and fly first/business class to get to the registry location.

5. Base the system on a uniquely identified firearm, when firearms are not uniquely identifiable (no distinct, permanent serial #).

6. Hire a development firm. Pay them a bundle of cash until it becomes evident that they cannot deliver. Stop the project but do not demand any repayment for non-delivery. Hire another firm (that is a contributor to the liberal party and who has massive markups). Have them restart the project from the ground up.

7. Require users to fill out badly designed forms to register firearms.

8. Underdevelop the registration website and customer support units and have to pay people a ton of overtime to get the data in by the deadlines that are set before the project is deliverable.

9. Intentionally underestimate the amount of firearms in the country to make the stats look better when all that they are really doing is messing with the developer.

10. Bury enforcement, staffing, & reporting costs in other departments or try to offset them to the provinces.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 12:11 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about the AG?

Is that a good source?
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 12:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, you Alliance types are so smart...I knew I'd be able to get an answer to all my questions by just throwing it out there, and having Heywood explain it all to me...the bottom line being that Chrétien and all Liberals in the government are stupid, evil, bastards.

...this is a pointless discussion, made even more pointless by raving ideologues who do not understand what information is.

edited to add: sorry Heywood; I responded to your first post (and my assessment of it still stands)...I always thought the auditors report was mostly just a statement that costs had overrun, and never bothered to read it...maybe I'll bother now.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 12:16 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I've been noticing that whenever someone starts going on about the gun registry, the unforgivable cost of it goes up by 500 million dollars. We're up to two billion in this thread; do I hear 2.5? Do I hear 3? It actually is a scandal, yet I've yet to see a good analysis on how the government could have overrun the costs of this by so much. Anyone got a good link? (...and no, links from Breitkreuz or the National Review won't cut it)

The Auditor General was unable to complete her audit of the gun registry because the Liberals wouldn't provide all the information she requested. The Liberals themselves admit to 1 Billion dollars so the figure has to be at least double that. There is alot of "other" spending that is directly related to the registry but is not included in the audit. eg. $400,000 a year for the Coalition for Gun Control to show public support for the gun registry.
And why would you discredit Breitkreuz's stats? He comprised them all from access to information requests and is the hardest working politician in Canada.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Brenda ]


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 12:24 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gosh, you Alliance types are so smart...I knew I'd be able to get an answer to all my questions by just throwing it out there, and having Heywood explain it all to me...the bottom line being that Chrétien and all Liberals in the government are stupid, evil, bastards.

Where did I say anything about all Liberals? You asked how a project can be overrun to the extent that the Longgun registry has. The reasons I gave are why. Are any of them false? Are any of them not reasons that would cause a cost overrun? Are these reasons not unlike the reasons that cause private sector cost overruns?

I'm not railing against Liberals (this time). I'm railing against idiots. If the idiots and the Liberals are the same people then it is just a happy coincidence.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
mighty brutus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3148

posted 25 November 2003 12:26 PM      Profile for mighty brutus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The sad thing about this fiasco is that there was nothing wrong with the existing system of firearms registration.
From: Beautiful Burnaby, British Columbia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And why would you discredit Breitkreuz's stats? He comprised them all from access to information requests and is the hardest working politician in Canada.

Because too many overzealous, paranoid-sounding gun-supporters trot out his information ad nauseaum to make me suspect who his target audience is and what biases he might introduce in his tireless work...rooting out bias and misinformation is hugely time-consumming, and I don't have enough time to be wasting it on that.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 12:32 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you don't like Breitkreuz's stats, then get a Dipper to start working on the file. Heck, get the NDP to mention the issue on their website.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Because too many overzealous, paranoid-sounding gun-supporters trot out his information ad nauseaum to make me suspect who his target audience is and what biases he might introduce in his tireless work...rooting out bias and misinformation is hugely time-consumming, and I don't have enough time to be wasting it on that.


Well that makes sense.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Heywood, I edited my post...you should have provided the link sooner, rather than give me what I took to be opinion (...maybe informed, but sadly, unsourced). As a systems manager who's run university library systems with huge enterprise installations and hundreds of workstations, I can make good guesses about cost overruns as well, but that's not what I was asking.

...and the Liberals crack? I thought I get it out before you referred to Chrétien as "Cretin" or "Crouton" or some other hilarious thing.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 12:39 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Brenda, if you can't comment seriously on something, don't really bother; you'll just get a plonk from me.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alan 'Crack' Rock.
Anne 'OverrunWhatOverrun' McLellan.
Martin 'OinkOink' Cauchon.

edited to add

My company does post merger integration work with mid & large scale companies (500+ employees). The examples I gave are all true examples from projects that I have run.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 12:51 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My company does post merger integration work with mid & large scale companies (500+ employees). The examples I gave are all true examples from projects that I have run

How interesting (and off-topic)...my experiences with companies contracted to handle integration issues have actually been the source of cost-overruns in the projects I've run. How, well...ironic.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Brenda, if you can't comment seriously on something, don't really bother; you'll just get a plonk from me.

OH NO! Not the dreaded PLONK! Not taking someone seriously because of the audience that he attracts is a very narrowminded approach to any subject.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
If you don't like Breitkreuz's stats, then get a Dipper to start working on the file. Heck, get the NDP to mention the issue on their website.

The NDP??? Are they still an offical party?? I thought they got wiped out in the last provincial election. I don't live in ON so I'm not up on "the scene".


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
OH NO! Not the dreaded PLONK! Not taking someone seriously because of the audience that he attracts is a very narrowminded approach to any subject.

Thanks Brenda....*PLONK*


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 25 November 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The NDP??? Are they still an offical party?? I thought they got wiped out in the last provincial election. I don't live in ON so I'm not up on "the scene".

That's obvious, you seem to only be up on the "Gun Control" issue as that's the only thread you have posted to, which will quite easily earn you any number of "plonks" and directions back to the Mothership.

There is an entire Forum devoted to the NDP here on babble, for obvious reasons. Do your own research if you really give a shit. Unless of course you were just attempting to put down the Ontario NDP with a lame bit of sarcasm.

As for the general argument that a populace needs to be armed to protect themselves from the state, well, take a look at Georgia folks, and remind me again how the police are out to get the people and that a coup needs an arsenal. And for a reality check, 7 million guns still won't make "the people" a match for the Governement and it's army if the world should suddenly turn into sci-fi world. The military would slaughter the lot of you as you attempted to defend yourselves.

Now the argument that you want to keep you hobby is a more reasonable one than defending yourself against the state. That's chock full of serious paranoia.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 01:19 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
[QB]

Well, good for you. SO far you seem balanced and rational, and able to control yourself. Why do I have to take the brunt of it (as in get shot) if that changes? Shouldn't there be mechanisms in place to minimise that possibility? I think so. I'm not worried about YOUR safety, I'm worried about my own.

There are responsible gun owners. I was one, though I don't own a gun now. The problem is that there are people whose degree and level of responsibility can and does change. That's why a child is 7 times more likely to be killed by a gun if there is one in his/her house.

[QB]


If gunowners are such a risk to public safety why does my $5 million dollar shooting sports liability insurance only cost $6 a year? This covers me anywhere in the world. My car insurance liability is approx. $600 a year. Does this mean I'm 100 times more likely to accidently cause serious bodily injury or property damage with my car than with my gun?

And the child/firearm in the house quote is ridiculous. It's juts like saying I'm 7 times more likely to get into a car accident if I get into car rather than never get in one.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 25 November 2003 01:20 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you honestly beleive that if we get rid of all the handguns in private ownership in Canada that the gangbangers and bikers and other crooks will turn theirs in or will not be able to aquire them somewhere else?
Of course not. What I believe is that the less of them the better. If the general public was not allowed to possess handguns, semi-automatics, pump shotguns, etc. (i.e., any type of gun favoured by criminals), then there would be one less avenue for criminals to acquire them.

quote:
one of the shooter was in police custody 1 week before these shootings, that had caught him with 6 stolen guns. They released him after 4 hours of quuestioning. Why did this happen?
Who can know, when you don't explain the relevant details of the case?

