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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Machine guns

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Machine guns
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 16 September 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the wake of the Dawson shooting it appears that the machine gun used was an entirely legal registered gun
I am getting on in years and am frequently reminded of what I don't understand. As time goes by I am able to get my head around many of these things.
Some do elude me however and I would appreciate someone explaining in simple terms why any private citizen is able to legally posess in their home a machine gun and for what purpose.

Jake

PS our daughter teaches at Dawson and we were among the many thousands that spent anxious hours last wednesday.


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 16 September 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I unerstand it, it wasn't a 'machine gun', but it was designed to look like one.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 16 September 2006 07:37 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly; this wasn't a "machine gun", it only happens to "look mean". Are you comfortable giving the government the power to ban something based on what it looks like?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 September 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Exactly; this wasn't a "machine gun", it only happens to "look mean". Are you comfortable giving the government the power to ban something based on what it looks like?

I know what you mean. I'd feel naked at the grocery store without my AKM with GP-25 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher. I just would.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 September 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The government already does. If I pull a squirt gun out on a bank teller, even as a joke, they can still arrest me for attempted robbery. If I pull one out on a cop they'd be within their rights to shoot me dead. Could even get busted for trying to sell a bag of parsley as pot. Question remains, are Canadians allowed to freely buy and sell high powered automatic rifles? I assume we have a few more limits on them than in most US states.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 16 September 2006 08:13 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Automatic weapons are prohibited in Canada. If you can fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger, the gun is classified as a prohibitred weapon, and you are not allowed to possess the gun.

A few collectors, have been "grandfathered" to be able to maitain ownership of some historically significant guns, but that is it.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 16 September 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The last I heard about this, the police hadn't confirmed the weapon used but reports indicate that he was firing the Beretta CX4 Storm shown on his website. I heard on the radio that this weapon is legal but it skirts the law limiting the amount of ammunition that a rifle can hold. As I recall, the limit was imposed after the Marc Lepine shootings.

The Beretta gets around this law by using pistol clips.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 390

posted 17 September 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for Jake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So this was not a "machine gun" ! The poor shooter would have to pull the trigger repeatedly, how inconvenient. I imagine that with practice one could get off some 20 to 30 rounds in about 10 seconds with the right (legal or not) magazine.

Back to my original question- Why should it be legal for any citizen to posess at home such a killing instrument and for what logical purpose?

Jake


From: the recycling bin | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 17 September 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Back to my original question- Why should it be legal for any citizen to posess at home such a killing instrument and for what logical purpose?

Because human beings are, by Nature, predatory animals and, as such, are able to rationalize any form of violent and life taking activity. There is absolutely no reason why any form of violent "entertainment" or "protection" we enjoy should not come back to bite us on the ass.

"Civilized" existence is still little more than an idea, a concept that exists only in the minds of some of us, and is still a minority of opinion. For the rest, the reality of our violent Nature is all there is.

And, as already indicated in this tread, the voices that support the possession of such weapons will always proclaim that their own small-minded agendas must take precedent over the realty that these weapons are created solely for destructive purposes.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 17 September 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"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.". George Orwell

One may argue a glass of wine with friends is not worth a single life yet on average at least four people will be killed by a drunk driver today in Canada.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 18 September 2006 02:29 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the rifle used was in fact a bertta cx storm
which was designed for and is manufactured and sold as firearm for sporting purposes. it is not a "killing machine"
much the same as many golf clubs, baseball bats,motorcycles,cars are designed for.
what a person chooses to do with each of these items is that person own responsibility.
blameing the inanimate object for a crime it had no control over is not going to solve or prevent violence in canada.
the only real way to stop violent crimes is to stop criminals

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 18 September 2006 04:25 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The SignGuy doth protest too much. A killing machine is exactly what it's designer was going for. Guy, would you keep your cx in a golf bag?
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 18 September 2006 04:41 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
no i would not keep my cx in a golf bag ,why because a) i dont own one, b) that would be inviolation of the firearms act in regards to safe storage and trasnportation of a restricted firearm.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ebunny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12823

posted 18 September 2006 05:03 AM      Profile for ebunny        Edit/Delete Post
I'm a gun supporter myself, but I wouldn't mind seeing a psych-eval added to the list of requirements to aquire your FAC.

Banning hand guns and semi-automatics won't prevent gun crimes from happening. Tell me, how many of those gang-bangers in Toronto registered their weapons? How many got them legally? How many of those weapons are currently legal in Canada?

The best way to prevent crimes is to educate those who are likely to commit the crimes, not banning the tools used in the crime.
More people were Murdered with knives, blunt objects, and rope last year; should we ban those too? Heck, vehicles kill more people than anything, let's ban cars!

No if you still think I'm a rightish dink think of the death-penalty. Activists have been saying for years that the death penalty does not prevent crime through deterance. So how does banning handguns and semi-autos prevent shootings like the ones in Dawson and in Toronto (made famous last year with all the brazen shootings)? Especially when those gang-bangers can get alomost any type of gun they want for $ XXX a 'piece' on the street corner. It doesn't

Your anger is misplaced, you should be mad at the individual who commited the crime not the gun.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 05:19 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Back to my original question- Why should it be legal for any citizen to posess at home such a killing instrument and for what logical purpose?

It should not be legal for any resident of Canada to possess any firearm at all. They are extremely dangerous devices, made only for killing and maiming. All firearms should be owned and managed by a public agency established for that purpose and regulated by law. The only exceptions would be the armed forces and police. There would be no private armed security forces (any such legitimate needs would be filled, if approved, by public bodies).

The only two legitimate uses for firearms in Canada are hunting and sport shooting. A limited range of hunting weapons would be available for rent to individuals during the appropriate hunting season only. Those individuals, of course, would need to first prove their fitness to use weapons in accordance with conditions set by law and regulation.

Likewise, approved sport shooting clubs would have firearms on site only for use by approved patrons, as above.

Anyone found in possession of firearms, except as provided above, would be subject to penalties similar to those currently in place for persons found in possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking. Likewise for illicit importation.

Some people will be upset by such rules:

1. Those who believe they have an inherent right to own firearms (although they are unable to explain where this right comes from).

2. Those who believe that an armed citizenry is the only safeguard of democracy - as in Somalia, Michigan, and such.

3. Those who want to use guns to kill and maim things other than as set out above.

I can live with those disappointments.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 18 September 2006 05:32 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the current application process to obtain a P.A.L.(possetion and aquistion licence)
already requires the CFC to screen individuals for posible signs of mental instability and violent tendencies. but unlike the previous FAC system (which the screening was done by personal interviews with an applicants local police and the local police interviewing friends family and doctors of the aplicant) the new PAL system is done over the phone and in most cases the applicant could be several provinces away. thats if and only if the CFC decides to call the applicants references. so some if not all of the reason this individual was allowed a PAL was due in fact because someone isnt doing thier job, and because the process has gone from being done at a local level giving the police the opurtunity to examine the applicants and interview the refrences, and taken to an over the phone system in most cases not even in the same provence

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 18 September 2006 05:42 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well said as usual, unionist.
much more reasonable than what i would wish but i cannot claim any semblance to objectivity in the matter of gun ownership.

i think that using a weapon that wreaks death from a distance with the movement of a finger, gives anyone who shoots the illusion of power of the most corrupting kind. it is very easy to become innured to the ramifications of our behaviors and our illusions slip into our sense of reality.

we need far less acceptance of violence of any kind. just the act of shooting at anything connects us psychically with all shooters everywhere.

no shooting is the only option that i feel comfortable with.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 18 September 2006 05:45 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist under your logic firearms owners dont have the right to own firearms? true
but there is nowhere that states anyone including yourself has the right to own ANYTHING nor NEED anything outside of BASIC food and shelter. so we should also remove EVERY vehicle from society except for certain types which can be rented from the government, remove every sporting applience in your home, in fact you can do with a much less exhuberente home. sounds good because you DO NOT have the right to own it. and hey how many other things in your life can we take away because we dont feel you NEED it

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 06:43 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheSignGuy:
unionist under your logic firearms owners dont have the right to own firearms?

Yes, they do have the right to own firearms under current law.