Guns have a special, and dangerously powerful nostalgia about them; their advocates tend to infuse them with a reverence connected to great battles for freedom--Juno Beach, Dieppe, etc.--as if one could somehow (scandalously, in my opinion) borrow the legitimacy of past sacrifices to justify the mere ownership of a specific kind of property. (In the U.S., at least, older guns serve to bestow all the rest with symbolic legitimacy, especially when whipping up pro-gun crowds by alluding to their use in past battles for freedom, and even to justify threats of criminal behaviour in the present: Heston's "Over my dead body!") This nostalgia elevates the status of a civilian's gun to an object signifying the rarest and best human qualities like courage and altruism and self-sacrifice in the name of peace, qualities many civilian gun owners may not have earned--and that none have earned, or will ever earn, by merely owning a gun (or guns). These are the same self-sacrificing, altruistic, peace-loving, and courageous people who complain of being "punished" when it's proposed that they give up certain kinds of guns. The irony is that by investing a gun's meaning with human qualities, a case is offered that guns kill people as much as people do. How inconvenient.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How interesting (and off-topic)...my experiences with companies contracted to handle integration issues have actually been the source of cost-overruns in the projects I've run. How, well...ironic.

I won't argue with you. Most of the overruns I have had to incur are a result of the merger issues (which company wins the bureaucratic fight, which applications stay & go, etc) and not a result of me giving an low estimate to get the contract. That did happen when I first started out but not anymore. My crew gets work entirely through word-of-mouth and we are successful (on time, on budget) 75% of the time.

I find the big firms are the worst offenders for overruns. In fact, I lost a bid to a TLA company whose final cost ended up being 50% more then my bid.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 November 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now the argument that you want to keep you hobby is a more reasonable one than defending yourself against the state. That's chock full of serious paranoia.

I don't disagree (although I think shooting as a hobby, hunting or self-protection in the home are valid reasons for wanting a gun), but isn't it ironic that the 'defense against the state' argument seems to come primarily from the far right, but also the far left? Dissimilar in almost every other way, they're almost united in their fear of the government's might.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 November 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

The NDP??? Are they still an offical party?? I thought they got wiped out in the last provincial election. I don't live in ON so I'm not up on "the scene".


The Federal NDP got wiped out in the last provincial election?? Really, which province are we talking about here whose elections determine the federal NDP status??

Or has the Federal Firearm laws and the criminal code been transfered to provincial (and presumably only to Ontraio provincial) responsibility while I slept??

Oh and Heywood, can I add one item to your list??

11. coordinated efforts by the gun lobby and their suckers to hold back registration and flood the registry system at the last minute, while at the same time purposely providing misleading and in sme cases, outright wrong, registry information.

Of course, any group that still puts out the lies that Australian crime increased after the new firearm laws (an Aussie firearm lobby group cited one state during the first year that did actually have an increase in firearm crime, but all other states had a decrease, and now the firearm crazies of the world have come to accept that one blip as the whole story for all Aussie states for every year,) or the misleading information regarding the UK situation (London innercity firearm crime, almost exclusively due to gang activity, increased, the rest of the country had a decrease) can hardly be expected to actually provide the complete story now can they!!??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scout wrote:
As for the general argument that a populace needs to be armed to protect themselves from the state, well, take a look at Georgia folks, and remind me again how the police are out to get the people and that a coup needs an arsenal. And for a reality check, 7 million guns still won't make "the people" a match for the Governement and it's army if the world should suddenly turn into sci-fi world. The military would slaughter the lot of you as you attempted to defend yourselves.

We are fortunate to live in a very civilised society and I do not fear the Gov. will confiscate my guns without compensation and throw me in a concentration camp. I do fear that the current Liberal Gov. does have a global agenda to confiscate guns to conform to the United Nations plans of disarming civilians. To me it's a hobby, just like any other hobby eg. collecting old cars, collecting art, etc. and I have invested considerable money and time in my sport/hobby. And as far as the military being used to disarm the population this has been discussed on another board I frequent. Alot of men/women in the Military are avid shooters and collectors as well. They also understand how ridiculous the current gun control legislation is and a number of them would simply refuse to go along with any sort of gun-grabbing for the Gov. It would never come to that though, because we live in a civilised society.

A couple of quotes for you.....

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison all understood the importance of private gun ownership in a free society.

Jefferson:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Hamilton:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

And Hamilton again:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Madison (in Federalist No. 46, predicting that encroachments by the federal government) said that these would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to the trial of force." Madison also said (still in Fed. No. 46):

"[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

And Thomas Paine:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."

Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775

While Tench Coxe said:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

(Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

While we're about it, let's also quote again another of the great men, Patrick Henry, commenting on the Second Amendment in 1788:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

And another from Mr. Henry:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

(3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

Even the British used to have the right idea (they don't nowadays):

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."

James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

Some more modern quotes:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)

From George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist:

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

From another Brit (an expat):

"The certainty that a potential victim is unarmed is an encouragement to armed criminals. Less guns, more crime." and

"…. it is interesting to note that of the 150 or so law enforcement officers killed every year in the U.S., one in four is shot with his own weapon. The moral of that is: If you are defending yourself with a gun against someone bigger than yourself, be much less scrupulous about shooting him than police officers have to be."

-- John Derbyshire

And, from the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi (Autobiography, by M.K. Gandhi, p.446)

And from the world's gentlest human being:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

And lastly, opinions from a couple of bad guys:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

-- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Mafia hit man

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”

-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

-- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 25 November 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Getting back to the subject, the bottom line is;

"NO ONE KNOWS how many guns there are in Canada!"

For just ONE thing; there have been, according to CFC's own figures, around one million guns reported as "Lost, Missing or Stolen" in the last forty years...!

Do you expect they got them all back?

Also, witness the many press releases that came out regarding the different estimates they had-all the way from 16 million to 7 million...

They couldn't possibly know how many guns are in the States, either....


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 November 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brenda, do you really think that a bunch of hunters and their squirrley rifles are going to over turn a modern military force??

Assuming the people you quoted all actually proposed that everyone should always be armed in order to protect themselves against their democratic governments, then we should be arming ourselves with real military weapons, not hobbiest toys.

After we all arm ourselves to that level, we may well not have to fear our government . . . those left alive or brave enough to stick their heads out of their fox hole that is!!

Reasonable people can somehow understand the stupidity of trying to say that removing firearm registration will protect us from our government suddenly becoming a brutal dictatorship . . . most NRA/NFA members cannot . . . ergo . . . well figure it out for yourself!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 November 2003 02:03 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Denner:
Getting back to the subject, the bottom line is;

"NO ONE KNOWS how many guns there are in Canada!"

For just ONE thing; there have been, according to CFC's own figures, around one million guns reported as "Lost, Missing or Stolen" in the last forty years...!

Do you expect they got them all back?

Also, witness the many press releases that came out regarding the different estimates they had-all the way from 16 million to 7 million...

They couldn't possibly know how many guns are in the States, either....


Good questions, but here's a couple of more questions:

Do we know how many vehicles there are in Canada, or the USA??

And how do we know this information?? (hint, registration)

Is this type of information of any use to society?

Can a reasonable person make any connection between these questions and the issue of firearm registration?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do we know how many vehicles there are in Canada, or the USA??

Are you saying that EVERY vehicle is registered?

Can you go to jail for owning an unregistered vehicle?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Brenda, do you really think that a bunch of hunters and their squirrley rifles are going to over turn a modern military force??

Assuming the people you quoted all actually proposed that everyone should always be armed in order to protect themselves against their democratic governments, then we should be arming ourselves with real military weapons, not hobbiest toys.

After we all arm ourselves to that level, we may well not have to fear our government . . . those left alive or brave enough to stick their heads out of their fox hole that is!!

Reasonable people can somehow understand the stupidity of trying to say that removing firearm registration will protect us from our government suddenly becoming a brutal dictatorship . . . most NRA/NFA members cannot . . . ergo . . . well figure it out for yourself!!


All firearms owners want is the Longgun registry scrapped and the funds diverted to better things that actually produce results. Mabey keeping people who use firearms to commit crimes in jail for more than 6 weeks. Use the Madatory Minimum senteces that have always been there, even before c-68, rather than plea bargaining them away. Fix our justice system first, then we can look at gun control. 150 firearms related deaths a year in a population of 33million does not seem epidemic to me to warrant this type of funding and charter violations of individual citizens. Read here if you have the time http://www.cufoa.ca/pdfs/charterchallenge2pt2.pdf

And for all of you that think Bowling for Columnbine is a documentary read this http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Pfffuiiit! Unacceptable cut and paste without acknowledgement on the part of Brenda from this site.

...and extra penalty for it being from Kim DuToit...double-plonk!


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 November 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can you go to jail for owning an unregistered vehicle?

Hehe. Ya. Right.

If this is really all about safety, and deaths, and not social control of something you really don't like, then would gun control advocates agree that we should be treating cars the same way we treat guns? They kill more people, after all. How about it?

- Fail to register your car: 2 years in jail.

- Reckless use of a car (speeding, fail to stop, joyriding, drag racing): 2 years in jail.

- Use a car in the commission of a crime: double the sentence.

- Kill someone with a car: 15 to life.

- Failure to lock your car securely in a garage every second it's not in use: 30 days.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Pfffuiiit! Unacceptable cut and paste without acknowledgement on the part of Brenda from this site.

...and extra penalty for it being from Kim DuToit...double-plonk!



If it had been something from the mouth of Mr. DuToit I would have posted an acknowledgement, as it was simply a collection of quotes from various sources no acknowledgement required.
What kind of prize do I win for getting a Double-Plonk?


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 02:45 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Don't be evasive...you even pasted in his introductory comments to the quotes...very poor form (...and by this I mean artless plagiarism).

...triple-plonk for being disingenous (...now, do you want to make it a quadruple-plonk...because believe me, you don't want that).

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Good questions, but here's a couple of more questions:

Do we know how many vehicles there are in Canada, or the USA??

And how do we know this information?? (hint, registration)

Is this type of information of any use to society?

Can a reasonable person make any connection between these questions and the issue of firearm registration?


Yes your analogy is on the mark. You can make a connection between car registration and firearms registration.
Race cars and farm vehicles, and any vehicle used solely on private property does not need to be registered. This would be similar to natives and inuit that do not need to register their firearms in Canada.
Someone who does not register their legaly owned and acquired firearms are of no threat to society. They have become paper criminals by the beurocratic paper pushes in parliment. The reason C-68 doesn't work is because it was written by people that have no knowledge of firearms. The RFC (Recreational Firearms Community) was never consulted and shut out when they tried to assist in the new legislation.
It's like a Priest telling you how to construct a bong. It won't work because he has no knowledge about the subject.


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 25 November 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
…social control of something you really don't like…

That kind of gets to the heart of it really. Society does that all the time, cigarettes, booze, marriage, etc. Why should guns be exempt?

If more people are against gun ownership than are for it that's democracy. Your "rights", which are imaginary with regards to arming yourself in Canada don't outweigh the majorities right to do what they agree upon to be safer. Whether or not what they choose will to do will actually decrease crime will be decided after the fact. Maybe the registry won’t save lives. Maybe it is crap but currently it is the law, deal with it.

If the gun lobby had done a better job convincing the people it wouldn’t work then perhaps a Government who ran with the Gun Registry wouldn’t have won. I read a lot of the Gun Lobby literature put out prior to and after, my Dad sweetly sent it to me. It was crap. It was shrill and unconvincing and light on whole facts, you know, the kind of facts that hadn’t been rearranged to suit or only half the story. “Facts” that anybody could find they rest of the story and put two and two together and be annoyed by the smoke screen and move on.

The gun lobby have a lot of ground to make up to change things. Stunts like refusing to comply with the registry, distorting statistics from other countries, using the "$1 Billion" argument turns off folks that might otherwise side with you and really turn off folks that are already against you.. And it sure doesn't help that a large segment of the Gun Lobby are against Gay Marriage and Abortion to name a couple, so they look like big giant stinking hypocrites.

quote:
Someone who does not register their legaly owned and acquired firearms are of no threat to society. They have become paper criminals by the beurocratic paper pushes in parliment.

All they had to do was follow the law, they see fit to break the law as they feel they know better and that the laws shouldn’t apply to them and they aren’t a threat? What laws will they chose to ignore next? They are a threat to society because they chose to spit on the conventions of society, the convention of agreeing to follow laws, until they can be changed or accepting them if they aren’t be changed. Or can I pick and choose which laws I’d like to obey?

I think some folks need to grow the hell up. Or suffer the consequences without expecting my sympathy. If you do the crime, do the time.

And Brenda:

quote:
And for all of you that think Bowling for Columnbine is a documentary read this...

If you poked your head out of this thread for one moment and grabbed a clue about babble, you’d find that Bowling for Columbine has been discussed, many times. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. But thanks for sounding so condescending, I am not sure I could have done a better job.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scout wrote:
All they had to do was follow the law, they see fit to break the law as they feel they know better and that the laws shouldn’t apply to them and they aren’t a threat? What laws will they chose to ignore next? They are a threat to society because they chose to spit on the conventions of society, the convention of agreeing to follow laws, until they can be changed or accepting them if they aren’t be changed. Or can I pick and choose which laws I’d like to obey?

This could be applied to pot smokers as well. It is illegal, alot of people do it, they are not hurting anyone. Would you also consider all the pot smokers to be a threat to society because they didn't obey the law?


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 04:29 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If more people are against gun ownership than are for it that's democracy. Your "rights", which are imaginary with regards to arming yourself in Canada don't outweigh the majorities right to do what they agree upon to be safer

tyrrany of the amjority...ssm...fundamental human rights...property ownership...fundamental human rights.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 04:34 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
tyrrany of the minority...ssm...fundamental human rights...property ownership...fundamental human rights.

Oh come on, Heywood...are you equating inherently unchangeable personality characteristics such as race and sexual orientation with the ownership of stuff?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Course not. I am making the point that property rights should be a fundamental human right, just like sexuality should be.

Your right to keep what you earn should be as protected as your right to marry damn near anyone you chose.

ps. you quoted me before I updated my post (majority vs minority).


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 November 2003 04:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you agree that musical instruments are "stuff", and what would your reaction be if the majority were to wish musical instruments banned?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Course not. I am making the point that property rights should be a fundamental human right, just like sexuality should be.

But they're not, don't you see? I can steal all of your property, I can even imagine a society where such theft is legal, but I can't steal your race, or your sexual orientation. They are different things, and the attempt to include them in a debate such as this is obfuscation.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would you agree that musical instruments are "stuff", and what would your reaction be if the majority were to wish musical instruments banned?

Magoo, every argument you make seems to be in the form of a question of this sort.."ok, you believe Nukes are bad and no one should have them...do you believe no one should have "Hello Kitties" as well?"...it's actually pretty funny, y'know.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Life is a fundamental human right and you can steal that. Same with freedom. Same with safety.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 25 November 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This could be applied to pot smokers as well. It is illegal, alot of people do it, they are not hurting anyone. Would you also consider all the pot smokers to be a threat to society because they didn't obey the law?