No, that right is not protected by the Charter. Therefore, it can be modified or removed by Parliament - think of Leopard tanks and RPGs for example.

No, my reason for banning individual firearm ownership is not because there's no inherent right. It's because they are instruments of death; because they are dangerous; because there is no need for them except hunting and sport; because those needs can be easily filled through rental or onsite use and do not require ownership; and because banning ownership may help reduce accidental or deliberate gun misuse.

[Edited to give better examples.]

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 18 September 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, my reason for banning individual firearm ownership is not because there's no inherent right. It's because they are instruments of death; because they are dangerous; because there is no need for them except hunting and sport; because those needs can be easily filled through rental or onsite use and do not require ownership; and because banning ownership may help reduce accidental or deliberate gun misuse

the only time a firearm is an instrument of death is when it is used for that.
as for banning ownership to posibly help reduce misuse. well lets see full auto have been banned for how long in canada? how many "misuses" have there been since the ban? also drinking and driving kills how many thousands per year? so to stop this lets ban alchohol. smoking kills how many every year lets ban tabbacco.
oh btw drugs have been banned since what the 30's how many teen's have died in the past 5 years to drug "misuse" how many children have become addicts ? you know what the government has done to prevent these? give them crack pipes and places to use thier drugs.
the gun isnt the problem its people not accepting responsibility for thier actions.
if you want to stop accidental discharges teach kids and adults about safe handling and storage of firearms it has been mandatory for what almost 2 decades and in that time the accident rates have bottomed out. if you want to stop diliberate use then stop the person, banning guns to make you feel better wont stop the next lunatic from killing innocent adults or children
it will just mean that they will either use an illegal gun or another "instrument of death" such as the ever popular goilf club or baseball bat. just look at UK and Austraila, they banned guns and there gun crime rates went UP not down and there violent crime rates other then gun crime sky rocketed. if you look at the countries that have the lowest crime rates they are countrys that are harsh with punishments and have lax firearms controls and even allowing civilians the right to carry for protection. go figure eh.
we are one of the top 3 countries for worst violent crime rates per 100,000 we are also one of the countries with the strictest gun control laws.
if you want people to stop being violent then give them a reason to stop. dont restrict the enjoyment of law abiding people just to make yourself feel better about doing nothing

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 18 September 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure how the weapon used at Dawson qualifies as a so-called sporting gun. What exactly does that mean anyway? It's not as accurate as a good quality bolt action rifle, nor does it have the same range. It looks more like something designed to satisfy the appetites of hard-ons who want to play GI-Joe but can't get their hands on the real thing.

Having said that, I'm not sure how effective a ban on such weapons would be in stoppng violent outbursts like the one that just happened in Montreal. For one, for somebody with the proper motivation, there are scores of opportunities to purchase far more dangerous weapons on the street. Second, a ban on weapons is simply a temporary treatment for a symptom, not the disease that causes it.


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 18 September 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if you look at the countries that have the lowest crime rates they are countrys that are harsh with punishments and have lax firearms controls and even allowing civilians the right to carry for protection. go figure eh.
Nice NRA rhetoric. When I look at international comparisions I find all the real experts caution about making general comparisions because of differing definitions of crime, different reporting methods and levels.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 18 September 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been told drugs are illegal and it's keeping our streets safe. Thanks heavens they're banned. Could you imagine if drugs were in our society, our our streets?

Rather than focusing on treating the symptoms or preventing trajedy it requires less thought to simply "ban" them and sweep the dust under the rug.

quote:
I'm not sure how the weapon used at Dawson qualifies as a so-called sporting gun. What exactly does that mean anyway? It's not as accurate as a good quality bolt action rifle, nor does it have the same range. It looks more like something designed to satisfy the appetites of hard-ons who want to play GI-Joe but can't get their hands on the real thing.

It's a play on words except it can be justified just as "assault rifle" "high powered" and other colorful adjectives can make something appeal to your view.

If you're going to start a thread entitled "machine gun" at least have some basic understanding around what a "machine gun" is.

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 18 September 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with the poster who said let us concentrate on the person doing the shooting, not the firearm. This kid sounded pretty sad, rejected, angry and , well, sick. Somehow society let him down; did or could anyone have forseen his crime? Could anything have been done? I certainly have no answers, but his problems surely cannot be blamed on racism or poverty. So what were the causes?
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 18 September 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want my opinion these trajedies cannot and will never be completely eliminated. There will always be those who are outcasts, who will evade treatment and who will fall into these depressions. Can we strive to eliminate these trajedies and better these individuals, certainly. I just don't think these things can be completely eliminated.
From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 18 September 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It should not be legal for any resident of Canada to possess any firearm at all. They are extremely dangerous devices, made only for killing and maiming. All firearms should be owned and managed by a public agency established for that purpose and regulated by law. The only exceptions would be the armed forces and police. There would be no private armed security forces (any such legitimate needs would be filled, if approved, by public bodies).

Exactly right and i am pleased to see such an accurate representation of an idea i have pitched in every gun debate thread i have engaged in.

But the real issue behind gun ownership is that it represents just another profiteers market that the u.s. of assholes is trying to impose on Canadians. For that reason alone we need to send the kind of clear and unequivocal message outlined above to the merchants of death that promote and distribute these products that Canada is more interested in promoting sanity than having another gun nut culture in North America.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Many in Canada hunt for food - in this area the moose hunt as well as the geese hunt are traditional activities, as they are in many areas in this huge country. I'd guess many of our aboriginal peoples rely on hunting to provide food on the table as well. I don't see any measures taking guns away from hunters ever succeeding, although I support the long gun registry - I'd like to see it made more effective, not abolished. I wish the cities could be made 'gun free' - if city dwellers want to get out of the city and go hunting up north, there could be a way - provided they have taken the hunting safety program and have the Firearms Acquisition Permit, and whatever else may be required. Perhaps the local Game Wardens or police services could store guns for their owners to use for the hunt - with the guns stored in a highly secure area. Just some thoughts.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 18 September 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
So this was not a "machine gun" ! The poor shooter would have to pull the trigger repeatedly, how inconvenient. I imagine that with practice one could get off some 20 to 30 rounds in about 10 seconds with the right (legal or not) magazine.

Back to my original question- Why should it be legal for any citizen to posess at home such a killing instrument and for what logical purpose?

Jake


To answer your question:

For a *free* society to actually operate, it must be assumed that, since one is a sane, responsible member of society, then one should always be given the benfit of the doubt when it comes to issues of freedom.

So, if *I* haven't proven to be a threat to anyone else's personal safety, then noone should have the ability to remove my freedom(s), regardless of what the wackoes of the world are doing/have done.


Just because other members of society have emotional, rather than logical reactions to firearms: "scary", or, "murderous-deathly-killing-gore-machines", it really shouldn't, and for the time-being, doesn't matter.

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: SUPERSNAKE ]


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 18 September 2006 12:53 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For a *free* society to actually operate, it must be assumed that, since one is a sane, responsible member of society, then one should always be given the benfit of the doubt when it comes to issues of freedom.

Outside the constraints of society, all actions are "free", while failing to honour one's societal responsibilites is best illustrated by those who are labeled criminals. The "freedom" to kill other human beings has already been taken away by government and a good thing too. All that is being discussed here is the ownership of certain weapons and there are also allready a number of restraints on that "freedom".

But to think that Canadians, or any other citizenry for that matter, live in a free society is self-delusion at its finest. The whole purpose a society in the first place is to restrict, limit and deny certain "freedoms" such as stealing and killing in order to promote the interests we share in common such as safety of person and property.

However, without the active participation of ALL the people that comprise that society to honour the laws that govern them, the whole thing goes out the window. Which is why we have police, courts and prisons acting as deterrents [albeit not very proactive ones].


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 18 September 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by otter:

Outside the constraints of society, all actions are "free", while failing to honour one's societal responsibilites is best illustrated by those who are labeled criminals. The "freedom" to kill other human beings has already been taken away by government and a good thing too. All that is being discussed here is the ownership of certain weapons and there are also allready a number of restraints on that "freedom".

But to think that Canadians, or any other citizenry for that matter, live in a free society is self-delusion at its finest. The whole purpose a society in the first place is to restrict, limit and deny certain "freedoms" such as stealing and killing in order to promote the interests we share in common such as safety of person and property.

However, without the active participation of ALL the people that comprise that society to honour the laws that govern them, the whole thing goes out the window. Which is why we have police, courts and prisons acting as deterrents [albeit not very proactive ones].


I'm afraid I must disagree. What we're talking about is the right to chose- which is right up there with our inherent right to live, IMHO.

"The freedom to kill another human being" certainly hasn't been taken away from me! If my life is in immediate danger, and if I think that there's no obvious means of escaping a situation, I'm certainly within my rights to end someone's existence on this planet- check the laws .


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 18 September 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Lol, there is always one in every crowd. The very fact that you make reference to the laws of this nation clearly indicates that you are not "free" but must, instead, satisfy the state as to your motives and actions. Hence you are, in fact, not free.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 18 September 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Many in Canada hunt for food - in this area the moose hunt as well as the geese hunt are traditional activities, as they are in many areas in this huge country. I'd guess many of our aboriginal peoples rely on hunting to provide food on the table as well. I don't see any measures taking guns away from hunters ever succeeding, although I support the long gun registry - I'd like to see it made more effective, not abolished. I wish the cities could be made 'gun free' - if city dwellers want to get out of the city and go hunting up north, there could be a way - provided they have taken the hunting safety program and have the Firearms Acquisition Permit, and whatever else may be required. Perhaps the local Game Wardens or police services could store guns for their owners to use for the hunt - with the guns stored in a highly secure area. Just some thoughts.
Unless your hunters are different than the hunters I know personally this is not the weapon of choice to go hunting. It is not a moose rifle it is designed to kill much smaller mammals in urban settings.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Unless your hunters are different than the hunters I know personally this is not the weapon of choice to go hunting. It is not a moose rifle it is designed to kill much smaller mammals in urban settings.

I got the impression the idea was to take away all guns except those needed for law enforcement and the military. BTW, here, hunters use powerful 7mm magnums, .30-06, and the .308 for big game (moose). Virtually everyone uses a 12 gauge for geese. All of these guns are much more powerful than the one used in the Montreal shootings, if I'm not mistaken. Many of our hunters use bolt-action rifles; very few, if any, use a semi-auto rifle.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A 12 gauge is a shotgun, BTW.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I propose banning individual gun ownership, even though I am not naive enough to think that will eliminate tragedies of the kind at Dawson. I never said it would. I think guns are made to kill and maim, they are dangerous, they serve no socially useful value except hunting and sport, and I see no need in individual ownership.

A public monopoly on gun ownership, renting them out for brief periods under extremely restrictive conditions, would reduce (although not eliminate) the statistical probability of accidents or intentional abuse.

Of course, banning ownership would automatically ban purchase and sale.

The part I don't understand from those on this thread that don't favour this position, is this: Why does any individual need to own a gun? I understand they might like to - but if you can use one when you need it (hunting and sport only, never anything else), why own it?

I'd appreciate thoughts on that point.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 18 September 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Democracy is a beautiful thing Unionist. I would think someone such as yourself would understand that.
From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with unionist 100%, and I say this as a former member of a northern Rod and Gun Club (eight years) and a northern Rifle and Revolver Club (two years), and a former hunter, fisherman, and trapper. I've seen idiots out drinking while hunting. I've seen folks drinking while sighting in their rifles for the hunt. I've had a drunk come to my door in northern Ontario while holding a rifle - I got it away from her, unloaded it, and waited patiently for the OPP to arrive (she shot up her parent's home and eventually made it to my door somehow). Making hunting weapons extremely difficult to access might cut down of hunting accidents and family violence using these weapons.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
olivertwisto
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12404

posted 18 September 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for olivertwisto     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fail to see the "logic" being espoused by those of you that fail to understand gun ownership. Would any anti-gun legislation in existance anywhere in the world have prevented the Dawson tragedy? NO! It is illiegal to kill another person; Kimvir Gill didn't seem to care. Maybe a gun made it easier, but I doubt it. He could have done the same with easily constructed homemade bombs(better ban gasoline or anything else explosive, up to and including dry ice and water)or by speeding through crosswalks in a legally purchased automobile.

Other solutions, like a central lockup? Would this be effective, or a colossal waste of tax dollars that could be better spent hugging thugs into productive(although hopefully never "reproductive") members of society, or other equally beneficial social programs.

Maybe we should look at the writing that was on the wall for weeks ahead. The boy had posted all over the internet his obsession with death and his depression. Like the guy in the bar waving his keys around as he orders another half dozen tequila's "for the road", the signs were there. What to do? Ban the internet for fueling his murderous rampage? Ban depression? Ban his parents?

Gun control is an exercise in futility. To flog it on the graves of the fallen is a despicable, tasteless tactic. For shame.

However, it is refreshing to see that the anti-gun logic of history's greats has not cooled at all. Hitler, Mao and Stalin would agree that no citizen needs to own a gun

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: olivertwisto ]


From: Transcona, MB | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been a strong advocate of stricter gun control all my life. This shooting in Montreal changes nothing.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of you should maybe take a look at what comes out of our prisons sometime; I've seen and handled completely functional firearms that were made by people who were theoretically under 24-hour observation, some of them using nothing more complicated than materials you can get in any corner convenience store. If we can't stop THEM from doing it, it makes the idea of firearms prohibition on the outside simply laughable. Unless and until we want to prohibit indoor plumbing at the same time, anyone in this country with $10 in their pocket has everything they need to make their own gun, no FAC/PAL, no background checks, SFA. So, this idea of prohibition amounts to nothing more than window-dressing, the same as with prohibitions of any other type (alcohol, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, prostitution, you name it). That's on a PRACTICAL level; on a PHILOSOPHICAL level, what you're really saying with a law like this is that you believe that ordinary people such as yourselves are simply too stupid and dangerous to be trusted with potentially dangerous items, in which case, why should we stop at firearms? No-one really NEEDS a baseball bat or a set of golf clubs, or anything else that can be used to hurt or kill someone else when misused, right? And if you think that banning semi-autos(when the vast majority of the people here don't even understand what they are, let alone how they work) can somehow do something useful, I point you to the case of one Charles Whitman. In 1966, Charles Whitman shot 46 people, killing 15, using a simple bolt-action rifle, no different from what the majority of hunters use.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:
Democracy is a beautiful thing Unionist. I would think someone such as yourself would understand that.

I don't suppose you'd favour a democratic referendum of all Canadians on banning individual gun ownership, would you?

Anyway, why should individuals own guns? If you can't verbalize it convincingly, my friend, you're gonna lose that referendum...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
That's on a PRACTICAL level; on a PHILOSOPHICAL level, what you're really saying with a law like this is that you believe that ordinary people such as yourselves are simply too stupid and dangerous to be trusted with potentially dangerous items, in which case, why should we stop at firearms? No-one really NEEDS a baseball bat or a set of golf clubs, or anything else that can be used to hurt or kill someone else when misused, right?

Well, I didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to use guns for lawful purposes. I said they should not be allowed to own them, buy, sell, etc. Of course that won't stop violent crime - never said it would. But it will reduce the probability of accidents, illicit transfer, and illicit use, if nothing else by limiting the time that citizens have guns in their possession to the time they need to hunt or practise.

Your other examples (baseball bats, golf clubs) are really beside the point. Their purpose is not to kill and maim. That is the sole purpose of a firearm.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 07:41 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I propose banning individual gun ownership ... I think guns are made to kill and maim, they are dangerous, they serve no socially useful value except hunting and sport, and I see no need in individual ownership. ...

The part I don't understand from those on this thread that don't favour this position, is this: Why does any individual need to own a gun?


Strangely enough, I find myself largely in agreement with unionist on this issue. I believe that there is no right to own guns, neither in the Charter, nor (more importantly) in any absolute sense.

I would suggest one exception to unionist's strictures: I could see the need for a farmer to own a gun to protect her herds from coyotes and other predators. (Coyotes are becoming more and more common and are far from endangered. As for endangered species, I believe we have laws on the books protecting them.) And perhaps certain officers of the law.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Your other examples (baseball bats, golf clubs) are really beside the point. Their purpose is not to kill and maim. That is the sole purpose of a firearm.