Within reason yes. I also think they need to do their time or pay the fine. But, their lobby is having success in moving towards changing the laws. I wonder why? Also pot is used for medical reasons, so not everyone is breaking the law.

And your right, pot smoking in and of itself doesn't have the potential to hurt anyone else, if someone drops a joint it isn't going to go off and kill someone. It's sole purpose is to affect the user, not to blow a hole through someone or something.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Heywood: You can steal life, definitely; that's why murder is so frowned upon. But that's not the same kind of theft as stealing your 8-track machine from the 70's. Look, we live in a materialistic society and the rights to your property are more than respected. But these rights have to be balanced out with what is the greater common good. And a right to bear arms (not part of our constitution, I guess I need to remind you) as essientially a "right to property" is a bad argument.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 25 November 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You don't need to remind me. I am glad that it is not a part of our constitution. Why? Because I don't think that firearms need special treatment under the law.

Foxer was the best at arguing this. I can't come close to holding a candle to him. Anyone know what happened to him.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 25 November 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Within reason yes. I also think they need to do their time or pay the fine. But, their lobby is having success in moving towards changing the laws. I wonder why? Also pot is used for medical reasons, so not everyone is breaking the law.

And your right, pot smoking in and of itself doesn't have the potential to hurt anyone else, if someone drops a joint it isn't going to go off and kill someone. It's sole purpose is to affect the user, not to blow a hole through someone or something.


What if studies show that excessive pot use kills just as many or more people every year than firearms? Cigarettes kill 50,000 canadians a year, I'm sure pot causes cancer in some cases. I'm sure some kids get killed in car accidents driving stoned. Would you still think pot isn't harmful to society?


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 25 November 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for the 'No Yards' Questionnaire';

"Do we know how many vehicles there are in Canada, or the USA??"

Answer; Unlikely. There are large, organized car theft rings operating around here (Canada) for e.g., one of my cars went to Washington State-without me in it...!)

"And how do we know this information?? (hint, registration)"

Answer; What information? I told you my car was gone! "No one knows" where...(except MAYBE the thief...)


"Is this type of information of any use to society?"

You mean not knowing how many guns there are would be somehow...useful...? Besides the cost....?

"Can a reasonable person make any connection between these questions and the issue of firearm registration?"

Is it 'reasonable' to assume that guns, as opposed to cars, are EASIER to hide...?

I know I 'answered' the last two with ? of my own-but that should provide you with some insight...

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 25 November 2003 05:17 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Life is a fundamental human right and you can steal that. Same with freedom. Same with safety.

Actually you can't "steal" any of the above in the sense being discussed. Life isn't property nor is freedom. You aren't ending up with someones life on your shelf or watching their freedom. Killing someone is the end of that person, there is nothing left over except their stuff, which you could then steal.

And it's incredibly pathetic to be comparing guns/instruments/land to life and freedom. Give your head a shake. No one needs guns or instruments to live. No harm in wanting them but placing such value on the right to have them that you would try and compare them with human life is a joke.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 25 November 2003 06:17 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brenda, awesome post.

Someone once pointed out that, in this modern age if you want to be labelled a rightwing extremist, merely start quoting the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington.

Nevertheless, quoting great minds in respect to this issue will gain nothing with the Liberal Left...unless you happen to be making a case for something with which they happen to agree. To them, either one sees the world as they do, or they're a extremist, facist, bigoted, rightwing, fanatical, morally depraved, moron.

...as you can plainly tell from this thread, and most of the other ones on this forum, too.

Came across this article in today's National Post. Seemed relevant.

They're pumping money in such megawads into this registry toilet, they've probably got a dozen people on staff armed with plungers.

But, of course...

It's worth it.


__________________________________________________
Might top $1 billion one year early

SEAN GORDON
CanWest News Service
Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Costs are piling up at the troubled federal firearms registry and could top the $1-billion mark a year earlier than originally forecast, government figures show.

The new expense numbers are contained in the most recent government estimates, which show the total program cost will rise to $814 million by next March, which marks the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year.

That figure doesn't include the $130 million in planned expenditures for the current year and other costs associated with the program, according to the opposition Canadian Alliance, which says the cost spiral is continuing unabated.

Last year, federal officials estimated the total cost of the registry, which was originally budgeted at $2 million, would hit $1 billion in early 2005.

"This is going to go over the $1-billion mark a full year ahead of schedule, and most of it is due to the astonishingly poor management of the program," said Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, a fierce detractor of the program.

A spokesperson for Solicitor-General Wayne Easter, whose department is in charge of the registry, referred calls for comment to the Canada Firearms Centre, which did not respond yesterday.

Federal auditor-general Sheila Fraser savaged the firearms registry for unexplained cost overruns in a report she tabled in December 2002, and predicted the total bill to taxpayers would reach more than $1 billion by 2005.

Breitkreuz said Fraser will now have to revise that figure.

He pointed to a previously undisclosed $47.2-million allotment for "indirect costs" that was revealed this month, and said the government's own cost estimates have been exceeded by $33 million this year.

"And none of this even includes what the auditor-general called major additional costs," Breitkreuz said.

The opposition also criticized the government for not being more forthcoming with the registry's books. Breitkreuz said he has filed more than 400 requests under federal Access to Information rules in order to find out more about the program.

© Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette
__________________________________________________

It occurs to me that the real fanatacists are those who endorse this useless POS gun registry, despite the ungodly cost, or that 9 out of 10 provinces and all 3 territories have told Ottawa to stick the whole thing up their collective arses.

Adherance to dogmatic crap will drive people to such lunacy and arrogance...especially leftwing dogmatic crap.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 06:21 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someone once pointed out that, in this modern age if you want to be labelled a rightwing extremist, merely start quoting the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington.

Was that Kim DuToit who said that, or did you cut and paste that from some other source?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 November 2003 06:29 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someone once pointed out that, in this modern age if you want to be labelled a rightwing extremist, merely start quoting the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington.

If you want to quote them selectively, in profound ignorance of what they actually thought, and in support of extremist ideas they would likely have laughed out of the room (Washington, for example, was quite contemptuous of the idea of civilian militias, having found them far more trouble than they were worth during the Revolutionary War) -- then, yes, you will be labelled a right wing extremist.

Nor is it at all clear what relevance their ideas have in Canada, which was founded on quite different bases than the Excited States of America.

And furthermore: simply quoting bits and pieces from these guys is one of the most basic and familiar fallacies, the Appeal to Authority, which should impress no-one.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 25 November 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Awesome post, 'lance...high five!...Yes? No?....ok.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 November 2003 06:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hee! Which gun nuts liked to high-five on gun-control threads, a year or two back?

Ah, memories...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 25 November 2003 06:54 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland...

Can't remember who wrote that, just remember the words.

'Lance...

The wonderful thing about wisdom is that is timeless, and is applicable universally...

Not just merely to Americans.

But let's not underestimate, nor ignore, the words Brenda provided from the likes of Lenin, Hitler, or even a Mafia hitman.

The terminology in which firearms were aptly called "the great equalisers" did not origninate in American lore, you know.

It was first coined in Europe shortly after the industrial revolution got under way. Prior to that time, firearms were affordable only to aristocracy, and their armies. The invention of lathes instantly made firearms affordable to the common man, and would-be tyrants and dictators suddenly found that the balance of power between the State and its citizenry was no longer heavily tipped in a government's favor.

And things started to get a tad bit more democratic.

Everything any of has today was won by our ancenstors, most often from the business end of a barrel in wars against tyranny, and indefence of freedom.

That we should take their sacrifice so lightly, and diss the wisdom of their leaders so offhandedly, is, IMHO, a disgrace upon free people everywhere in this world.

That the very notion of fighting for freedom has now somehow become passe, politically incorrect, or even boorish, is testament to the extent of the toll that decadence has taken upon western civilization.

And that we blithely accept "freedom" to be merely whatever it is that our governments allow it to be...which inevitably amounts to less and less with each passing generation...is sad validation of the reality of blind apathy that has infected the very fabric of our civilization.

And which ultimately will lead to our demise.

As it has to all those civilizations that have preceeded us.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 November 2003 06:58 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Everything any of has today was won by our ancenstors, most often from the business end of a barrel in wars against tyranny, and indefence of freedom.

Freedom comes not from the ballot box, but from the barrel of a gun, then, sir_springer?

How curiously Maoist.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 25 November 2003 10:14 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The reason you get to use a ballot box is because of the sacrifices made by your ancestors...primarily with a gun in their hands.

Lest you forget...which obviously you have.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 November 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhm, no.

There were no guns here although there was certainly duress.

There were no guns in 1867 when the "Representation of the People Act" was passed by British Parliament and enfranchised urban working class men.

Nor were there any guns in 1917 when women were finally afforded the vote in Canada.

Lest we forget? Clearly you have forgotten freedom comes from years of persistent activism. Only death has ever been discovered in the barrel of a gun.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 November 2003 10:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reason you get to use a ballot box is because of the sacrifices made by your ancestors...primarily with a gun in their hands.

Lest you forget...which obviously you have.


Not at all, sir_springer. But I'd like to hear some specifics of European and Canadian history from you. And I'd like to know exactly which ancestors you have in mind.

If you mean, for example, the British who defeated the French in 1759, they weren't fighting for the ballot box. It was a clash of empires, nothing more.

Since then, as John Ralston Saul points out, fewer than 100 people have been killed in political violence in Canada, and most of those in one day in 1885. This, to me, does not suggest a heavy reliance on the barrel of the gun.

Certainly some members of my family fought in the Second World War. That was a struggle against tyranny, I'll grant. But they fought with weapons issued them by the government, and against a foreign tyranny.

This romantic notion of sturdy yeomanry rising up against a wicked British oppressor -- or whatever notion you have, exactly -- is wildly inaccurate even in the US. It has no relevance to Canada whatsoever.

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 25 November 2003 11:07 PM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
2 points:

1. Guns are not the levers by which democray is won and they don't work all too well at the retention of power in an educated society either. Political power may grow out of the barrell of a gun, but freedom doesn't.

2. Everyone still in favour of the registry:

If you want to save lives with a billion dollars you can do it a lot more simply by setting up an affordable housing program, funding healthcare, rehabilitating dangerous offenders, foam padding the highways. Quite frankly, almost noone in this country dies from gun violence anymore, if the massacre is the only anectdotal evidence you can bring forward then there are better ways the billion can be spend to prevent violence against women or for that matter the violence that dare not be reported. (but that's another arguement) There are far better uses for the money that would save more lives than a registry that records specific gun numbers.

The gun registry is an enforcement vehicle, not a prevention vehicle. The Edmonton police helecopter certainly didn't stop me from being robbed at weapon's end two weeks ago at work, and it sure didn't catch them either.

You want to stop crime, stop motivations for crime. You want to stop death... well, get the scientists in the lab to work.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 26 November 2003 12:02 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
1. Guns are not the levers by which democray is won and they don't work all too well at the retention of power in an educated society either. Political power may grow out of the barrell of a gun, but freedom doesn't.

Try preaching that line in a Legion Hall.

The 60,000 + Canadians who died defending freedom in WW2 are probably turning in their graves quite a bit lately.

Freedom is the only truly valid reason to oppose tyranny, is it not?

Freedom from oppression, freedom to come and go as one pleases, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, etc....

Things we take for granted...

While billions of others in this world only dream about them.

And are willing to risk their lives, with a gun in hand if need be, to procure for themselves and their families.

So many sit back in their armchairs in this country, beer in one hand and TV clicker in the other, and pass judgement on those ignorant people shooting each other in far off lands...

Of course, never having walked a day in their shoes, never having watched, f'rinstance, your sister, wife, or daughter raped and murdered in front of your eyes...and then probably murdered...by government thugs.

Never having gone for weeks, months, even years since your last square meal because armed gangs raid and steal everything available for themselves.

Never having lived for entire lifetimes in a constant state of fear for your own life, or those of your families...

Never having to have watched every single word you said in case the guy next to you wants to score brownie points for himself by reporting to the authorities, who in turn just might snatch you up in the middle of the night, never to be heard of again...

Never having to have lived in shacks of nailed together cardboard boxes, and watch your children play barefoot in streets full of crap and corruption of every sort...

And while you're doing all this, you get to watch Glorious Leader parade around in limosines, armies dressed to the teeth, armed to hilt, celebrating themselves and their tyranny, mostly by beating, torturing, and killing anyone and everyone who even remotely may be a threat to their supremecy.

And you have the naive audacity to wonder why people resort to guns to win their freedom???

But has it ever been any different?

If it wasn't spears, it was arrows. And when it wasn't arrows, it was guns.

People who crave power...

Versus people who finally get fed up with suffering at the hands of ruthless tyrants.

But not to worry, eh?

That'll never happen in Canada.

That stuff is over there...and we're not.

We're, after all, civilized.

Then again...

A lot of people in Europe circa 1939 thought they were pretty civilized, too.

Some of them even thought gassing millions of Jews, Gypsies, and social misfits was the epitome of being civilized.

Hell, the Nazis thought gun registration was about as civilized as it gets...especially when it comes to building glorious empires.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 November 2003 12:11 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, the only concrete historical example you can trot out is the Second World War, which I'd already raised?

And apart from that, all you can provide is vague and ahistorical platitudes you could have read off the back of an NRA cereal box?

You disappoint me, but you don't surprise me.

*plonk*


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 26 November 2003 12:17 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Every time I doubt I should refer to the radical right as fascists, along comes the likes of Sir Springer, insisting that we are disappointing our glorious ancestors. Read the propaganda of Nazi Germany circa the 1930s and you'll see the same claims.

Sean, interesting observations.
Here's my take on it: If you can guarantee me that the hundreds of millions from the registry will get diverted into social housing and other progressive programs, I'm with you, buddy. Unfortunately, we all know that isn't going to happen. The money is gone, and while we could have more to show for it, we do at least have a tool for enforcement - one that has been used effectively against biker gangs in Quebec, and could be better used across the country. Why throw it away, now that its built?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 November 2003 01:04 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. A lot more lives would be saved, and crimes prevented, with money spent on social housing, welfare, health care etc. Unfortunately, and don't deny it, the right wing has made a lot of those things bad words for government policy. Can't go helping the poor people after all, they're too lazy. Much better to let them get really desperate while we hunker down in our bunkers, I mean houses, and await the next crime.

If the money would be spent elsewhere, fine, but if it was cut you know Springer and the rest would be screaming for more tax cuts, maybe so they can buy more guns to protect them from the people made desperate from the social services cuts, and the kids who fall though the cracks from the education and health cuts.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 01:25 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Why throw it away, now that its built?"


Lard; It's known as "throwing good money after bad!"

But, keep spending-you'll never notice...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 26 November 2003 01:56 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting...

Won't have anyone calling someone a "retard".

But "Nazi" and "fascist" is no problemo.

I'm wondering if "commie" and "pinko" is similarly no problemo.

I'm just trying to get better handle on the groundrules, eh?

I'm reminded of a one-liner by George Carlin:

(to paraphrase)

"Spitting on a sidewalk in New York will getcha a $50 fine...but puking is for free!"


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 November 2003 02:30 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fighting tyranny thing is pretty important.

I would like to thank my right wing gun owner friends for taking up arms against the state when Pierre Trudeau invoked martial law and suspended democracy and liberty in 1970, over what turned out to be a matter for the police.