I might add that it is way harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than with a gun. And it is virtually impossible to do it at a distance (unless you can throw that thing really well).


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Your other examples (baseball bats, golf clubs) are really beside the point. Their purpose is not to kill and maim. That is the sole purpose of a firearm.

Then every firearm I'VE ever handled must've been broken, cause they've never done anything of the sort. It appears that blaming a group for the actions of an individual is wrong, except when it comes to gun owners, correct?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

I might add that it is way harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than with a gun. And it is virtually impossible to do it at a distance (unless you can throw that thing really well).


You haven't seen many autopsies, have you? And since the vast majority of murders happen at less than 20 feet, distance is irrelevant.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

I could see the need for a farmer to own a gun to protect her herds from coyotes and other predators. (Coyotes are becoming more and more common and are far from endangered. As for endangered species, I believe we have laws on the books protecting them.) And perhaps certain officers of the law.

I'm not sure I agree with farmers using guns to protect their herds against certain officers of the law, but I could have misconstrued your paragraph.

As for coyotes and certain other predators, I understand the need for protection, but I don't understand the need for ownership. Already in most jurisdictions, special permits are required for such pest control, such as Form 7 in Alberta:

Agricultural Pests Act

I think the existing regulation can be combined with the new regime whereby ownership inheres in the public, while private or individual use on a restrictive basis during those seasons when the threat exists can be accommodated.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 08:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Your other examples (baseball bats, golf clubs) are really beside the point. Their purpose is not to kill and maim. That is the sole purpose of a firearm.

Originally posted by SDC:

Then every firearm I'VE ever handled must've been broken, cause they've never done anything of the sort.


I'm referring to real firearms, not the toys or cigarette lighter variety. What was the purpose of your firearms?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 08:26 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'm referring to real firearms, not the toys or cigarette lighter variety. What was the purpose of your firearms?


I've handled and fired guns of practically every description, from single-shot airguns up through crew-served machineguns. The one thing that they ALL had in common was that none of them would do anything without the direction or intent of a human actor. Unless you're trying to argue that gun A can kill someone "more dead" than gun B, you're essentially saying that you want these things banned because they make you feel "nervous" or "icky", in which case, are the rest of us allowed to take a vote on which of YOUR property or habits we're going to eliminate?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

I've handled and fired guns of practically every description, from single-shot airguns up through crew-served machineguns. The one thing that they ALL had in common was that none of them would do anything without the direction or intent of a human actor. Unless you're trying to argue that gun A can kill someone "more dead" than gun B, you're essentially saying that you want these things banned because they make you feel "nervous" or "icky", in which case, are the rest of us allowed to take a vote on which of YOUR property or habits we're going to eliminate?


I've done target shooting too - handguns, rifles - although not for about 20 years now, I admit. All the guns I handled were manufactured for the purpose of killing and maiming, or threatening to do so. I was always aware that in using them for sport, I was not using them for the purpose for which they were intended.

So I take it that your answer to my referendum offer is "no"? I'll up the stakes. I'll agree to throw in a vote on baseball bats and golf clubs.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'm not sure I agree with farmers using guns to protect their herds against certain officers of the law, but I could have misconstrued your paragraph.

It was a terribly written paragraph: I meant that perhaps certain officers of the law should be permitted to own firearms. But this wouldn't be absolutely necessary: the guns used by officers of the law could be owned by the state, and distributed to these officers as needed. I too am skeptical of the need for a police officer actually to own one, though I am open to persuasion.

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
As for coyotes and certain other predators, I understand the need for protection, but I don't understand the need for ownership.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about farming to know whether the threat is of a kind that a farmer would need immediate access to a gun for these purposes. If not, then your proposal sounds fine to me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 08:53 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Feel free to have a referendum on whatever you want, but (as per my examples above) without any practical way to enforce that referendum, you may as well have a referendum making MURDER "super-duper extra-special double-stamp no-quitsies illegal (and we mean it this time)". When I look around the world at the various countries that actually TRUST their citizens (and the other assorted rights that those citizens enjoy), it's clear that there is a direct relationship between the amount of that trust and those citizens' freedom.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 08:54 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
You haven't seen many autopsies, have you? And since the vast majority of murders happen at less than 20 feet, distance is irrelevant.

No I haven't seen many autopsies. But, even at 15 feet, 10 feet or 5 feet, it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a baseball bat, no? In a dark alley, I'd rather meet a guy with a baseball than with a gun, especially if there were room to run.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SDC, I have two genuine questions

(1) Are there any guns whatsoever that you think a private individual should not be permitted, by law, to own?

(2) Are there any weapons whatsoever that you think a private individual should not be permitted, by law, to own?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

No I haven't seen many autopsies. But, even at 15 feet, 10 feet or 5 feet, it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a baseball bat, no? In a dark alley, I'd rather meet a guy with a baseball than with a gun, especially if there were room to run.


Not at all; in fact, I think that if this were to actually happen to you, you would probably have a long enough time to say to yourself "Gee, if only this poor, dispossessed meth addict that's beating me to death had only managed to kill me outright, I wouldn't be choking to death on blood right now."


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
SDC, I have two genuine questions

(1) Are there any guns whatsoever that you think a private individual should not be permitted, by law, to own?

(2) Are there any weapons whatsoever that you think a private individual should not be permitted, by law, to own?


Having seen such a wide variety of these things in use, I'd be happy with someone being allowed to own whatever it is that they can show they know the safe and legal manner to use it in; this is the principle that's currently in place for things such as aircraft and motor vehicles, and it seems to work just fine in jurisdictions around the world. This would cover things like true machineguns (under Canadian law, machineguns were treated no differently than any other firearm up until 1945, and even then, they were treated like handguns). This was the law passed by the generation who had seen first-hand what they could be used for (unlike the current generation, who seem to get their ideas from movies and TV), and it worked well enough that a legally-owned machinegun has NEVER been used in a crime in Canada. If you want to say that we should ban something because that something MIGHT be used in an illegal manner, then that opens the door to a whole bunch of other possibilities. Like I said to unionist, when can we start taking a vote on which of YOUR property or habits the rest of us aren't comfortable with you having?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Not at all; in fact, I think that if this were to actually happen to you, you would probably have a long enough time to say to yourself "Gee, if only this poor, dispossessed meth addict that's beating me to death had only managed to kill me outright, I wouldn't be choking to death on blood right now."


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 09:08 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
When I look around the world at the various countries that actually TRUST their citizens (and the other assorted rights that those citizens enjoy), it's clear that there is a direct relationship between the amount of that trust and those citizens' freedom.

I don't know about trust, but I still need to understand why you want to own a gun. You don't need to own a highway, do you? but I still trust you to use it, if you follow all the appropriate laws and regulations.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:09 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:


Care to elaborate, or can't you come up with anything better than that?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 September 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re the suggestion that farmers be allowed a rifle to shoot coyotes: My brother, who still has a farm - going on 25 years now - kept a rifle in the hall closet to shoot foxes while he had a barn full of chickens. I'm aware other farmers do likewise. The problem is the possibility of a kid finding the gun and playing with it. Or, a family abuse situation, where one is intoxicated and reaches for the gun. Gun storage in this country is rarely taken seriously as far as I can tell. I've seen guns stored in closets, behind a door, on gun racks in living rooms, basements, garages, etc...
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 09:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

Like I said to unionist, when can we start taking a vote on which of YOUR property or habits the rest of us aren't comfortable with you having?

Like unionist replied: Bring it on. I think when it comes to issues of health and safety, I trust the populace I know than the individual I don't. Let the people speak; let the people rule. They will reign wisely, I believe.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I don't know about trust, but I still need to understand why you want to own a gun. You don't need to own a highway, do you? but I still trust you to use it, if you follow all the appropriate laws and regulations.