And, I would like to personally thank them for ridding us of the Canadian Senate at gun point, and ending the tyranny of that unelected body that regularly interferes with legislation passed by the people, as represented by the House of Commons.

All this talk of fighting tyranny, and when it actually happens, the right wing gun totin' guys are right there with the Tyrants, cheering them on.

Don't use that argument, it's full of shit.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 26 November 2003 10:37 AM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What? Does no one have any comments on this http://www.cufoa.ca/pdfs/charterchallenge2pt2.pdf or are charter violations approved by the Left?
From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Take your case to the courts and see how it flies . . . so far it would seem the courts disagree with your take on Charter violations.

No one is prevent law abiding functional citizens from owning firearms, C68 simply puts some responsibilities and restrictions on the use of weapons.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 26 November 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No one is prevent law abiding functional citizens from owning firearms, C68 simply puts some responsibilities and restrictions on the use of weapons

The registry has nothing to do with USING firearms. Most firearms owners have no problem with requiring a license to USE firearms. C68 deals with posessing firearms, which is an entirely different issue.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 11:45 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are also laws regarding the possession of drugs (illegal and perscription) and the regestration of such . . . is anyone filing a Charter challange because they need a license and have to register in order to store a case load of perscription narcotics on their property??

Fell free to go to the courts though . . . if you feel this is a Charter violation, then ny all means, let's clear up the question!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 26 November 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What if studies show that excessive pot use kills just as many or more people every year than firearms? Cigarettes kill 50,000 canadians a year, I'm sure pot causes cancer in some cases. I'm sure some kids get killed in car accidents driving stoned. Would you still think pot isn't harmful to society?

It’s not how many people get killed. Do you get it yet. It’s the ease with which you can kill someone. It’s the ease with which an accident can cause a fatality. It’s always a numbers game with you guys isn’t it. If I want to give myself cancer, it’s not your problem. Anymore than you giving yourself a heart attack is mine if you eat too many Big Mac. Breaking laws is harmful to society, like driving impaired but that isn’t the fault of the drug, it’s the fault of the user.

quote:
Interesting...
Won't have anyone calling someone a "retard".
But "Nazi" and "fascist" is no problemo.
I'm wondering if "commie" and "pinko" is similarly no problemo.
I'm just trying to get better handle on the groundrules, eh?

Boo hoo, if you don’t like it go back to the Mothership, or take it up with the moderator and quite fucking whining about it. And if you can’t see the difference between using mental disabilities as a way to take the piss out of your opponent and using a political label you need a whack with the cluebat.

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 26 November 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Breaking laws is harmful to society, like driving impaired but that isn’t the fault of the drug, it’s the fault of the user.

Sounds like an NRA argument.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 November 2003 01:04 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So to answer Alienrocker's question:

It's a hotly debated topic.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 26 November 2003 01:04 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sounds like an NRA argument.

Using a car to kill someone or a gun, yes, it's still the user doing the killing but guns are specifically designed to put big nasty holes in things. Cars aren't designed to cause damage as their primary functions. Guns may have secondary functions today such a target shooting but they are made for killing efficiently. No matter how you want to argument, the history of the gun is based in killing or wounding not for skeet shooting.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 November 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the history of the gun is based in killing or wounding not for skeet shooting.

And the history of the knife as well. Sure, you can use your knife to slice mushrooms for your risotto, but primarily it's a weapon. Likewise, the first thing that resembled a baseball bat was almost certainly not for striking a ball. But somewhere along the way we all decided (for the most part) to play nice with these things, although hundreds still die every year at the business end of a knife or a bat.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Corret me if I'm wrong here, but when there is a murder committed with a firearm, we generally go after the person that committed the crime, and if there is a prison sentence, we put the person in prison and not the firearm used in the offense!!??

I know this is a confusing concept for those who love and respect firearms more than they love and respect people, but really . . . we all know "firearms don't kill people, people kill people", that's why you will not find one firearm sitting in a prison cell waiting for their parole board hearing!!

When someone finds a way to implement a law or regulation about driving that doesn't refer to vehicles, or a law or regulation regarding firearms without refering to a gun, please let the rest of us know.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 01:25 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

And the history of the knife as well. Sure, you can use your knife to slice mushrooms for your risotto, but primarily it's a weapon. Likewise, the first thing that resembled a baseball bat was almost certainly not for striking a ball. But somewhere along the way we all decided (for the most part) to play nice with these things, although hundreds still die every year at the business end of a knife or a bat.


That's why there are laws on the books regarding knives of a certain type (used almost exclusively for weapons with little other common utility) and other such items that are commonly used as weapons.

Yes, anything can be used as , or converted to, a weapon . . . some items though are the prefered choice of criminals because their inherent qualities make them the best option . . . Drinking water is healthy, drinking too much water can actually kill you . . . taking a strong prescription medicine can improve your health, taking too much of the same medicine can kill you . . . I seldom hear the argument that perscription medicine should not be regulated and restricted any more than water . . . only a complete idiot, or someone with a vested interest in unregulated drugs (drug addict comes to mind,) would make such an unconvincing comparative argument.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the history of the gun is based in killing or wounding not for skeet shooting."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And the history of the knife as well. Sure, you can use your knife to slice mushrooms for your risotto, but primarily it's a weapon."

Problem with this is, you are both basing your arguments on assumptions neither of you were around at the time guns or knives were invented. (unless you've discovered the Fountain of Youth
)

You do not know what their inventors first intended them for-there is a school of thought for instance, that Chinese discovered gunpowder, and first used a 'flare launcher'-which is not a big leap to come up with a kind of 'hand cannon'....

And, today it's all a moot point what they've been built or intended for by the manufacturer it would be the intent of the owner that would matter...

As somebody wrote here earlier; "The fault of the user"


"Seven million " guns in Canada? With more coming in each year..but only 100 plus die from them each year, yet "guns' only first purpose is to kill"? Sounds like a flaw in the design to me...

And yes, cars are 'designed to kill'-ANYTHING that is 'designed' to go over 100 miles in and around hundreds of people is potentially 'designed to kill', but, again, if this happens, it would be the 'fault of the user'....


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the problem IS the user . . . that's why we put the criminal USERs in jail, be they criminal gun users, criminal knife users, or criminal vehicle users, and not the gun, knife, or vehicle.

Oh, BTW, in Canada, cars and guns kill at about the same rate . . . in Canada there are about 7 million firearms, and in Ontario there are about 7 million vehicles . . . in Canada there are aboout 1000 yearly firearm deaths, and in Ontario there about 1000 vehicle deaths.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Oh, BTW, in Canada, cars and guns kill at about the same rate . . . in Canada there are about 7 million firearms, and in Ontario there are about 7 million vehicles . . . in Canada there are aboout 1000 yearly firearm deaths, and in Ontario there about 1000 vehicle deaths."

BUT You are pointing out all of Canada versus only Ontario-cars then kill way more people in all of Canada than guns do...

You are also lumping in Canada's suicides by gun which number around 80% of all those 'gun deaths' figures...

I could grant that there are suicides in Canada which were done by use of cars/vehicles, but I know of no figures on that...

It is also generally believed that suicides will occur, no MATTER WHAT! They'll use a belt, rope, bridge, drugs, anything, if they've got a 'mind to go'...the only way to stop them is to get to the 'user' the 'potential suicider', and, outside of locking them in a padded room all day, the only other way to reach them would be to get to the 'source of their troubles'...and one would have to know their intent in the first place...

And no, they don't put illegal guns in 'jail'-but they do 'eliminate' them...in our area they have been known-in the past-to dump them in the bay, and to take them to a foundry to be 'melted' down...(as well, as lawyers and police keeping some and giving some to family members/friends...)


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 November 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is also generally believed that suicides will occur, no MATTER WHAT!

This general belief is wrong.