So, if I'm following the appropriate rules and regulations, why should you CARE? As for owning a gun, I own guns for a number of different sports, all of which are enjoyable in their own way. Now, despite the infinite numbers of other ways in which Canadians are killed (either through murder, negligence, or any other cause), I never hear a similar ill-informed "We've got to DO something, even if it actually doesn't DO anything!" squeal when it comes to any of those ways. If a family of four is run down by a young punk in a black Beemer who's running from the police or living out a "Gone in 60 Seconds" fantasy, I never hear "Why does anyone NEED a black Beemer? We should ban anything that can go that fast or that even LOOKS like it can go that fast." When a pedophile is arrested with a hard-drive full of kiddie porn, I never hear "Why does anyone NEED a computer? The Internet simply makes it too easy for these perverts to do what they do, and we should institute a licencing system to ensure they don't have access to it." Maybe that's just because you don't want these sorts of fascist laws starting to take YOUR freedoms away, hmmmm...?

[ 18 September 2006: Message edited by: SDC ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:23 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Re the suggestion that farmers be allowed a rifle to shoot coyotes: My brother, who still has a farm - going on 25 years now - kept a rifle in the hall closet to shoot foxes while he had a barn full of chickens. I'm aware other farmers do likewise. The problem is the possibility of a kid finding the gun and playing with it. Or, a family abuse situation, where one is intoxicated and reaches for the gun. Gun storage in this country is rarely taken seriously as far as I can tell. I've seen guns stored in closets, behind a door, on gun racks in living rooms, basements, garages, etc...


Farmers are specifically exempted from many portions of the current safe storage law (not that I'd expect you to actually learn about any of it), but if you have a reason to believe that the law isn't being followed, why aren't you reporting those people?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Having seen such a wide variety of these things in use, I'd be happy with someone being allowed to own whatever it is that they can show they know the safe and legal manner to use it in; this is the principle that's currently in place for things such as aircraft and motor vehicles, and it seems to work just fine in jurisdictions around the world. This would cover things like true machineguns ...

Just to get clear on the position, would this cover other weapons as well? Would this cover a B-51 bomber carrying nuclear warheads, for example? If some collector wanted to own one of these, nuclear warheads and all, should she be permitted to do so by the law?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

"Gee, if only this poor, dispossessed meth addict that's beating me to death had only managed to kill me outright, I wouldn't be choking to death on blood right now."


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 18 September 2006 09:32 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

Not at all; in fact, I think that if this were to actually happen to you, you would probably have a long enough time to say to yourself "Gee, if only this poor, dispossessed meth addict that's beating me to death had only managed to kill me outright, I wouldn't be choking to death on blood right now."


What a creep. A Canadian has just been killed for no reason and several others very nearly so, and all you're interested in is defending your own weird gun fetish. The issue here isn't which is a more horrible Way to die but which is more potentially Lethal to others. The ability to kill at a distance is obviously a HUGE difference between baseball bats and rifles, but if you NRA freaks want to insist it doesn't really Count then fine, rural folks can just hunt all those maurauding coyotes with bats. Enjoy.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Just to get clear on the position, would this cover other weapons as well? Would this cover a B-51 bomber carrying nuclear warheads, for example? If some collector wanted to own one of these, nuclear warheads and all, should she be permitted to do so by the law?


I'm not aware of any practical sporting use of the (B-51? No such thing. Perhaps you meant B1, B2, or B-52?), so no, they would not be allowed for private ownership if I had free reign to write the laws.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 18 September 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, when reasoned debate fails, the only thing you can do is post non-sequitor pictures and personal invective? Gee, what a surprise.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

I'm not aware of any practical sporting use of the (B-51? No such thing. Perhaps you meant B1, B2, or B-52?), so no, they would not be allowed for private ownership if I had free reign to write the laws.


Martha, I'll post a photo of the B-51 for SDC's review:

B-51 bomber


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 September 2006 09:51 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
And, when reasoned debate fails, the only thing you can do is post non-sequitor pictures and personal invective?

I'm not sure I get your meaning, SDC. I intended no insult, and I regret if you took it that way. I certainly expressed no personal invective; I don't even know you. As for the picture, I was just confirming that if the meth addict had any humanitarian impulses, s/he could easily purchase a firearm online and avoid the gory scene you so graphically depicted.

I welcome reasoned debate, and would appreciate answers to my questions. Why do you want to own guns ("you" being the archetypical gun owner, or you individually, either way)? And do you trust the people in a democracy to make this decision for the whole society?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 18 September 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
I'm not aware of any practical sporting use of the (B-51? No such thing. Perhaps you meant B1, B2, or B-52?), so no, they would not be allowed for private ownership if I had free reign to write the laws.

Oops. I meant a B52.

Well, I can imagine a sporting use of the plane itself. As for the nuclear bombs, one could imagine a collector of Cold War paraphenalia who might want such a thing. People collect all sorts of weird paraphenalia: why should we write laws barring the collection of Cold War nuclear weapons, even when the collector has shown that she knows how to display these in a responsible way?

I will tone down the example a bit. I could certainly imagine a sporting use of an Apache Helicopter fully loaded with a 30mm automatic Boeing M230 Chain Gun, Longbow Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, Stinger air-to-air missiles, and the Hydra family of guided and unguided rockets. Suppose someone wanted to own one of these for flying and target shooting on her own private property -- imagine a very big piece of private property.

If you had free reign to write the laws, would you allow private ownership of fully loaded Apaches?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 18 September 2006 10:45 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
And, when reasoned debate fails, the only thing you can do is post non-sequitor pictures and personal invective? Gee, what a surprise.

Are you the same NRA spouting clone who was trolling here before? My point is perfectly relevant to This cowboy, being able to kill someone at thirty yards obviously makes a weapon far more lethal than something that may or may Not cause damage at one. And it IS creepy using every shooting incident as another excuse to spout your weird ideology, at least wait till the body is cold and in the ground first. That's just called human decency.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 19 September 2006 04:14 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What a creep. A Canadian has just been killed for no reason and several others very nearly so, and all you're interested in is defending your own weird gun fetish. The issue here isn't which is a more horrible Way to die but which is more potentially Lethal to others. The ability to kill at a distance is obviously a HUGE difference between baseball bats and rifles, but if you NRA freaks want to insist it doesn't really Count then fine, rural folks can just hunt all those maurauding coyotes with bats. Enjoy.

Oh please. Someone was just killed, some are still in the hospital and all you care about is advancing your rabidly anti gun agenda. The first thing that came to mind was whether if those who were wounded would be alright, not let's ban whatever gun he was using.

So yes. If someone defends keeping his possessions he's suddenly a creep because he doesn't injest your ideology. Give me a break and save the guilt card for when it's appropriate.

quote:
I don't suppose you'd favour a democratic referendum of all Canadians on banning individual gun ownership, would you?

Anyway, why should individuals own guns? If you can't verbalize it convincingly, my friend, you're gonna lose that referendum...


I believe when Martin announced the Handgun ban, the Liberals took a tumble combined with the fact the Cons were elected with the promise to scrap the gun registry is good enough reason to suggest there is some backing behind the idea of civillian ownership.

I reapeat once again. We live in a democracy. I need not defend why I wish to own fireams. Freedom is a beautiful thing.

You say you want gun control (as do I) yet when it fails you wish to ban guns as most originally said wasn't the intent.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Who? ]


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 04:27 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:

I reapeat once again. We live in a democracy. I need not defend why I wish to own fireams. Freedom is a beautiful thing.

You say you want gun control (as do I) yet when it fails you wish to ban guns as most originally said wasn't the intent.


So I conclude that you're not interested in a referendum either?

I don't want to ban guns. I just want to stop you from owning one.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 05:55 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Farmers are specifically exempted from many portions of the current safe storage law (not that I'd expect you to actually learn about any of it), but if you have a reason to believe that the law isn't being followed, why aren't you reporting those people?

The exemption for farmers carries the danger that the farmer's firearm may be found by children and played with. Or stolen by a visitor. Or used in domestic violence. There's always a first time. As for your second point, the problem is that the law regarding the storage of firearms isn't thoroughly enforced. How can police agencies in Canada check on the storage of 11 million firearms in this country? Thus from this angle it makes sense to have all firearms under lock and key by your local police or other agency, available to you upon request and after some simple checks as to the purpose of your use of the firearm.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 06:08 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Martha, I'll post a photo of the B-51 for SDC's review:

B-51 bomber


Sorry, unionist, that's an XB-51, not a B-51; it was never adopted, and remained an experimental (hence "X") airplane.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 06:34 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

As for the picture, I was just confirming that if the meth addict had any humanitarian impulses, s/he could easily purchase a firearm online and avoid the gory scene you so graphically depicted.

Can you explain to me how exactly such a purchase would be made, considering that ALL of the current "gun control" scheme would still apply to any such purchase? Why would a meth addict bother going through the mandatory safety training (~ $200), the required testing, the various police and background checks, the photos and fingerprinting, the required minimum 30-day waiting period (in reality usually more than 3 months), the required safe storage inspection for restricted firearms, the outlay of the cost of the firearm itself, the wait for the processing of the paperwork, and the wait for the processing of the paperwork for a transport permit, when said meth addict could simply buy a gun off the street or make one him/herself for a fraction of the cost and time?


quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I welcome reasoned debate, and would appreciate answers to my questions. Why do you want to own guns ("you" being the archetypical gun owner, or you individually, either way)? And do you trust the people in a democracy to make this decision for the whole society?

Speaking for me personally, I enjoy owning firearms for a multitude of reasons; I enjoy the speed and control required in some shooting sports (for example, hitting a 4-inch clay bird travelling at 70 mph is a genuine challenge) and I enjoy the challenge of precision and accuracy in others (the current bench-rest record for large-bore rifles at 1000 yards is 5 shots into less than a 3-inch circle). Shooting handguns multiplies those factors, because of their less-stable firing position and shorter sight radius (again, most people who have never TRIED these things get their ideas from movies and TV, which make it all look ridiculously easy). I also enjoy the historical and mechanical aspects behind most firearms designs.
If the citizens of a democracy make such an ignorant decision as to eliminate private firearms ownership, that's their perfect right to do so (as long as they don't actually expect it to do anything useful). I know I wouldn't remain here for long after that happened. Gun owners in Canada today are in the same position as Jews in Weimar Germany; we are accustomed to being used as convenient scapegoats.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 06:46 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

If you had free reign to write the laws, would you allow private ownership of fully loaded Apaches?

Current law allows the ownership of some very interesting aircraft, including a whole bunch of aircraft that could be used to kill thousands of people when used improperly (witness 9/11); are the victims of an attack like 9/11 somehow "less dead" because they weren't shot with some sort of firearm? Since I don't have any problem with people owning helicopters (provided they're used safely and legally) and I don't have any problem with people owning machineguns (provided they're used safely and legally), why should I have a problem with someone owning a machinegun-carrying helicopter, provided that it's used safely and legally? A Hellfire missile is an expensive piece of kit, though, and I have a hard time imagine someone spending thousands of dollars for the brief thrill they'd get from firing one (OTOH, China has numerous firing ranges where foreign tourists are encouraged to fire various items ranging from pistols up to SCUD missiles, if they've got the hard foreign currency to pay for them).


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 06:51 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

And it IS creepy using every shooting incident as another excuse to spout your weird ideology, at least wait till the body is cold and in the ground first. That's just called human decency.

Strange, that's exactly what I was going to say to YOU; why is it "human decency" to spout your ideology that Canadians are too stupid and/or dangerous to be trusted with potentially dangerous items as soon as you hear of an incident like this (particularly when you couldn't tell me what the EXISTING "gun control" laws in place in this country are in the first place)?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 19 September 2006 06:54 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
you gun guys just can't seem to allow your paranoia to evolve into reason.
if humanity wishes to continue on this planet, it would appear that we're going to have to relinguish our fear-driven grip on the illusions of safety and control through violence.

i'm fairly certain that some of the gun addiction is a testosterone problem. i've read that testosterone can be lowered by eating a strict vegetarian diet and meditating daily.

perhaps this could help you regain your sense of your place in the universe and facilitate the elimination of the fear and aggression that seems to be clouding your minds.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 07:10 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Gun owners in Canada today are in the same position as Jews in Weimar Germany; we are accustomed to being used as convenient scapegoats.

Holy shit!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:18 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
you gun guys just can't seem to allow your paranoia to evolve into reason.
if humanity wishes to continue on this planet, it would appear that we're going to have to relinguish our fear-driven grip on the illusions of safety and control through violence.

i'm fairly certain that some of the gun addiction is a testosterone problem. i've read that testosterone can be lowered by eating a strict vegetarian diet and meditating daily.

perhaps this could help you regain your sense of your place in the universe and facilitate the elimination of the fear and aggression that seems to be clouding your minds.


I meditate daily right now, and though I enjoy it, I also enjoy the shooting sports; how would YOU feel if you were constantly being used as a convenient scapegoat for people with a political agenda? Also, I'm not naive enough to think that "turning the other cheek" all the time is going to do anything more than get that other cheek slapped as well; violence is occasionally a fact of life in the universe, and is sometimes the ONLY way to get things done, no matter how much we'd like to think otherwise.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 07:19 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

Gun owners in Canada today are in the same position as Jews in Weimar Germany; we are accustomed to being used as convenient scapegoats.

I didn't realize you were Jewish, SDC. In that case, I'm prepared to make an exception and allow you to own a firearm. You'll need it for protection against those gun nuts.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:21 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Holy shit!


No? Maybe you'd care to explain Martin's election promise to ban handguns durinng the last election, when Canadians are more likely to be struck and killed by LIGHTNING than they are to be murdered with a legally-owned handgun? If that's not using gun owners as a political scapegoat, what is?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi again, SDC.

I asked, "If you had free reign to write the laws, would you allow private ownership of fully loaded Apaches?"

Though you didn't answer directly (see below), I take it that your answer is "yes". Correct me if I am mistaken.

Well, at least you seem to have adopted a consistent position. I wonder whether you are concerned about the possibility of someone establishing a quite powerful private militia (Apaches, hellfire missiles, etc.), or whether your legal system would have some kind of provision against this.

quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Current law allows the ownership of some very interesting aircraft, including a whole bunch of aircraft that could be used to kill thousands of people when used improperly (witness 9/11); are the victims of an attack like 9/11 somehow "less dead" because they weren't shot with some sort of firearm? Since I don't have any problem with people owning helicopters (provided they're used safely and legally) and I don't have any problem with people owning machineguns (provided they're used safely and legally), why should I have a problem with someone owning a machinegun-carrying helicopter, provided that it's used safely and legally? A Hellfire missile is an expensive piece of kit, though, and I have a hard time imagine someone spending thousands of dollars for the brief thrill they'd get from firing one (OTOH, China has numerous firing ranges where foreign tourists are encouraged to fire various items ranging from pistols up to SCUD missiles, if they've got the hard foreign currency to pay for them).

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I didn't realize you were Jewish, SDC. In that case, I'm prepared to make an exception and allow you to own a firearm. You'll need it for protection against those gun nuts.


Try thinking outside your narrow-minded box, unionist. Take a look at http://www.pinkpistols.org and http://www.jpfo.org sometime.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 19 September 2006 07:30 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I don't suppose you'd favour a democratic referendum of all Canadians on banning individual gun ownership, would you?

Anyway, why should individuals own guns? If you can't verbalize it convincingly, my friend, you're gonna lose that referendum...


Sorry Unionist -

Firearms ownership and use is part of our country's heritage. The question should be:

Why shouldn't responsible Canadians own firearms?

If you can't understand that, well, I don't know what to say.


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:34 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
Hi again, SDC.

I asked, "If you had free reign to write the laws, would you allow private ownership of fully loaded Apaches?"

Though you didn't answer directly (see below), I take it that your answer is "yes". Correct me if I am mistaken.


It seems awful silly to me to be worried about the possibility that someone may use ONE object improperly, when you couldn't seem to care less that any number of other objects could also be used improperly, causing even MORE deaths. If tomorrow, someone took it into their heads to fly a Cessna loaded with fertilizer and diesel oil into the parliament buildings, would you be calling for the banning of Cessnas, fertilizer, diesel oil, or all three? If, the day after, someone was to park a Volkswagen bus loaded with gasoline in front of a school, would you be calling for the banning of Volkswagen buses or gasoline?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ouroboros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9250

posted 19 September 2006 07:36 AM      Profile for ouroboros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And do you trust the people in a democracy to make this decision for the whole society?[/QB]

Do you? After 9/11 you would trust the public on a vote about removing rights? I wouldn't. If a vote on same sex marriage was held today, would you trust the public to vote for people's rights? I would give it 50/50, if only because the right would get their people out to vote. How about throwing panhandlers in jail or fining them? Put that to a vote in most cities and it would pass. How about a vote on immigration levels?