Researchers in San Francisco, among other places, have made close studies of suicide -- jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge being a common method. They followed up five years later on people who'd been prevented from jumping, or talked out of it. Something over 95% of them were still alive, and most had got help of one kind or another for their depression or whatever it was.

My source for this is a recent New Yorker article. I'll look it up and post chapter and verse for anyone interested.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 26 November 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Seven million " guns in Canada? With more coming in each year..but only 100 plus die from them each year, yet "guns' only first purpose is to kill"? Sounds like a flaw in the design to me...

Are you trying to tell me that thousands upon thousands of deer, wolves, bear and moose are simply dying from heart attacks each hunting season?

No one claimed that most guns in Canada were specifically designed with large hairless primates in mind. But those designed for other good-sized critters work just as well on them naked apes....


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4684

posted 26 November 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Brenda     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Yes, the problem IS the user . . . that's why we put the criminal USERs in jail, be they criminal gun users, criminal knife users, or criminal vehicle users, and not the gun, knife, or vehicle.

Oh, BTW, in Canada, cars and guns kill at about the same rate . . . in Canada there are about 7 million firearms, and in Ontario there are about 7 million vehicles . . . in Canada there are aboout 1000 yearly firearm deaths, and in Ontario there about 1000 vehicle deaths.


You are stretching the numbers a little bit with the 1000 yearly firearms deaths, that is unless you meant to include suicides. 150 firearms homicides last year out of a total of 500+ homicides, seems firearms are not the weapon of choice for murderers. Appox 800 firearms suicides every year out of 5000, again, firearms only make up a small portion of the weapon of choice for suicide.
Why is gun control such an issue?

Oh, BTW, in Canada, cars and guns kill at about the same rate . . . in Canada there are about 7 million firearms, and in Ontario there are about 7 million vehicles . . . in Canada there are aboout 1000 yearly firearm deaths, and in Ontario there about 1000 vehicle deaths.

So you compare the number of firearms in CANADA to the number of vehicles in ONTARIO???? Did you fail Stats101????

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: Brenda ]


From: West | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine Brenda, if you only want to compare the total number of firearms vs vehicles in all of Canada, with the amount of homicides committed by each then please feel free to provide us the numbers that show that vehicles are invloved more in these homicides and should be regulated more than firearms. I think you will find that if we are just talking about homicide numbers then your precious guns come out even worst than the numbers I provided.

Look, deaths are deaths, and we need to try and prevent them wherever and for whatever reason they occur.

I compare the number of firearms in Canada and the number of vehicles in Ontario because the numbers are approxiametly the same . . . 7 million in each case. This is called "normalizing your data" . . .

But, if you are realy into comparing all of Canada, the the numbers I can find are in 1999 there were less than 3000 traffic deaths in Canada . . . with approximately 20 million vehicles in Canada, that makes it about 15 deaths per 100,000 vehicles . . . with approximatley 7 million firearms, and 1000 deaths, that makes it about 14 deaths per 100,000 firearms . . . pretty close to being equal . . . of course if you ever find the homicide numbers committed by vehicles, then we could do that other comparison . . . if you wish!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 07:54 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"in Canada there are about 7 million firearms"

See now...how can one possibly "normalize" when "no one knows how many guns there are in canada"?

"It is also generally believed that suicides will occur, no MATTER WHAT!

"This general belief is wrong.

Researchers in San Francisco, among other places, have made close studies of suicide -- jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge being a common method. They followed up five years later on people who'd been prevented from jumping, or talked out of it. Something over 95% of them were still alive, and most had got help of one kind or another for their depression or whatever it was."

Uh-uh. Since obviously those who did successfully commit suicide did so no matter what that general belief was right ...


"Researchers in San Francisco, among other places, have made close studies of suicide -- jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge being a common method. They followed up five years later on people who'd been prevented from jumping, or talked out of it. Something over 95% of them were still alive, and most had got help of one kind or another for their depression or whatever it was."

Good stuff-that's what I was getting at-go for the 'throat of the users'-the potential doers, that would be more effective, and make more sense than say, a 'registry' on bridges...

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: Denner ]


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 November 2003 08:04 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Edited due to hastiness]

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies there, Lance-it kind of got you into an 'assumption trap'-I was trying to edit my 'counter replies' when I inadvertantly hit the edit button as I got started-you'll have to simply 'look back' to see the edited post...
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 November 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooops. Sorry, Denner.

quote:
Uh-uh. Since obviously those who did successfully commit suicide did so no matter what that general belief was right ...

The point was, it's not easy to figure out who those people are who are determined to commit suicide. Even if a person is seriously depressed, there's no inevitability to it.

quote:
the only way to stop them is to get to the 'user' the 'potential suicider', and, outside of locking them in a padded room all day, the only other way to reach them would be to get to the 'source of their troubles'...and one would have to know their intent in the first place...

But you don't have to "go to the source of their troubles" -- so say the researchers -- because the decision to commit suicide is not necessarily a long-standing plan, but often enough is a fairly momentary, transitory impulse in what is otherwise "normal" depression.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 08:27 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Denner says;"Seven million " guns in Canada? With more coming in each year..but only 100 plus die from them each year, yet "guns' only first purpose is to kill"? Sounds like a flaw in the design to me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lard says; "Are you trying to tell me that thousands upon thousands of deer, wolves, bear and moose are simply dying from heart attacks each hunting season?"

No. lard, I'm saying that; since there is 'supposedly' "7 million guns in Canada", then "thousands upon thousands" deaths still makes it look like most guns aren't doing what they've been 'supposedly' intended for...

And, are you trying to attach legal/approved (as in Hunting)deaths to Murders/Homicides?

Couple that with someone else's "deaths are deaths" statement there and it looks like we are going to have to go after farmers, butchers and ranchers, as well as hunters now...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"But you don't have to "go to the source of their troubles" -- so say the researchers -- because the decision to commit suicide is not necessarily a long-standing plan, but often enough is a fairly momentary, transitory impulse in what is otherwise "normal" depression."

Well, "not necessarily" and "fairly momentary" are still somewhat vague, but, I am glad they are still doing investigations to the 'profiles' of the potential suiciders, but I would say that knowing the "why(s)" these types wish to suicide would still be an important feature to investigate, with the idea of putting a 'cure' to it.

They now are working on "profiles' of 'serial killers'-something that has been credited to one of our local policemen here in the West, and I believe they were trying to use it in the Green River killer case...

Interesting...thanks, Lance.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 26 November 2003 10:13 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Denner, the statement ou've quoted was made in the context of the absurd debate over whether guns were 'designed for killing'. Someone stupidly argued that if they were, they weren't effective, as seven million had only managed a hundred kills.

Thank you for heightening the absurdity with your recent observation that 'thousands upon thousands' doesn't equal 'millions'.

The fact of the matter is that we know the history of the firearm, and its primary design was not only lethal, but military - aimed at killing humans. Another of the gunlobby rocket-scientists here tried to equate it to the knife - but the knife evolved over millions of years with humanity itself, and was far more likely originally a tool for skinning and scraping than an instrument of death.
(A knife to kill? Give me a spear against a bison anyday. I'll take the knife later to dismember the shares for my tribe.)


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 November 2003 10:25 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They now are working on "profiles' of 'serial killers'-something that has been credited to one of our local policemen here in the West, and I believe they were trying to use it in the Green River killer case...

Interesting...thanks, Lance.


I think I'll continue this on a new thread.

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 26 November 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The fact of the matter is that we know the history of the firearm, and its primary design was not only lethal, but military - aimed at killing humans."

Haha, Lard, you don't "know the history of the firearm" never mind what it's "primary design" was intended for....you couldn't possibly know...!

You should really stop assuming that you do...as well, it's a 'distraction' from what the primary design and use intended for many guns is today....