Check out any online polls, like Cfax Victoria, and tell me you would trust the public to make the right choice on any issue.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: ouroboros ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 07:37 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SDC,

Getting back to an earlier unanswered question, would you allow a collector of Cold War memorabilia to own an atomic bomb?

Again, I sort of expect your answer to be "yes", based on the arguments you've given; but I'd be curious to see if you agree.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
It seems awful silly to me to be worried about the possibility that someone may use ONE object improperly...

Hmmm. This makes me wonder: would you put a limit on the number of fully loaded Apache helicopters that a single individual could own? (I am anticipating a negative answer here...)

I will respond with some of my own thoughts anon.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
SDC,

Getting back to an earlier unanswered question, would you allow a collector of Cold War memorabilia to own an atomic bomb?

Again, I sort of expect your answer to be "yes", based on the arguments you've given; but I'd be curious to see if you agree.


No, because it's not possible to use that item without causing a lot of other, ancillary problems. This doesn't hold true for the sort of firearms this thread started out discussing. I'd be happy with an upper limit of artillery; there's historical precedent for privately-owned artillery, and contemporary examples to examine. Several of the cantons in Switzerland allow private ownership of fully-automatic 20mm anti-aircraft cannon, and I don't recall hearing any reports of 747s being shot down over the Alps recently, have you?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 07:46 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Hmmm. This makes me wonder: would you put a limit on the number of fully loaded Apache helicopters that a single individual could own? (I am anticipating a negative answer here...)

I will respond with some of my own thoughts anon.


Would you put a limit on the number of motor vehicles that a single individual could own? If not, why not?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 19 September 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
guns a part of our heritage....hmmm

---and wouldn't most of that heritage killing be something that we're ashamed of? something that we should be resolutely moving past?

humans fed themselves fairly well long before guns, so for those that feel the need to eat wild flesh there are alternatives. we also defended ourselves rather neatly from other animals--in fact the evidence clearly implicates us as the most deadly animal on earth. so those worried about their flocks can make better use of dogs, donkeys and llammas. perhaps the occasional use of a javelin or some such personal weapon can be called into play for those who just can't live in peace on the planet.

and sport shooting? learning the skills to kill and practicing and honing those killing skills is not sport. pretending that it is anything other than learning to kill is a lie.

we don't need guns, we must develope the global social justice to end wars and part of that is taking a firm stand on guns.---we just don't need to be so afraid.

we need to stop the behaviors that guns are an integral part of. we can't keep doing what we're doing.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar, you're being naive to an absurd degree if you think that the predators among our species are going to abide by any conventions that the rest of us adopt. In your hypothetical "no weapons" world, all you're doing is putting the biggest goon in charge, and since we can't stop people from making weapons in the first place, it's a moot point. Singing kumbaya can't change that, no matter how hard you close your eyes and click your heels together.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 08:20 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
No, because it's not possible to use that item without causing a lot of other, ancillary problems.

OK ... now it's time for me to start to articulate my own views.

We both seem to agree o some things. For example, we both seem to agree that even a responsible person who wants to own an atom bomb, in order to display it in her collection of Cold War memorabilia, can reasonably be forbidden by law from owning that bomb.

So we both seem to agree that the law can reasonably forbid private ownership of certain weapons.

We also both agree that the law should allow private ownership of other (potential) weapons: baseball bats, golf clubs, camping knives.

Here is where we disagree: we draw the line in different places. You draw the line somewhere above fully loaded Apaches and somewhere below atom bombs. I draw the line somewhere above hunting knives and somewhere below handguns.

We could have a debate about exactly where we should draw this line. But I propose a question for all of us: What principles shall we use in deciding where to draw this line?

You have already floated a principle: if "it's not possible to use that item without causing a lot of other, ancillary problems" then the law might reasonably forbid the private ownership of the item. Before I continue, I want to ensure that I am not misreading you.

Back to you.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 08:26 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
Would you put a limit on the number of motor vehicles that a single individual could own? If not, why not?

My current view (subject to change) is that the answer is, no I would not put a limit on the number of motor vehicles that a single individual could own. The reason is this: the misuse or misappropriation of a fleet of motor vehicles is less dangerous to the community than the misues or misappropriation of a fleet of fully loaded Apache helicopters.

For me, it's a matter of degree. Yes, an individual can use a fleet of motor vehicles against the community. But it's a question of how likely that would be; how difficult that would be; and how difficult it would be for the authorities to take measures against someone who is thus misusing that fleet.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 08:40 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
We could have a debate about exactly where we should draw this line. But I propose a question for all of us: What principles shall we use in deciding where to draw this line?

I look at this issue in terms of what is ALREADY possible in terms of what can be done with any number of other objects; since someone could just as easily kill as many or more people with a limitless number of other objects that you don't seem to have a problem with, am I supposed to believe that people killed with those other objects are somehow "less dead" than people killed with a firearm? If someone is willing to use a firearm to commit a mass murder, why wouldn't they be willing to drive a car at high speed onto a crowded sidewalk, or throw a Molotov cocktail into a crowded store, or do any number of other things? It seems to me that the anti-gun crowd is fine with THOSE things happening, because to legislate against them would somehow involve THEIR ox being gored.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUPERSNAKE:

Firearms ownership and use is part of our country's heritage.

Two points:

1. I was talking about Canada; not sure where you're from.

2. If you're talking about Canada, you must be quite worried that Canadians would vote against their own heritage, right? Stopping the people from voting on such an issue means you leave it in the hands of the politicians and the courts. Why don't you trust the people?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 08:48 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SDC, you raise some interesting questions.

After all, I can murder with a car. I can commit serious crimes with a car. I can drive a car down a crowded sidewalk, killing people, destroying property, etc.

So why, you ask, should we forbid the ownership of guns and not the ownership of cars?

Damn ... I have to go to class. I will give you my answer when classes are over...


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 08:52 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guns are created for only one purpose - to kill. That's the difference.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 08:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ouroboros:

Do you? After 9/11 you would trust the public on a vote about removing rights? I wouldn't. If a vote on same sex marriage was held today, would you trust the public to vote for people's rights? I would give it 50/50, if only because the right would get their people out to vote. How about throwing panhandlers in jail or fining them? Put that to a vote in most cities and it would pass. How about a vote on immigration levels?


No, I would strongly oppose referenda on any of those issues, because they relate to recognized fundamental human rights and are therefore entrenched in our Constitution. The human rights of the few can never be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority.

I'm talking about firearm ownership here. It's not a fundamental right in Canada - never was. It's a right which exists at the pleasure of Parliament and can be modified or deleted at any time. Given the emotions surrounding the issue, I think a proposal as fundamental as eliminating individual gun ownership would be better trusted to the will of the people, with all the usual safeguards - a "Yes" and a "No" committee, funding restrictions, full and equal access, etc.

Much better that way than trusting some governing party, eager to grab votes by capitalizing on a disaster, to illegalize gun use altogether - or again, do you trust the politicians more on this issue than the people?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 08:55 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Two points:

1. I was talking about Canada; not sure where you're from.

2. If you're talking about Canada, you must be quite worried that Canadians would vote against their own heritage, right? Stopping the people from voting on such an issue means you leave it in the hands of the politicians and the courts. Why don't you trust the people?


How comfortable would you be, unionist, if we were to put any number of other issues to a referendum (say, for example, capital punishment, abortion, same-sex marriage, or any one of a large number of others); would YOU still be willing to "trust the people"?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 09:00 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Guns are created for only one purpose - to kill. That's the difference.

Maybe the only reason you think that way is because you've got no experience with the other side of the coin, and aren't willing to even consider it.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

No, I would strongly oppose referenda on any of those issues, because they relate to recognized fundamental human rights and are therefore entrenched in our Constitution. The human rights of the few can never be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority.

I'm talking about firearm ownership here. It's not a fundamental right in Canada - never was.



In other words, "I don't care if YOUR rights or property are taken away, just so long as you leave mine alone." How generous of you, unionist. And, even though firearms ownership isn't a right specifically spelled out under the current charter, it has a long history under Common Law going back to the Magna Carta, relating to the self-evident right of self-defense. Even during the Hansard debates during the 1930s, when they passed the law requiring registration of handguns, all parties made it clear that this law would never, could never be used to prevent "peaceable citizens" from owning or using guns for self-defence. The more things change, the more politicians lie, eh, unionist?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 19 September 2006 09:09 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Two points:

1. I was talking about Canada; not sure where you're from.

2. If you're talking about Canada, you must be quite worried that Canadians would vote against their own heritage, right? Stopping the people from voting on such an issue means you leave it in the hands of the politicians and the courts. Why don't you trust the people?


1. I'm from Canada, as was my father, grandfather, and great grandfather- firearms owners all. Hence "part of our heritage and culture".

2. On the contrary- I'd welcome a referendum on that particular issue, as well as others- *see SDC's post .


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 19 September 2006 09:29 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
naive?--i wish---quite the contrary, though.

i've spent most of my 54 years studying war, religion and politics. i'm utterly convinced that we can't go on tolerating--condoning, really--violence and weapons in any form.

our society can lead by example. if we decide that 'the real world' should be weapon free, with immagination and time we could well achieve this.
in this world of the unprecedented slaughter of people, animals and the earth all around us, surely, surely we can undertake the elimination of guns within our society, as both a concrete and symbolic act to end our 'violence as useful' mindset.

it bloody well just breaks my heart to read the pussyfooting and rationalization around guns, war, fear and greed---they are all part of the same thing.

can't you look upon the elimination of guns in our society as a symbolic commitment to peace--peace with each other, peace with the planet.

can't you see this as an ethical gesture that tells the world that we no longer wish to behave like primitive, fearful and dangerous creatures.

surely, surely we're ready to try something better.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 September 2006 09:35 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

How comfortable would you be, unionist, if we were to put any number of other issues to a referendum (say, for example, capital punishment, abortion, same-sex marriage, or any one of a large number of others); would YOU still be willing to "trust the people"?


I've already answered that question. I am absolutely opposed to referenda on those issues - even though the slightest familiarity with the enlightened state of the Canadian people (or a look at opinion polls) should convince you that if referenda were held, they would vote the correct way on every single one you mentioned.

Likewise, if the government decided to hold a referendum on whether Canadians should be allowed to individually own automobiles, or houses, or firearms, or stamp collections, etc., I would have no objection whatsoever - because those are not fundamental human rights, nor do they do not require protection of a disenfranchised minority.

On those issues - as on every issue not relating to fundamental internationally and nationally recognized human rights - I would be overjoyed to force politicians on occasion to submit their often wacky or arrogant dictate to the electorate for approval. It's an important safeguard against tyranny.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
naive?--i wish---quite the contrary, though.


So the problem remains of how to ENFORCE this imaginary "weapons-free" world you invision; naturally, the first step would have to be the mandatory lobotomy of every citizen, lest they somehow figure out that the can of soda pop, pack of matches, package of steel wool, and couple of AA batteries they just picked up at the corner store can be turned into a firearm. And, even if you could somehow figure out a way to prevent all manner of homemade firearms from being made, you'd still be left with the fact that all you've done is put the biggest goon in charge (maybe not such a bad thing if you happen to be the biggest goon, but it truly sucks if you're at the bottom of the pecking order).


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 19 September 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Any Canadian that is adamant about their need to possess guns can damn well move to the u.s. of ammunition if its that important to them. Otherwise get over it. Guns are bad and the excuses for having them are lame.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 19 September 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Though many dispute it, there is a long history of political philosophers advocating property as a fundamental human right.

Since this is a value judgment, there is no right or wrong answer. I do suspect that most people would be bothered if they knew that the government could arbitrarily confiscate your house, giving you nothing in exchange for it, and you would have no constitutional recourse. But the Charter offers no such protection as it does for, say, arbitrary limitations on free speech.

For people who do believe in property rights, this is a discussion on whether the usefulness of a firearm ban is sufficient to curtail those rights (just as, in many cases, the government acceptably limits freedom of speech -- hate speech, for example). The masses do have some latitude in deciding whether rights may be suspended in certain specific ways.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 19 September 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

...It's an important safeguard against tyranny.


Funny, that's how some folks feel about firearms.


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 19 September 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
can't you look upon the elimination of guns in our society as a symbolic commitment to peace--peace with each other, peace with the planet.

can't you see this as an ethical gesture that tells the world that we no longer wish to behave like primitive, fearful and dangerous creatures.


And after you have done this in your little corner of the world, the big bully with guns next door will come in and either make you his slave, or just kill you for whatever he wants that you have.

The innate hatred that some people have for other people will not go away until one or the other group completely kills off the other. The only way to prevent this type of slaughter is for both groups to be able to defend themselves. Mutual respect for the strength of the other is the only thing that will stop the killing of each other in these cases. And we all know which groups these are.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 09:52 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

It's an important safeguard against tyranny.

Even Mao recognized that "power grows out the barrel of a gun", unionist. Recognizing that, who do you want to hold onto that power; the government alone, or the government and the people? The Americans recognized that even democratically-elected governments have a funny way of turning against their own people, and included a right to keep and bear arms as a check against uncontrolled government; and THAT'S an important safeguard against tyranny. Moreover, it shows a level of trust in the citizenry that you'd be hard pressed to find today.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ouroboros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9250

posted 19 September 2006 09:52 AM      Profile for ouroboros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

or again, do you trust the politicians more on this issue than the people?

So you don't trust politicians to make a good choice on issues with emotions surrounding them. That's fair.

But how do you think those human rights became human rights? We never had a referendum on those issues. Elected politicians (or unelected judges in a very few cases) made them human rights. Why? Because the people told them to in the case of politicians. In the case of judges, they followed the laws made by the politicians.

So in those cases the politicians made the right choice. Why don't you trust the politicians to follow the will of the people in this case?


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 September 2006 09:55 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

Maybe the only reason you think that way is because you've got no experience with the other side of the coin, and aren't willing to even consider it.


Scroll back and read a previous post of mine - I'm a former hunter, fisherman, and trapper. I used to belong to a rod and gun club, and shot at a rifle and revolver range. In addition, as a teenager I shot at a skeet range.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ouroboros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9250

posted 19 September 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for ouroboros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by otter:
Any Canadian that is adamant about their need to possess guns can damn well move to the u.s. of ammunition if its that important to them. Otherwise get over it. Guns are bad and the excuses for having them are lame.

Any Canadian that is adamant about their need to live in a place that outlaws guns can damn well move to another place if it's that important to them.

Yep, both sound equally "lame"


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 19 September 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Scroll back and read a previous post of mine - I'm a former hunter, fisherman, and trapper. I used to belong to a rod and gun club, and shot at a rifle and revolver range. In addition, as a teenager I shot at a skeet range.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


So, if "Guns are created for only one purpose - to kill. That's the difference.", and you used to use guns, I have to wonder exactly how many people YOU killed? Or are you somehow above the law you'd pass for the rest of the peons?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 19 September 2006 10:05 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't buy at all any of this crap about firearms being necessary to keep the government accountable. As has been said, that's what we have a constitution for. And if that fails, then semi-automatics are not going to be very effective against the tanks and fighter jets our government has as its disposal. The argument sounds even more absurd when coming from Americans, who want their government to be the strongest military force the world has ever known, and at the same time insist they can hold it accountable with hunting rifles and Smith & Wessons.

I'm a little more amenable to the argument that a gun ban would have only a limited effect on crime rates, and its not worth the implicit loss of freedom that comes from the government banning anything.


Boom Boom:

quote:
Guns are created for only one purpose - to kill...
In addition, as a teenager I shot at a skeet range.

So are you saying that skeet shooting or target shooting kill, or that those aren't purposes for guns?


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You'll have to get your answer in a new thread, because this one's longity-long.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
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