It'd be the same as inferring that you "know" how bad the "old wild west" was....

Are you also trying to tell me you know that there are more hunters (using guns to kill) than there are target shooters/competitors? (some do both!)

Guns' "primary use" today would depend on the 'primary user'


As for knives, "more likely" doesn't make for FACT though, does it?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 26 November 2003 11:36 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:
I'm reluctant to add my two cents worth here; the willingness of the left to blithely place their trust in the State is, to me, incomprehensible.

They almost universally contend that the same institutions that bungle almost everything they touch, that waste literally billions of our tax dollars on the most bizarre and inane crap, that are riddled with corruption and patronage, that repeatedly demonstrates that ethics, integrity, honor, responsibility, and accountability is the curse of naive fools, should nevertheless be trusted


The willingness of the right to place their trust in corporations is, to me, incomprehensible.

They almost universally contend that the same institutions that bungle almost everything they touch, that waste literally billions of our dollars on the most bizarre and inane crap, that are riddled with corruption and patronage, that repeatedly demonstrates that ethics, integrity, honor, responsibility, and accountability is the curse of naive fools, should nevertheless be trusted . . .

The key difference being that I don't get a vote in the governance of corporations, and they don't even theoretically represent my interests.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 26 November 2003 11:43 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Go get a pound of plutonium and a gun and put them side by each on your kitchen table. Then just sit there and wait for one of them to kill you. Any guesses on which one does it first?

I suspect relatively few of us are arguing for the legalization of pound-of-plutonium ownership.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 27 November 2003 01:01 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I've seen a lot of heat, a little light. From both sides, really.
Things that come out of it for me:
One, the current gun registry scheme being run by the Canadian federal government seems to be poorly implemented, expensive, and may well turn out to have little effect on crime. It could well be a bad idea.

Two, this has little to do with rights, which seem something of a red herring in the gun laws discussion, especially in Canada. So if gun control measures were proposed which would be effective, I see nothing wrong with adopting such.

Three, crime, including gun crime, probably correlates much better with inequality and poverty than with gun control laws. The best hedge against gun violence and a number of related problems is a strong welfare state and progressive taxation.
Which does suggest that gun control per se is a relatively minor issue; I suspect the real reason some leftists obsess over it is simply that we fear and distrust the radical right, which obsesses over it in the other direction. However, I suspect this too has relatively little relevance to Canada. While there are groups of gun-nut militias in the US who really are dangerous and should totally have their weapons taken away, I have not heard of such groups in Canada.

Four, arguments relating to an armed populace being able to overthrow dictatorial governments (and an unarmed one being incapable of same) seem overblown at best. Iraq under Saddam, for instance, makes an excellent counterexample--the population was heavily armed, Saddam was a dictator, and yet all attempts at revolt were successfully suppressed. Currently, armed revolt is meeting with some success there--but the armed revolt in question is getting most of its success using surface-to-air missiles, mortars etc. on one hand and homemade bombs on the other; the one requires military grade weapons, the other doesn't require an armed populace at all. The widespread possession of automatic rifles is having little impact.
Meanwhile, many revolts have succeeded with relatively little in the line of weaponry, even against brutal, homicidal dictators. Indonesia comes to mind. When the people were sufficiently united against Suharto, his rule lost legitimacy and the people in the armed forces refused to back him. Suharto, the guy who'd had massacred like a third of the population of East Timor, along with hundreds of thousands of Communist sympathizers
One way or another, none of it has much relationship to Canada, where social control is much subtler.

Five, while it may well be that registration of guns would have little impact on gun crime, I find myself wondering at the constant repetition that most crimes are committed with unregistered guns. This is hardly an argument against registering guns. Presumably, if registered guns are never used to commit crimes, on the face of it this suggests that if all guns were registered, gun crime would cease. Not that I believe that to be the case, but . . . it just seems like a perverse argument.

Six, the point about most gun crimes involving guns smuggled in from the US suggests that one thing needed is tighter controls over such smuggling activities; unfortunately, I am not at all confident that anti-smuggling measures are likely to succeed any better than, say, the War on Drugs. Ultimately, the key to reducing violent and gun crime, along with addiction-related crimes and so on and so forth, lies in reduced inequality through a stronger welfare state and more progressive taxation, and relaxation of the war on drugs.

Finally, then, my one question: You who are strongly against gun control. You're quite clear that you favour reduction in gun and violent crimes, and that gun control is not the way to do so. And the countries you show as models of lower gun crime with widespread gun ownership are clearly examples of successful attacks on root causes of crime such as inequality and poverty. Will any of you join me in calling for our country to follow those examples and reduce inequality here, to strengthen our social safety nets, make taxation more progressive, strengthen voices of working class power such as unions, and so forth?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Denner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3661

posted 27 November 2003 01:57 AM      Profile for Denner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I find myself wondering at the constant repetition that most crimes are committed with unregistered guns. This is hardly an argument against registering guns. Presumably, if registered guns are never used to commit crimes, on the face of it this suggests that if all guns were registered, gun crime would cease."

The main "argument against registering guns" in Canada, is over the extreme costs and the invasions of privacies that goes with such, compared with what little good it might do.

"Ultimately, the key to reducing violent and gun crime, along with addiction-related crimes and so on and so forth, lies in reduced inequality through a stronger welfare state and more progressive taxation, and relaxation of the war on drugs."

Are you absolutely sure that bike and drug gangs will be 'appeased' by a "stronger welfare state" and "more progressive taxation"? I'm not-although I do believe it/they/these systems might do some good in 'other areas'like lowering some burglaries, maybe petty theft...car thefts and the like...?


"Will any of you join me in calling for our country to follow those examples and reduce inequality here, to strengthen our social safety nets, make taxation more progressive, strengthen voices of working class power such as unions, and so forth?"

Well, since I've have had unions help me win four out of eight 'battles' I've had with my company over 40 years...yes, I believe I could ride with that...

"While there are groups of gun-nut militias in the US who really are dangerous and should totally have their weapons taken away, I have not heard of such groups in Canada."

Funny, you're from Vancouver, B.C.-it was not long ago, maybe four years since that our papers carried the story of such a militia practicing in upper B.C....you must have missed it, or forgotten, (or weren't here yet?)The press release said they had about 50 members....

Y'know, if those 'gun nut militias' just kept to themselves, kept their guns by their sides just to appease any 'paranoia' or 'insecurity'(real or imagined?)that they have, and weren't planning to 'branch out' and attack "the Capital" or any communities, whatever...I wouldn't care....


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 27 November 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This bit was me:
quote:
"Ultimately, the key to reducing violent and gun crime, along with addiction-related crimes and so on and so forth, lies in reduced inequality through a stronger welfare state and more progressive taxation, and relaxation of the war on drugs."

quote:
Originally posted by Denner:

Are you absolutely sure that bike and drug gangs will be 'appeased' by a "stronger welfare state" and "more progressive taxation"? I'm not

"Appease" the individual gangs? No. Not what structural remedies are about. Shrink the business? To some extent it would; I think addiction problems are going to be worse when there's a lot of people at the end of their tether, and people can be driven to dealing drugs because there aren't any honourable options for making a living. But mainly that's what relaxing the war on drugs is for, which is why I mentioned it. Bike and drug gangs make their money off the windfall profits they get from jacked up prices of drugs, based on artificial scarcity created by the War on Drugs. The violence level is related to the size of the stakes. On the demand side, much crime by addicts is driven by the need to get money to meet the high prices. Cheaper drugs, some legalized and/or decriminalized drugs, and so on would shrink both the absolute size of the illegal drug business and the concentration of the money involved, so that the stakes would be lower. The business would shrink and so would the violence levels. So would the addiction-related theft, especially with a recovering welfare state included.
Do the words "Prohibition" and "Al Capone" mean anything to you?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca