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   » Ownership of dangerous objects

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ownership of dangerous objects
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In thread now closed, SDC noted that 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 So why, he asks, should we forbid the ownership of guns and not the ownership of cars? I promised an answer. Here is an attempt.

First, even SDC admits that, in extreme cases, our laws could reasonably forbid the ownership of certain objects, in particular atom bombs. So SDC and I seem to agree that the state can reasonably impose some limits on what a private individual can own -- we just differ on where we draw the line.

Here are some grounds -- subject to revision -- that I think would justify forbidding a particular class of objects. I propose that a class of objects must satisfy ALL THREE

(#1) The objects must have the potential to be used as weapons causing serious harm.
(#2) There must be actual, not merely potential, widespread use of these objects as weapons causing serious harm.
(#3) Modern society could function quite normally if private ownership of these objects were forbidden.

I believe that guns satisfy (#1), (#2) and (#3).

SDC has argued forcefully and convincingly that cars satisfy (#1). However, in our current times, cars do not satisfy (#2): there is not widespread use of cars as weapons. There is occasional use, but it is nothing compared to the use of, for example, handguns. But (#3) is the clincher: forbidding private ownership of cars would cause chaos in our modern society.

Now, what about baseball bats? Well, they do satisfy (#1), as SDC has correctly pointed out. And they satisfy (#3): modern function could indeed function quite normally if private ownership of baseball bats were forbidden. However, I contend that baseball bats do not satisfy (#2): although there are surely serious crimes committed with baseball bats, I maintain that, statistically speaking, their use is not particularly widespread.

If, however, at some time in the future there were as many baseball-bat murders as there currently are handgun murders, then I would not strongly oppose forbidding the ownership of baseball bats.

I stress that this position is somewhat oversimplified, and subject to revision.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 19 September 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All semi-automatic weapons should be banned. They are indefensible.

I wish a party would make that it's priority because it will show just how deranged the pro-gun lobby and their pro-NRA MP's really are.

It's the perfect wedge issue.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Madwow
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12892

posted 19 September 2006 10:38 PM      Profile for Madwow        Edit/Delete Post
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893
posted 19 September 2006 10:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All semi-automatic weapons should be banned. They are indefensible.
I wish a party would make that it's priority because it will show just how deranged the pro-gun lobby and their pro-NRA MP's really are.

It's the perfect wedge issue.

And since std's kill more people than guns we
should make sure that everyone has to register their penis or vagina.

Maybe if we have to re-register every few months to make sure that your weapon of choice is clean and not used in the untimely death of someone else, you can continue to be in possession of this potential weapon as long as it is not a threat to your fellow population.

What the hell, anyone transgendered should have more that one valid registration as they have the potential of more than one weapon.


From: open prairie | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 19 September 2006 10:48 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Madwow:

quote:
And since std's kill more people than guns we
should make sure that everyone has to register their penis or vagina.

Actually penis' and vaginas serve a very useful purpose. Semi-automatic weapons are only designed to kill humans. This isn't a hunter's rights issue; this is a right to kill like Rambo one.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Madwow
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12892

posted 19 September 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for Madwow        Edit/Delete Post
Madwow:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since std's kill more people than guns we
should make sure that everyone has to register their penis or vagina.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually penis' and vaginas serve a very useful purpose. Semi-automatic weapons are only designed to kill humans. This isn't a hunter's rights issue; this is a right to kill like Rambo one.

Yes they do have a useful and wonderful purpose however, is it an untrue statment to contribute more deaths to std than guns.

The gun registration today was a kneejerk reaction to a terrible act committed by a evil individual. The asshole at Dawson used legally purchase and registered guns. Please explain to me how the gun registry prevented this crime?

If you would like gun confiscation, admit it.
Many on this board will not.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Madwow ]


From: open prairie | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 19 September 2006 11:23 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Madwow:

quote:
is it an untrue statment to contribute more deaths to std than guns.

I don't know but they weren't DESIGNED to kill humans. That's the issue.

Read Martha's post it makes a lot of sense. There's a very good reason why people aren't allowed to own nukes or rpg's. Semi-automatic weapons are in the same category and should be banned.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 19 September 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Martha (bns), I have to disagree with your analysis of both cars and bats.

From Stats Canada pages "HOMICIDE IN CANADA, 2002 REPORT Released: October 1, 2003", 63% of murder victoms were stabbed, beaten or strangled, 26% were shot.

When you look at the annual statistics for murder, the weapon of choice varies every year, with the most used weapon alternating between knives, guns and blunt objects.

On the car issue, from a quick google search, there were 3064 fatalities in Canada due to vehicles in 1997, of which over 35% are blamed on alcohol. Killing a person while driving under the influence of alcohol can be considered murder. Therefore, there were about 1000 people murdered by car in 1997, while there were 193 murdered by all types of firearms.

I therefore submit that both cars and bats would qualify for both #1 and #2 of your criteria.

Now I don't think that firearms in private hands qualify for your #3 condition. Modern society includes countries like Darfor and Rwanda, where if the private citizens had owned firearms, there would be several million people still alive in those areas.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 19 September 2006 11:40 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
alw, equating semi-auto firearms to RPG's and "nukes" is like equating bicycles to tanks and battleships. There is no comparison.

Banning semi-auto firearms will only guarantee that there is a good supply of them in the hands of the criminals who do use them to kill people.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Madwow
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12892

posted 19 September 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for Madwow        Edit/Delete Post
There's a very good reason why people aren't allowed to own nukes or rpg's. Semi-automatic weapons are in the same category and should be banned.

Well a nuke or rpg is quite unpractical unless you have the intention of taking out the infidel.

Do you have any idea what a semi-automatic firearm is? Have you ever shot one? Or are you just scared of something that you do not understand?

I have had a semi auto in my possession for almost 30 years, and I have to admit that I have NOT shot anyone.

There are psychos in this world who will use nukes, rpgs and semi autos to kill people, but please don't blame those of us that happen to own the odd firearm.

If you wan't complete confiscation, please post it now so there is no confusion later, as this board has always stated that confiscation was not the reason for their opposition to individual firearm ownership.


From: open prairie | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 September 2006 11:48 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Howard R. Hamilton:
Now I don't think that firearms in private hands qualify for your #3 condition. Modern society includes countries like Darfor and Rwanda, where if the private citizens had owned firearms, there would be several million people still alive in those areas.

I will think further about bats and knives.

As for the #3 condition and guns, I would now prefer to say that modern society in Canada could function quite normally if private ownership of guns were forbidden. I grant that in some extremely unstable countries, police and other authorities are incapable of protecting their citizens. In such countries, I grant the reasonableness of private gun ownership. I feel great relief that I live in a country in which society could function quite normally if private ownership of guns were forbidden.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 04:14 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
All semi-automatic weapons should be banned. They are indefensible.

I wish a party would make that it's priority because it will show just how deranged the pro-gun lobby and their pro-NRA MP's really are.

It's the perfect wedge issue.



They've banned quite a few guns, some over a decade ago yet no gun owner has violently revolted against parliaments will. Although James Rosko was able to obtain prohibited rifles (wait, they're banned....)

I've explained this before. Lepine had a rifle rendered to the function of a bolt action genre. You had better tack those on to the Ban list.

I'm not so naive as to not know how your kind works. First it was assault rifles, now semi automatics. When that didn't cure the problem (because deranged individuals can still obtain anything they want) and let's pretend it did indeed rid society of semi automatics, when the next wacko decided to commit the unthinkable you'd be calling for the banning of that gun.


Now by no means am I advocating we ignore the horrific act that just occurred but take a minute and imagine what it would be like if you pushed to have alcohol outlawed for everytime a drunk driver kills someone (approx 2000 people die annually).

Last time I checked alcohol is not productive and has no other purpose than to dull ones senses.

What good does alcohol bring? Alcohol kills and will continue to kill more people that guns will come near to killing but more people enjoy alcohol.

People understand that the actions of a very small few shouldn't trample everyone's enjoyment of something.

So ask yourself, are you ashamed to have a glass of wine or any other liquor of your choice knowing full well how many people are senselessly killed by a substance that has no rational application in our society?

But most of you are thinking that you enjoy a drink every now just as individuals who own guns enjoy target shooting and other sporting purposes. Yet who would call you a deranged, heartless, insensitive or irrational individual that actively supports all the harm that alcohol brings?

Please, defend alcohols relevence in a society. The reason I didn't mention tobacco is because in the majority of cases it is the users choice to commit long term suicide.

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


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 04:19 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IIRC, pump-action rifles and shotguns are nearly as fast to shoot as semi-autos. However, I don't recall any pump action rifles or shotguns having the same magazine capacity as some semiautos, but I quit gun ownership back in 1994. Maybe things have changed since then.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 04:25 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
IIRC, pump-action rifles and shotguns are nearly as fast to shoot as semi-autos. However, I don't recall any pump action rifles or shotguns having the same magazine capacity as some semiautos, but I quit gun ownership back in 1994. Maybe things have changed since then.

They do.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 04:27 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But semiauto rifles can use removeable and rather large magazine clips - can you get the same in pump rifles?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheSignGuy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13174

posted 20 September 2006 04:30 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boom Boom ALL Semi auto centrefire long guns are limted to a 5 round magazine capacity, except in the case of longguns that are capable of taking pistol magazines. semi auto pistol magizines are limited to ten rounds
there is no magazine capacity limits on pump or bolt or lever action long guns.
military and law enforcement are exempt from these laws

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 04:31 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Yes.


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

posted 20 September 2006 04:33 AM      Profile for TheSignGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yes i believe you can get magazine extentions for pump actions. and the bolt action enfield i was given by my grand father has a magazine capacity of 10 rounds legaly
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 20 September 2006 05:41 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure the three suggested criteria are very helpful:

(#1) - almost anything is capable of this.

(#2) - "widespread" appears to cause some difficulty, given the impression by some that guns fall into this category. Gun crime represents a very small, but very high profile, component of crime in Canada. If they satisfy a "widespread use" category, then so does everything from a kitchen knife to a beer bottle to a car.

(#3) - depends on your characterization of modern society. Some environmentalists would argue that cars aren't needed. Prohibitionists would argue that alcohol isn't needed. Firearms do perform an important function, especially in rural and northern communities, but not limited to those.

Finally, the idea that semi-automatic rifles are designed for the sole purpose of killing humans is patently ridiculous. It makes about as much sense as thinking that they're "machine guns".


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 05:42 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, thanks. I knew there was a maximum clip for pump and semiauto shotguns, didn't know there was a similar restriction for rifles.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 06:53 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you wan't complete confiscation, please post it now so there is no confusion later, as this board has always stated that confiscation was not the reason for their opposition to individual firearm ownership.

This board hasn't stated anything. Individuals have different opinions here. Grasp this concept or get lost.

And if some one does state they want all guns confisicated, so what! Big deal. They are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to reflect on their rights as well.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 20 September 2006 07:22 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

(#1) The objects must have the potential to be used as weapons causing serious harm.
(#2) There must be actual, not merely potential, widespread use of these objects as weapons causing serious harm.
(#3) Modern society could function quite normally if private ownership of these objects were forbidden.

I think you've put the cart before the horse here, Martha; in a supposedly free society (something I think we can all agree we should be working towards), the onus has to be placed on those wanting to restrict freedom to justify their actions, not the other way around. However, it is particularly galling when those with an anti-gun phobia try to justify their phobia in terms of "saving lives" when those same people seem to have no problem whatsoever with things that are involved in hundreds or thousands of times more deaths each year ("What? You want to take away some of MY freedoms, simply because some bozo used something similar to hurt a bunch of people? Don't be ridiculous!")


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 08:37 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where were you guys when they banned lawn darts.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 20 September 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Where were you guys when they banned lawn darts.

I didn't particularly agree with that one either (I don't vote for a government so they can pretend to be my mummy and daddy), but at least lawn darts are meant to be a children's game; in that respect, it's no different than regulating the size or attachment of button eyes on stuffed animals. If an adult capable of making his/her own decisions wants to play dawn darts, please be my guest.


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Where were you guys when they banned lawn darts.

LOL! I was probably about 14 years old. Man, that was a fun game!

And now, this:

I'd just like to state I find it odd that there are people who'd like very much to take something away from me, despite the fact that I've never done anything wrong with it.. ?

I want to understand the logic, but I just can't get there.

But I am thankful that we live in a country where we can have this sort of discourse, and I'm also thankful this site is here to do the same .


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:10 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sdc and everyone who keeps hauling out that creepily american sounding idea of 'freedom'. we are not, nor have we ever been, in any society that i've ever studied, 'free'

this is a foolish concept for human beings.

we are nothing without each other. we are inextricably bound to all of humanity that ever was and ever will be.

let's just embrace this concept as it is the link to global social justice and will actually free our hearts more than any illusions of individual freedom.

'freedom' to own and use weapons only implies that we get to do what we wanna do and take what we wanna take and wreck what we wanna wreck cause we got firepower.

how freudian that someone mentioned the penis as a weapon. there are some interesting connections between guns and penises. and interesting that the writer tries to coopt vaginas into the weapons idea. history holds irrefutable evidence that it's the penises that have been the tools of agression. the relinguishing of metal penis extentions is going to be a trauma for some people but not for most of humanity.


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:21 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In that case, morningstar, you might as well put us all in cages and push food through the bars every now and then. If there is one thing that is guaranteed to cause violent revolution, it's the scenario that you envision. I recall that you have this "Barney: I love you, you love me" nonsensical view of the world, where no-one has a potential weapon, and how sweet it would be if you could snap your magic fingers and simply make it happen. Well, it's been tried already, and, sorry to say, it SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Don't believe me? Spend a while in prison, and tell me how "safe" it is, despite the fact that weapons of any description are absolutely prohibited.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 09:23 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd just like to state I find it odd that there are people who'd like very much to take something away from me, despite the fact that I've never done anything wrong with it.. ?

I want to understand the logic, but I just can't get there.


It isn't really all that hard. The thing you haven't done anything wrong with is the most efficient way to kill someone.

You can't promise that it won't be stolen, you can't promise that you won't become mentally ill or that no one will be accidental shot by you. You can possess something that quite simply is a direct threat to my freedom to be alive.

That's why some people don't want them in the hands of civilians. Life isn't fair, but your right to a hobby doesn't outweigh others right to life.

I know someone who was murdered with a firearm, and if the attacker had used a knife the multiple victims would likely have been able to overpower him. Lepine weilding a batt would have been beaten with it and 16 young women would be still alive. So, spare me your inability to see why normal people shouldn't be seriously fucking wary about who owns the most effective tool for murder. It doesn't give your cause any credibilty.

The "right" to have the weapon is bestowed on you by society as a whole. And they can democratically take it away from you as well. And if people like you continue to deny reasonable fears and behave like condscending asses over the issues you'll be on the unhappy side of that outcome. And it will serve you right.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 09:24 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
sdc and everyone who keeps hauling out that creepily american sounding idea of 'freedom'. we are not, nor have we ever been, in any society that i've ever studied, 'free'

this is a foolish concept for human beings.

we are nothing without each other. we are inextricably bound to all of humanity that ever was and ever will be.

let's just embrace this concept as it is the link to global social justice and will actually free our hearts more than any illusions of individual freedom.

'freedom' to own and use weapons only implies that we get to do what we wanna do and take what we wanna take and wreck what we wanna wreck cause we got firepower.



Hmm- freedom for me means the right to choose. I absolutely agree with you that we are all bound to each other in many ways, but should that mean that we're all exactly the same in our thinking and actions?


Freedom to own and use anything should be the issue, shouldn't it? Seriously- at what point can we say,
"That is mine. No one gets to say I can or can't do with it what I will" ?
What is inalienably (sp? sorry ) mine? My house? My car? My mind? My body?

Who gets to draw that line?


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:


You can't promise that it won't be stolen, you can't promise that you won't become mentally ill or that no one will be accidental shot by you. You can possess something that quite simply is a direct threat to my freedom to be alive.

That's why some people don't want them in the hands of civilians. Life isn't fair, but your right to a hobby doesn't outweigh others right to life.

I know someone who was murdered with a firearm, and if the attacker had used a knife the multiple victims would likely have been able to overpower him. Lepine weilding a batt would have been beaten with it and 16 young women would be still alive. So, spare me your inability to see why normal people shouldn't be seriously fucking wary about who owns the most effective tool for murder. It doesn't give your cause any credibilty.

The "right" to have the weapon is bestowed on you by society as a whole. And they can democratically take it away from you as well. And if people like you continue to deny reasonable fears and behave like condscending asses over the issues you'll be on the unhappy side of that outcome. And it will serve you right.


Wow. Charming:

I was being honest in admitting my mystification on this issue, and I'm basically called abnormal, untrustworthy, unreasonable, and a condescending ass.

So much for reasoned discourse.


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:33 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scout, you seem to have this unrealistic expectation that "society" somehow has an obligation to protect you, whether it's protecting you from yourself or from someone else. That's no more realistic than morningstar's nonsense; the only one capable of protecting you is YOU, as seen in prisons around the world. You don't seem to have any problem at all with someone being murdered with any other object, so what is it that makes someone murdered with a firearm "more dead", or more worthy of protection?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 09:35 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have yet to post anything reasoned. You talk about rights and freedoms but are clearly okay with your rights superceding others. That's not reasoned that's selfish. Your rights aren't bigger than anyone elses.

quote:
I recall that you have this "Barney: I love you, you love me" nonsensical view of the world, where no-one has a potential weapon, and how sweet it would be if you could snap your magic fingers and simply make it happen. Well, it's been tried already, and, sorry to say, it SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Don't believe me? Spend a while in prison, and tell me how "safe" it is, despite the fact that weapons of any description are absolutely prohibited.

This is nonsense. So we keep guns because people already kill people? That’s logical or reasonable? People are already dying so what’s a few guns to make it easier for them? What selfish disregarding human life.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 09:38 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUPERSNAKE:


Hmm- freedom for me means the right to choose. I absolutely agree with you that we are all bound to each other in many ways, but should that mean that we're all exactly the same in our thinking and actions?


Freedom to own and use anything should be the issue, shouldn't it? Seriously- at what point can we say,
"That is mine. No one gets to say I can or can't do with it what I will" ?
What is inalienably (sp? sorry ) mine? My house? My car? My mind? My body?

Who gets to draw that line?


What's "unreasoned" about this, Scout? Can we just have a conversation, sans the bombast?


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:41 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
banning weapons won't happen in a vaccuum.

nothing in societal behavior stands alone--there is never just one issue. arming individuals so that they have the illusion of 'safety' will only contribute to the increasing spiral of violence.

eliminating guns could be instrumental in decreasing our acceptance of violence. symbolic decisions are often a more powerful agent of social change than most are willing to understand.

symbolic gestures have the potential for powerful, practical change. they help us to throw our minds and hearts forward. there is nothing 'polyannaish' about this tactic. it can be highly practical and useful when people have the wisdom and fearlessness to just do it.


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:41 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
You have yet to post anything reasoned. You talk about rights and freedoms but are clearly okay with your rights superceding others. That's not reasoned that's selfish. Your rights aren't bigger than anyone elses.

Where did I say they were? I believe I have an obligation to other people not to do anything to them that I wouldn't like them to do to me; therefore, they're free to do whatever they want (no matter how repugnant I may find it) as long as they're not hurting anyone else, and I expect them to extend the same courtesy to me. Unfortunately, not everyone in society has that same attitude, and it is those people, the Kimv**r Gills and Gamil Gharbis of this world, who are not going to be hindered in the least by treating all of the rest of us (you included) like probable mass murders.


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

posted 20 September 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In that case, morningstar, you'd best start the lobotomies immediately; you're trying to close Pandora's box way, way, WAY after the fact, and a predator who sees a potential advantage over his/her victim(s) is going to use it. Apparently, the only way YOU see to try to close that gap is to make those potential victims even more helpless.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 September 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
have you considered that working to eliminate all weapons is a worthy goal---one which could contribute to the emotional evolution of humanity?

your alternative seems to be an accelleration of the same fear driven, divisive, violent behavior that is sucking the optimism and joy from all human experience. it can't go on. we will kill each other.

fear of each other is a paper dragon and is the source of most human misery from what i can tell.
committing ourselves to the elimination of gun ownership is a tiny step towards the elimination of societal fear. it's a worthy goal and a step toward our commitment toward world peace.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
have you considered that working to eliminate all weapons is a worthy goal---one which could contribute to the emotional evolution of humanity?

your alternative seems to be an accelleration of the same fear driven, divisive, violent behavior that is sucking the optimism and joy from all human experience. it can't go on. we will kill each other.

fear of each other is a paper dragon and is the source of most human misery from what i can tell.
committing ourselves to the elimination of gun ownership is a tiny step towards the elimination of societal fear. it's a worthy goal and a step toward our commitment toward world peace.



So is it fair to say that you're saying that we, as a species, either aren't inheriently violent, or can at least possibly, uh, evolve (?) to be less violent?

I wonder how the Swiss feel about that.


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

posted 20 September 2006 10:29 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, my alternative is a case of mutual respect for one another; but since not everyone is going to agree to that anytime soon, it remains a case of a pack of wolves and a sheep holding a vote on who gets to be dinner.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
lombar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12908

posted 20 September 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for lombar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
have you considered that working to eliminate all weapons is a worthy goal---one which could contribute to the emotional evolution of humanity?

All weapons? Shall we gnaw our handheld steaks? Live and let live... not live and make criminal.

Have you considered that is an impossible ideal?

quote:
fear of each other is a paper dragon and is the source of most human misery from what i can tell.

Yet fear of tyranny is not. The source of human misery is desire and the lengths some will go to in order to attempt to sate whatever craving. Fear of the other arises from knowing the other guy has the same 'cravings'. Money, power, drugs, it is the craving that drives all the negative action.

quote:
committing ourselves to the elimination of gun ownership is a tiny step towards the elimination of societal fear.

No law is going to change human nature. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun, why do you want to force people to be unarmed?

quote:
it's a worthy goal and a step toward our commitment toward world peace.

When you take the weapons away from the armies, I will agree. What mass distrubution of weapons exists between the state and the people? How many tons of metal do the governments have versus how many tones of handguns/rifles the citizens have? Your priorities are misplaced.

I do not nor have I or likely will I own a firearm. Given current trends however I cannot guarantee that will continue to persist. I used to beleive in gun control but it requires the underlying assumption that the state can be trusted and that is false.


From: New Westminster, BC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lombar:
I do not nor have I or likely will I own a firearm. Given current trends however I cannot guarantee that will continue to persist. I used to beleive in gun control but it requires the underlying assumption that the state can be trusted and that is false.

This is the paranoid musing of the gun nuts in the US. Sad to see it creep into this country.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 September 2006 10:58 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lombar, we are our gov't. corporatism and rcmp criminality doesn't detract from our power to direct our society.

we can and should be aiming much higher than seige mentality defensiveness.

i do actually believe that people are better than our collective behaviors may indicate and that everyone really wants peace. gun ownership can never contribute to the peaceful mindset that needs to be projected and held as an honourable goal for humanity.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
USP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13215

posted 20 September 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for USP        Edit/Delete Post
why is it if you own a gun, you then basically an American? Why is it that some in Canada feel that firearms ownership equates to American Ideals? Contrary to what some here might believe the per capita ownership of firearms has historically been higher in Canada then in the US.

The concept of semi automatics being "more" dangerous is ludicrous. The average moose hunting rifle used by millions in Canada is far more powerful then our standard Military rifle or any standard rifle issued to police. People should consider the facts and not get bogged down in emotion. As well theres been the distance issue discussed, where some feel that firearms are more dangerous as they can kill at a distance. If you look at the leading cause of homicide, it is never by firearms. Furthermore, if you do look at those murders where firearms are used the distance is overwhelmingly less than 5 feet.

So if you are more than likely to die from being stabbed or clubbed, why is it necessary to spend so much money controlling firearms?

Military assault weapons are not available in Canada, they cannot be bought by civilians. Semi automatic rifles and shotguns compromise huge percentage of the hunting weapons used.

There are 7 million gun owners in Canada, why is it that we spend so much discussing the issue of firearms when it accounts for so few deaths? Yet we spend fuck all on helping those with drug problems, those with mental health problems, those with not enough to eat, those who die from alcoholism, those who die from tobacco?

Is it that the media has trained us to view a death from firearms as more sensational? More deserving of sympathy? Or is it that in our lust for blood, we glorify gun violence by craving media coverage of it?

The concept of eliminating an object via a ban, which will result in an utopian fallacy of safety is ironic. In every major metropolitan city in the US or every nation in Europe that has banned firearms, the murder rate by firearms has increased exponentially. Yes the spent the money, collected all the legally owned guns, and destroyed them, and surprise surprise the murder rate by gun actually increased even though they had taken all the guns away from those who legally owned them...

Perhaps we have had it to good for to long in Canada, I suggest we wait and see. I would argue that should there be a serious national disaster such as what gripped New Orleans, all of you who oppose gun ownership would be the first to demand a gun, rather than sit by and be raped, robbed and murdered. As civilized as we might believe ourselves to be, we are just one calamity away from resorting to barbarism. When everything fails and the state cant or wont protect its citizens, you will have no choice...

so choose to live or die its up to you...

but lets keep it about facts, not emotion.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 20 September 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Martha, just a thought when you put up a criteria such as above... Don't generically clump all firearms as 'guns' when you put them through the criteria.

It's an unfortunate city slicker attitude (myself included) on guns as opposed to a more rural attitude on the subject. To an urbanite, a gun is a weapon (often handguns) and serves no other use than to shoot other people. Rural however has a much broader definition when it comes to guns... When I see my cousin refer to guns, he thinks mainly hunting rifles (or something as simple as a .22) or antiques... Definately not the handguns that the Urbanites identify as guns. In this case, its as much a tool and not a weapon.

Both sides on the debate would greatly benefit from a further expansion of the terms 'guns' as each group has a greatly varying view on what a gun is. From our gun crime statistics, can we break that into 'handguns' vs 'longarms'? One of the major factors is concealability... A handgun can be hidden from sight pretty easily and is therfore more dangerous. A rifle on the other hand can be seen coming ^^

To my knowledge, longarms are not a huge issue within cities and that is the major sticking point within the majority of those opposed to the gun registry. As such, I agree with the abolishment of the LONG ARM registry as it's a cost nightmare and funds can be used in much better areas of gun law enforcement.

Handguns are a completly different issue than long arms, no?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
USP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13215

posted 20 September 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for USP        Edit/Delete Post
agreed, and handguns have been tightly controlled and registered in Canada since 1937. With little to no effect on crime.

The biggest issue is illegal firearms being smuggled across the border from the US and winding up in the hands of criminals. Recent studies indicate that in the GTA a minimum of 25% of students polled admitted that during their time in school that on at least one occasion they had been in possession of a handgun while at school.

The issue of theft of handguns from legal Canadian owners is bogus as well. NWEST and other police agencies in Canada based on siezed firearms put the amount of stolen firearms at less than 8% of those siezed from criminals. The guns are readilily flowwing illegally into Canada from the US daily. Having more laws making them illegal obviously wont change the surplus crossing the border, nor will banning them as they are already crossing the border illegally.

Contrary to popular opinion it is not a simple task to purchase a handgun in Canada. It never has been.

The biggest misconception in the media is that elimination of the long gun registry equates to elimination of background checks and licensing. The two are entirely separate. Harpers legislation does not intend to do away with any background checks nor does he intend to eliminate any licensing. THe problem with the registry is that it does not effectively track firearms at all. If you sell, or move around, or the firearm is lost often times the registry will show mulitple owners of the same gun and as well it wont truly reflect its status or whereabouts. Sad that after 1.5 billion it could be so flawed, but it is.

Furthermore you might be interested to note that in regards to the Dawson shooter, the local SQ failed to do a background check and reference check prior to him getting a license. YOu want to know why they didnt? They didnt because they were no funds available for this. The past goverment went so far over budget on the paper aspect of the registry that they sought to speed up the approval process of applicants and to cut costs stopped doing background checks...

they would rather show the public that they had x amount of licenced owners on file for the cost of 1.5 billion rather than awhole lot less legally licensed that had been thoroughly checked and signed off on...

so to sell gun safety to the public..they cut corners and made it not about safety..but about keeping votes...

with this in mind can you see why some change is needed?

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: USP ]


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

posted 20 September 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
What is needed is a device attached to all guns that detects whether the weapon is being used against a human target or not. If so, then the device sends an electric shock directly to the users gonads until they pass out.

You can't beat operant conditioning when it comes to behavour modification


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 20 September 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think babble should just have a 'random gun thread generator' where someone could just click a button and the thread would be written for us, with all the usual arguments on both sides.

It would really save a lot of time, and avoid a lot of anger and shouting past each other.

Failing that we could just occasionally link to one of the hundreds of other threads and arguments that are exactly like this one, with a few different names but all the exact same arguments.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
I know someone who was murdered with a firearm, and if the attacker had used a knife the multiple victims would likely have been able to overpower him. Lepine weilding a batt would have been beaten with it and 16 young women would be still alive.

Fourteen actually. Please become more knowledgeable about the subject before stating false facts.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scout, you seem to have this unrealistic expectation that "society" somehow has an obligation to protect you, whether it's protecting you from yourself or from someone else.

Do I really? You got that impression where?

quote:
You don't seem to have any problem at all with someone being murdered with any other object, so what is it that makes someone murdered with a firearm "more dead", or more worthy of protection?

You are incapable of rational discourse aren't you? Your attempt to spin my reaction to mean the opposite and that I am the one suggesting one group is "more dead". Not cool.

You all want to talk about rights, but when faced with a quandary about where your rights and my begin you fall off point so fast my head might spin if I wasn't well versed in gun nut bullshit. Learned it while I was getting my FAC at 17.

Bottom-line - your rights don't supersede anyone else’s - that's the issue. Are guns a reasonable threat to the lives of others. Spare me the people are already dying crap. You won't convince anyone of the validity of firearm ownership that way.

Your cause is doomed to failure because you can't rationally assure others that your pastime won't kill them and you fight measures to reassure them. End of story.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

... you can't rationally assure others that your pastime won't kill them and you fight measures to reassure them. End of story.


Of course I can. Watch:

I can assure others that my passtime won't kill anyone.

See?
And that's another point: my passtime. Me. Not some nutter- me. If we're all going to live together, and I sure enjoy doing just that, why isn't it realistic for you to trust me when I haven't ever been arrested for, or convicted of, a crime.


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

posted 20 September 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
those assurances aren't in your power to give.
you could develope an illness, lose your gun, have it stolen from you, etc. as someone has already mentioned.

i disagree that there is no value in these ongoing gun threads. visitors and newcomers find it edifying at times, i'm sure. peoples views change, things evolve, news happens.

i myself have learned a great deal about peoples reasons and fears around wanting guns gone or not.

i've never before heard the idea presented by unionist-- it was rather brilliant and simple---my favourite kind of idea.

it is important for everyone to keep talking and we don't all have to be oh so intellectual---thats fun too, but feelings and fears are even more important than elegant arguments.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yet fear of tyranny is not.

And how is being armed not contributing to more tyranny? Going to a poor neighbourhood and tell me they don't contribute to tryanny. Be armed sure isn’t bring less tryanny to the world, all one needs to do is open a newspaper to see that.

quote:
When you take the weapons away from the armies, I will agree. What mass distrubution of weapons exists between the state and the people? How many tons of metal do the governments have versus how many tones of handguns/rifles the citizens have?

The citizenry will never match the amount of weapons the state has, back in the days of George Washington you had a point. An some tanks, war planes and an atomic bomb later and you don’t have a defendable point. So this tactic doesn’t wash.

quote:
So if you are more than likely to die from being stabbed or clubbed, why is it necessary to spend so much money controlling firearms?

Back to the people are getting killed anyway so who cares if a few more get shot to death. Who cares if 1 person can kill many more with a gun than a knife, what’s a few more Columbine’s.

quote:
It's an unfortunate city slicker attitude (myself included) on guns as opposed to a more rural attitude on the subject. To an urbanite, a gun is a weapon (often handguns) and serves no other use than to shoot other people. Rural however has a much broader definition when it comes to guns... When I see my cousin refer to guns, he thinks mainly hunting rifles (or something as simple as a .22) or antiques... Definately not the handguns that the Urbanites identify as guns. In this case, its as much a tool and not a weapon.

No, this is disinformation. I may live in the city now but I grew up on a farm with a father who hunts and makes his living off of firearms. Because some people have the ability to see both sides of firearms and aren’t inclined to dismiss people’s justified fears of guns. Let’s not pretend that those rural tools are ever used to kill people. Let’s not white wash one class of weapons by implying a certain ignorance or naivety in urban centres.

quote:
Fourteen actually. Please become more knowledgeable about the subject before stating false facts.

Well my mistake, that really makes it less tragic then doesn’t it, you really scuppered my point there didn’t you and totally minimized the murder of my friend and those women.

quote:
Of course I can. Watch:
I can assure others that my passtime won't kill anyone.
See?
And that's another point: my passtime. Me. Not some nutter- me. If we're all going to live together, and I sure enjoy doing just that, why isn't it realistic for you to trust me when I haven't ever been arrested for, or convicted of, a crime.

Are you serious? The guy that shot up the school wasn’t a criminal either until he was. You can’t know the future, nor can you control other people’s actions. So when a dangerous weapon is involved a little more than your word is going to be required to assure people that your “pastime” won’t get them killed. In this country your word isn’t enough to get you a loan or car insurance so it’s pretty out there to suggest your word will do when it comes to firearms. Sheesh


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
timmah
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6658

posted 20 September 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for timmah     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
those assurances aren't in your power to give.
you could develope an illness, lose your gun, have it stolen from you, etc. as someone has already mentioned.

If you want to consider all the hypothetical situations that could occur, then there's no way of assuring that any activity is safe.


From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 20 September 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, this is disinformation. I may live in the city now but I grew up on a farm with a father who hunts and makes his living off of firearms. Because some people have the ability to see both sides of firearms and aren’t inclined to dismiss people’s justified fears of guns. Let’s not pretend that those rural tools are ever used to kill people.

How many or these 'rural tools' can be traced to gun violence? Statistically, Long arms make up a very tiny portion of gun violence, no?

quote:
Let’s not white wash one class of weapons by implying a certain ignorance or naivety in urban centres.

Heh, I'm also painting the rural class as naive for thinking handguns on city streets fit in the same category as their hunting rifles ^^ you've picked out one whitewash, but not the other

If we are to have efective gun legislation, we need to deferentiate the 2... One blanket legislation will not work.


All that aside, the Unionist does bring an interesting idea to the table

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you want to consider all the hypothetical situations that could occur, then there's no way of assuring that any activity is safe.

That's why we have checks and balances - like licensing, insurance, registration and background checks for a whole host of jobs and dangerous objects.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How many or these 'rural' tools can be traced to gun violence? Statistically, Long arms make up a very tiny portion of gun violence, no?

Would you care if you were the victim?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
timmah
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6658

posted 20 September 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for timmah     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
That's why we have checks and balances - like licensing, insurance, registration and background checks for a whole host of jobs and dangerous objects.

And yet none of those measures does anything to prevent against losses caused by the hypotheticals mentioned above.

If someone steals my gun and shoots another person, registration does absolutely nothing to stop that from happening.

Or, if someone steals my car, and injures another person with it, those checks and balances still don't prevent that loss.


From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 20 September 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would you care if you were the victim?

Care without being the victim. Do you blame the gun or the criminal? Would banning that gun have prevented that crime (or would the crime still happened cept with an 'illegal' firearm)? Instead of wasting resources banning that gun, is there a different way in which we can invest our limited resurces to have prevented the crime?

I know what you're saying Scout and your passion on the issue is moving... However I think there are better ways to spend our resources than the long arm gun registry. If we want to ban guns completely, good lets follow that path. This registry does not help ban them in any manner.

Lets take the savings from the long gun registry and spend them on a more effective means of combatting firearm crimes.

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 20 September 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:

...feelings and fears are even more important than elegant arguments.


Hmm-

We certainly all have those!

And if I was contemplating buying a puppy, or deciding if I should ask my neighbor out for a date, then I'd agree with the above statement.

However, we're obviously not doing either of those things. We're discussing removing the property of a couple million folks. Granted, they currently have no constitutional rights to property; still, they bought these items, so practically speaking, they own 'em.

So perhaps we should put logic before fear/emotion/hysteria when we're discussing a topic of this magnitude.


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

posted 20 September 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Do I really? You got that impression where?

From this: "You can possess something that quite simply is a direct threat to my freedom to be alive." I, and everyone else on this planet, possess a multitude of things that can be a direct threat to your freedom to be alive. Yet, you only get your panties in a knot when you think of one particular sub-set of one of those things, in the same way that someone with a phobia of snakes does.

quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Your attempt to spin my reaction to mean the opposite and that I am the one suggesting one group is "more dead".

How else am I supposed to interpret this curious reaction you have? When more people are struck and killed by lightning in a typical year than are murdered with legally-owned handguns, why do I hear all manner of plaintiff bleating that "We have to ban handguns!" When the one characteristic that murder victims and suspects share overwhelmingly is that they are convicted criminals multiple times over (and thus cannot get a firearm legally in the first place, unless they're a member of a designated race), why do I hear endless calls to take firearms away from people who have an unimpeachable safety record?

quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Bottom-line - your rights don't supersede anyone else’s - that's the issue.

Where did I claim that they did? However, I refuse to be used as a convenient scapegoat just to salve the fevered phobia of someone who thinks of their fellow citizens as ticking timebombs, looking for an excuse to murder you. If you were at all consistent, I have to wonder how you could work up the nerve to step out on the street, since those same ticking fellow citizens are just as able to run you over with a car, push you in front of a subway train or bus, plant a bomb in your favourite restaurant, commit arson while you're working, or an infinite number of other things. You trust them not to do those things, so what is it about firearms that changes the equation? Do guns emit some sort of evil mind-control rays that I'm not aware of? Your cause is doomed to failure because you have no way to enforce it, even if it was to be passed into law; can you name even ONE thing that has been successfully prohibited in human history? No, this grand social experiment is doomed for the same great ash-heap that every other "for your own good" scheme dreamed up by professional busybodies has ended up on.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
lombar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12908

posted 20 September 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for lombar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
lombar, we are our gov't. corporatism and rcmp criminality doesn't detract from our power to direct our society.

Yeah! RIGHT! Corporatism and the police OWN the government. We have no power that is not 'given' or 'granted' by the crown. Maybe you feel as though 'we' are the government but I can assure you that most people I know feel completly disenfranchised by an elitist state run by overpriced lawyers. A corporate owned state that does everything it can to take wealth from the people and hand it to the top 1% of the population.


From: New Westminster, BC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
lombar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12908

posted 20 September 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for lombar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If acknowledging reality is 'paranoid musings' perhaps we should examine the notion of gun control from the perspective that banning something does not guarantee that it will be unavailable. In fact, banning guns will only insure that those who are the least likely to misuse them will be the ones with the least access. No law is going fix it, only education.

In the meantime, there are too many bogus freedom restricting laws based in FEAR already, no more thank you.


From: New Westminster, BC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 September 2006 06:11 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maybe this feeling of powerlessness is part of the problem for gun owners.

i feel fairly powerful, i don't own a gun. why.

i've been an activist for years. i've seen the effect that a few of us can have on our society.
i pay very little attention to mainstream media and i almost never watch t.v. i pay very close attention to global news from many disparate sources and i read anything that i can get my hands on about social issues.
i really like my life but i know that i'd be prepared to risk it to stand by the humane ideals that give my life meaning.

maybe this is all an antidote to fear.
find out exactly what is scaring you and tackle it head on. you won't need a gun.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
maybe this feeling of powerlessness is part of the problem for gun owners.

You understand I can't take your seriously do you not? Your tiring blanket statements and constant will to associate gun ownership with personal inadequacies shows a great deal of ignorance on your part.

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


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 September 2006 06:33 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You mean owning guns doesn't compensate for a lack of sexual prowess?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 20 September 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now I wouldn't go so far as to denounce that claim
From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
YardApe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13223

posted 20 September 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for YardApe        Edit/Delete Post
Let's put this whole gun ban issue into perspective shall we.Proponents of this initiative are claiming that we should have a gun ban due to scattered incidents involving criminal use of said weapons.
Rationale being we cannot predict who amongst the gun owning population may one day snap and go on a rampage.
So in light of the surge in Islamic terrorisim,should we also ban adherents of Islam,because we cannot know who among them might become an extremist?
Quite absurd is it not?

From: NWT | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 20 September 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar (I assume the reference is to Venus, and not the midevil weapon with nasty spikes sticking out of it)

When you said

quote:
maybe this feeling of powerlessness is part of the problem for gun owners.

i feel fairly powerful, i don't own a gun. why.


you are obviously showing a lack of any understanding about what guns are and what it means to own one.

Feelings of powerfulness, or weakness have nothing to do with what you have, and everything do to with who you are and how you think of yourself.

Guns are objects, made of metal, that have no spirit, motive or any of the other "human like" characteristics that the hoplophobes like to attribute to them. We can put cars, golf clubs, kitchen utensils and a whole host of other items in this catagory.

Owning a gun is no different that owning a spatula or a motorcycle. It is a piece of property. The difference comes in when one considers to what purpose the owner of the piece of property uses it for. If you use your toothbrush as a weapon by shoving it through the eyeball of someone you don't like, you are a murderer. This fact has nothing to do with the fact that you own a toothbrush, and everything to do with the use that you put that toothbrush to.

Guns are no different that that toothbrush. I use a gun to put holes in a piece of paper, and sometimes to put meat on my table. Since this gun is not being used to kill people, there is nothing wrong with my owning that gun.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 September 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i've noticed many references in gun threads to distrust of govt, fear of 'lunatics' and 'bad guys' so please don't be disingenuous about some peoples feelings around the personal safety delusion. many of the historical quotes used in these threads regarding the so called 'freedom' to own a gun directly concern suspicion of society or govt.

i think that this whole gun thing has alot to do with fear. gun owners seem to be afraid of the boogie man and the rest of us are afraid of guns--what they symbolize in any society nowdays, and the damage that they can inflict on the people and way of life in civilized society.

venus---good grief no! it is the name of the b&b that i used to own.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 20 September 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think people who hunt need their hunting rifles, and food is a basic necessity.

I don't think people need hand guns or semi-automatics. They are only for killing people.

I don't believe people should be allowed to collect guns. Their houses are targeted, often successfully.

I think all guns should be registered and storage monitored ... somehow.

Cars are registered.
Penises and vaginas are registered as part of your body that is registered - birth, marriage, death and SIN, to name a few.

I understand there are stats showing that the gun registry has saved more money (in health costs) than it has cost. That's good news!


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you are obviously showing a lack of any understanding about what guns are and what it means to own one.

Feelings of powerfulness, or weakness have nothing to do with what you have, and everything do to with who you are and how you think of yourself.


Then not having a gun should matter about as much as not having lawn darts anymore. Much of the arguments on this subject in the last couple days have directly dealt with the need to own weapons to protect against tyranny and criminals, if that's not to give a sense of powerfulness then what is it? You can't sum up the gun as a meaningless hunk of metal and yet defend a "right" to own it as important. Some go even a far to compare it to SSM, which is silly in the extreme.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
YardApe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13223

posted 20 September 2006 09:21 PM      Profile for YardApe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
i've noticed many references in gun threads to distrust of govt, fear of 'lunatics' and 'bad guys' so please don't be disingenuous about some peoples feelings around the personal safety delusion. many of the historical quotes used in these threads regarding the so called 'freedom' to own a gun directly concern suspicion of society or govt.

i think that this whole gun thing has alot to do with fear. gun owners seem to be afraid of the boogie man and the rest of us are afraid of guns--what they symbolize in any society nowdays, and the damage that they can inflict on the people and way of life in civilized society.

venus---good grief no! it is the name of the b&b that i used to own.


You raise a viable point here morningstar.Now i personally own a handgun and contrary to what some may say it is not a tool it is a weapon.
Contrary to what you may assume i do not live in fear.If this was the case i would never leave my house.
I respect the fact that you have a fear of what this may symbolize.Hovever there is what i would call healthy fear.Now as an example i personally am employed in a trade which requires me to operate machinery.I would say i have a healthy fear of the potential for injury in my particular work enviroment.I know the dangers involved and a healthy fear keeps me from getting hurt.
That being said i will touch on this issue of owning a gun out of fear.With all that goes on in this world i will not take the(it can't happen to me attitude)and will take precautions to protect my life and the life of my family.
The state has no obligation to protect your life ar anyone elses.If they did the state would provide everyone with a member of the RCMP for their protection at all times.With regards to fear of government you must keep in mind absolute power corrupts absolutely.Governments fail,genocides happen, chaos ensues it can happen in the blink of an eye no nation on earth is exemt or immune.


From: NWT | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 20 September 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar
quote:

i've noticed many references in gun threads to distrust of govt, fear of 'lunatics' and 'bad guys' so please don't be disingenuous about some peoples feelings around the personal safety delusion.

Personal safety is a big issue. To repeat the cliche, Dial 911 and Die. The personal safety of every individual is up to that individual. The police are here for crowd control, and to look for evidence after the fact. They are never around when the crime is being committed.

quote:
many of the historical quotes used in these threads regarding the so called 'freedom' to own a gun directly concern suspicion of society or govt.

Then there are the governments. More people have died from the actions of their own government than any other cause for any period of history you care to look at, including war (last year, last decade, last century, or last millenium)

quote:
i think that this whole gun thing has alot to do with fear. gun owners seem to be afraid of the boogie man and the rest of us are afraid of guns--what they symbolize in any society nowdays, and the damage that they can inflict on the people and way of life in civilized society.

What is feared, is the continuous erosion of the rights of the individual, trying to create some utopia that is not acheivable. The end result has always been less rights for the individuals of society, more crime in society because crime has become easier for the criminals and then society crying for more reductions in the individuals rights to fight crime, because they do not understand what is happening.

quote:
venus---good grief no! it is the name of the b&b that i used to own.

My apologies for the mis-reference.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 September 2006 09:39 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
With all that goes on in this world i will not take the(it can't happen to me attitude)and will take precautions to protect my life and the life of my family.

So what part of that doesn't involve fear? So don't be surprised if people won't take the "it can't happen to me" attitude about being shot. The gun you think you might need to defending yourself against will likely have been stolen from some chump, likely in the US, who bought it for the very same reasons you did. Ironic no?

quote:
What is feared, is the continuous erosion of the rights of the individua

I don't buy that for one second. The majority of those active in movement to keep guns legal and destroy the registry are not all that interested in keep SSM around or all that fond of my right to Choice. Not all certainly feel this way, but seriously, the bulk of gun owners aren't voting NDP or Liberal so lets skip the supposed concern for individual rights, the only right they car about is the imaginary "right to bear arms".

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
YardApe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13223

posted 20 September 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for YardApe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

I don't buy that for one second. The majority of those active in movement to keep guns legal and destroy the registry are not all that interested in keep SSM around or all that fond of my right to Choice. Not all certainly feel this way, but seriously, the bulk of gun owners aren't voting NDP or Liberal so lets skip the supposed concern for individual rights, the only right they car about is the imaginary "right to bear arms".

[ 20 September 2006: Message edited by: Scout ]


You obviously were not paying attention.

Here is a quote that is fitting with your attitude.

I've found that people who fear those who keep firearms are projecting their own insecurities and rage and hostilities on others. They assume (subconsciously) that others are as unbalanced as they are. This is especially the case with CCW (conceled carry laws) and right-to-carry laws.

Those persons, who are afraid of mass shoot-outs and mass gun-play, are really exposing their own paranoia and fears about themselves and others. They just don't trust people, because they fear that all people are like themselves - lacking self control, or more likely harboring their own insecurities and rage and hostilities.
[From "Raging Against Self-defense" by Dr. Sarah Thompson.]


From: NWT | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 20 September 2006 10:20 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some go even a far to compare it to SSM, which is silly in the extreme.

I've done that.

I own firearms.

I don't think I am in any physical danger from my government now or in the future. If I was, what is me and a puny rifle going to do anyway?

I am not afraid of criminals. I live in a pretty small town and crime isn't that big of an issue here. Besides, my guns are locked in a steel cabinet, with trigger locks, and the ammo is locked in separate steel containers. Not much help during a home invasion.

Odds are I'll need my fire extinguisher before I need a gun.

I'm also not afraid of gun owners. Many of my First Nations collegues are hunters and they know their way around a rifle. Very safe folks.


What does concern me is the mentality that falsely claims an activity practiced safely among consenting adults can bring about the downfall of society.

Being gay and being a firearms owner are NOT the same.

However, the attitude of people opposed to SSM is similar to the atitiude of anti-gun advocates.

Simply stated, each side belives that the lawful activities of the two groups will cause such a calamity in Canada that each activity should be banned.

If owning a gun is a choice so is getting married.

I want to live in a country that does not submit to the will of groups who would strip rights from people, any people, because they find their activities distastful.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 20 September 2006 10:39 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Scout:

I said

quote:
What is feared, is the continuous erosion of the rights of the individual

And then you said

quote:
I don't buy that for one second. The majority of those active in movement to keep guns legal and destroy the registry are not all that interested in keep SSM around or all that fond of my right to Choice. Not all certainly feel this way, but seriously, the bulk of gun owners aren't voting NDP or Liberal so lets skip the supposed concern for individual rights, the only right they car about is the imaginary "right to bear arms".

I will disagree with you completely on this one. I run one of the Firearms mailing lists: Canadian Firearms Digest and yes, there are a few that have no interest in any other rights than RKBA, but most of the active ones realize that rights belong to the individual, and participate in not only RKBA, but SSM and any other right that is based on the individual.

You are right on one point, though. The bulk of firearms owners are voting CPC, because they are the only party that is not completely against them.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 September 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lombar:
I do not nor have I or likely will I own a firearm. Given current trends however I cannot guarantee that will continue to persist. I used to beleive in gun control but it requires the underlying assumption that the state can be trusted and that is false.

I think owning a gun for reasons such as "the guvmint could go bad" are really silly. I mean, our guvmint has already gone bad. What we have, really, is a one party plutocracy posing as "right" and "Liberal", whatever in hell that means. And both of them have been corrupt as hell over the last 100 years in a row.

And it's not our weak and ineffective government that we have to worry about going Augusto Pinochet or Adolf on us. There is only one government that has ever threatened us militarily in this frozen Puerto Rico du Nord, and they're in the Whitehouse. They've laid it all out in black and white to invade Canada if and when they deem it necessary.

quote:
Invading Canada won't be like invading Iraq: When we invade Canada, nobody will be able to grumble that we didn't have a plan.

The United States government does have a plan to invade Canada. It's a 94-page document called "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red," with the word SECRET
stamped on the cover. It's a bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. It goes like this:


And it doesn't matter whether we'd be stupid enough to try and stop them with our hunting rifles and hole ourselves up in a barn somewhere. The Yanks, as soft as we know many of them are, have thousands of cracker jack troops stationed not far from the border at places like Fort Drum. In short, they'd make short work of us. They'd go through any defences we could possibly mount like shit through a goose.

And let's face it, the Yanks are a bad example for free wheeling gun ownership laws. Since 1979, more American children have died from firearm-related accidents than all Americans who came back from Vietnam in plastic bags. Americans themselves have estimated the annual cost of gun violence to the economy at $100 billion dollars a year minimum.

Sure cars kill people, and Ralph Nader says car companies have purposely avoided design safety concerns put forward by the country's top engineering schools in order to pump up "the bottom line" over the last several decades.

And since AIDS is an STD, I think comparing the need for restrictive gun laws with STD's is beside the point. Someone who is knowingly HIV positive but seeks unprotected sex with another person isn't going to be condoned by very many people. I don't know many people who live in large cities and can justify owning a machine gun for sport hunting. I so know some real hunters who would say you suck for bringing down a deer or moose with a machine gun. There's no sport in that, and I would have second thoughts about anyone's personal judgement for wanting to own such an instrument and symbol of death at the same time.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 21 September 2006 03:57 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
I don't think people need hand guns or semi-automatics. They are only for killing people.

*sigh* Can we please stop with the sweeping generalizations. A gun is a gun. You can hunt with any. I hunt with semi automatics

quote:
I understand there are stats showing that the gun registry has saved more money (in health costs) than it has cost. That's good news!

You see, the problem with gun control is there is little/no evidence to back it or go against it. It's opinion. It's like laws VS. crime rate. Sometimes certain aspects help however their are umpteen million different aspects that decide these things. If anything I think you mean gun safety courses have saved money from health care. You simply cannot prove gun control has saved over a billion in health costs. I'd wager it's impossible.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
YardApe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13223

posted 21 September 2006 06:12 AM      Profile for YardApe        Edit/Delete Post
I think owning a gun for reasons such as "the guvmint could go bad" are really silly. I mean, our guvmint has already gone bad. What we have, really, is a one party plutocracy posing as "right" and "Liberal", whatever in hell that means. And both of them have been corrupt as hell over the last 100 years in a row.

And it's not our weak and ineffective government that we have to worry about going Augusto Pinochet or Adolf on us. There is only one government that has ever threatened us militarily in this frozen Puerto Rico du Nord, and they're in the Whitehouse. They've laid it all out in black and white to invade Canada if and when they deem it necessary.

Thats a bit of a stretch Fidel while our goverment is certainly a misguided joke it has not gone truly bad.Also i would more accurately describe our current system as a Liberal oligarchy.
Also i don't really get this Americanphobia everyone here seems to suffer from.America has no need to invade Canada.Make all the comparisons between Bush and Hitler you like,it's just not gonna happen.


From: NWT | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 September 2006 06:27 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are right on one point, though. The bulk of firearms owners are voting CPC, because they are the only party that is not completely against them.
The NDP has voiced many issues about the registry as it exists, but I guess the problem is that they are not conceptually against the existence of a registry. Still, to ask for both improvements and cost-controls shouldn't somehow be construed as "completely against them".

OTOH, the CPC has done nothing so far about your issue but pay lip-service during the election. So what you are admitting is the CPC has bought your vote by pandering to you through mealy-mouthpieces like Garry Breitkrauz.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 21 September 2006 06:43 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure why everytime a babbler uses the word "gun," we get an influx of about half a dozen new users who, aside from obviously being interested in the things a lefty bulletin board discusses, also just happen to be adamant supporters of liberal firearm ownership.

I want to know where all these "a gun is just a tool, it's our preception of it as a weapon is skewed" arguments were when we were discussing the banning of the kirpan (Sikh ceremonial artifact that ressembles a knife) at school.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 21 September 2006 06:54 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the truth of any social issue lies in the myths around that issue.

what is the myth of gun ownership?

perhaps the historical experience of individual independence and self sufficiency, of safety, of power, of control, of manliness. all from a distance with an impact that is absolutely disproportionate to our actual bodily strength.

kinda godlike.

it's an old myth, and perhaps held truth in its time

but no longer.

things are larger and faster and more deadly. the modern symbol of death is the gun for most people. our war planes, bombs, etc are just extensions of this worn out gun myth.

there is no longer any truth in the myth of the gun. we must find a different way of being with each other. we can't pretend that our everyday behaviors and attitudes don't form the larger myths of human existence.

the concern that i have around the ethics of guns, is the global perpetuation of the idea that violence works.
as long as we attempt to rationalize gun ownership, we can never commit to working together to create world peace---without that unreserved commitment of the heart against killing, we have no hope of even starting the honourable, arduous job of becoming the family of humankind.
we'll never have social justice, we'll never have peace , for the planet or for ourselves, until we take a firm position of eliminating guns.

is the gun problem the only issue? of course not---it's probably one of the simplest ones, though, and a good first step at creating a society that clearly refuses to tolerate violence any longer.


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

posted 21 September 2006 08:17 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've heard all the arguments, on this forum and others, I've been a gun owner in the past, and I strongly advocate a central gun registry and holding centre in every city, town, and village in this country. Anyone who wishes to use a gun for any purpose must make application to the centre, and regulations must be followed before anyone can be issued a gun.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 September 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by YardApe:

Also i don't really get this Americanphobia everyone here seems to suffer from.America has no need to invade Canada.Make all the comparisons between Bush and Hitler you like,it's just not gonna happen.

Yes, as I was saying, there is no need to fear our own guvmint going "Pinochet" on us. And in the event that we did try to take control of our own oil, natural gas, lumber, water and massive amounts of hydroelectric, coal-fired and nuclear power plants, a right-wing government in the U.S. would be the one's we'd have to worry about cracking down on Canadians. They even have a 94 page contingency plan to do just that as I was pointing out. And in the event that it happens, I'm saying you might as well head for the hills and make like Jeremiah Johhson anyway. A rifle would do us more good in bagging some meat for the winter than in shooting at an occupation force.

And if you don't believe any of that, then desiring weapons to defend yourself from guvmint gone bad makes no sense at all, which was the point I was originally trying to make.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
YardApe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13223

posted 21 September 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for YardApe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Yes, as I was saying, there is no need to fear our own guvmint going "Pinochet" on us. And in the event that we did try to take control of our own oil, natural gas, lumber, water and massive amounts of hydroelectric, coal-fired and nuclear power plants, a right-wing government in the U.S. would be the one's we'd have to worry about cracking down on Canadians. They even have a 94 page contingency plan to do just that as I was pointing out. And in the event that it happens, I'm saying you might as well head for the hills and make like Jeremiah Johhson anyway. A rifle would do us more good in bagging some meat for the winter than in shooting at an occupation force.

And if you don't believe any of that, then desiring weapons to defend yourself from guvmint gone bad makes no sense at all, which was the point I was originally trying to make.



where is your proof of this secret document Fidel?if you have no concrete evidence i will be content to lump you in with all the rest the paranoid scizophrenic conspiracy nuts.


From: NWT | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 September 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, yes we want a linked source for that document to be sure. 94 pages? Fine, I can read that.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, well, I don't see you adding too much positive to the discussion around here. See you.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 21 September 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
I'm not sure why everytime a babbler uses the word "gun," we get an influx of about half a dozen new users who, aside from obviously being interested in the things a lefty bulletin board discusses, also just happen to be adamant supporters of liberal firearm ownership.

I want to know where all these "a gun is just a tool, it's our preception of it as a weapon is skewed" arguments were when we were discussing the banning of the kirpan (Sikh ceremonial artifact that ressembles a knife) at school.


My personal view on the wearing of the Kirpan was simple. It didn't bother me. There is the issue about who supercedes the law and who is granted special rights.

As An aboriginal women argued it was in their heritage for years to wear a knife or dagger of some sort yet law prohibited it. If the kirpan is legal to wear then the Aboriginal group should be granted the same.

Now if a Texan came up and argued it was part of his heritage to wear a single six on his belt would you feel the same urge to defend his plea?

quote:

The NDP has voiced many issues about the registry as it exists, but I guess the problem is that they are not conceptually against the existence of a registry. Still, to ask for both improvements and cost-controls shouldn't somehow be construed as "completely against them".

Firearms owners have incurred law after law, new legislation, banning, new restrictions over the past couple of decades . While internally there have been some pro gun support as a whole Layton hasn't shown any support for gun owners.

Handgun ban? He said he would do the same except he didn't stop there. What his party proposed would not be limited to the banning of handguns. After a couple of decades of being jerked over again and again Jack Layton certainly doesn't cast the brightest light amongst the three parties.

I understand amongst the NDP they are not all for further restrictions/gun prohibition but as a whole they are. From a firearm enthusiast's point of view the NDP are no friend of theirs.

quote:
OTOH, the CPC has done nothing so far about your issue but pay lip-service during the election. So what you are admitting is the CPC has bought your vote by pandering to you through mealy-mouthpieces like Garry Breitkrauz.

As soon as they were elected they introduced the amnesty and refunded renewal fees. That was in the limited time they had.

I'd say that's a pretty good start coming out of an election where two of the three parties made it a priority to ban millions of firearms don't you think?

This is from their perspective.

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


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 21 September 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As An aboriginal women argued it was in their heritage for years to wear a knife or dagger of some sort yet law prohibited it. If the kirpan is legal to wear than the Aboriginal group should be granted the same.
Now if a Texan came up and argued it was part of his heritage to wear a single six on his belt would you feel the same urge to defend his plea?

This is why the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. You just tossed of a smart-assed comment and a winkie smilie that shows either a purposeful misunderstanding of the point that poster was trying to bring to your attention or complete cognitive dissonance on your part.

The comment regarding the kirpan didn’t express a personal opinion on the issue at all you jsut assumed it did and you assumed what that opinion was.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 21 September 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by YardApe:


where is your proof of this secret document Fidel?if you have no concrete evidence i will be content to lump you in with all the rest the paranoid scizophrenic conspiracy nuts.


There's a link to the Washington Post story about it above.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 21 September 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Glad to finally get a chance to join this spirited (and in some cases wacky) debate.

quote:
we are nothing without each other. we are inextricably bound to all of humanity that ever was and ever will be.

let's just embrace this concept as it is the link to global social justice and will actually free our hearts more than any illusions of individual freedom.

'freedom' to own and use weapons only implies that we get to do what we wanna do and take what we wanna take and wreck what we wanna wreck cause we got firepower.


I both agree and disagree with this position. I think it's important because it tries to address the fundamental question of what freedom is.

The first one and a half paragraphs that the morningstar write are perfect. It's the type of reasoning we should all consider.

However, for the rest, I don't agree that individual freedom is an illusion. Rather, it's obvious that each of us is an individual with individual consciousness, thoughts and desires, identity and an instinctive sense of self-preservation and self-interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

It seems to me that all economies and societies in the world are based on two opposing (though definitely not irreconcilable) ways of expressing individual wants and needs.

First is, for lack of a better term, the socialistic. This is where individuals tend to pool their self-interests and needs to create a common benefit for all. Then around this a sense of community and common interests grow, and, with this, a democratic, cooperative, and to some degree egalitarian values and practices.

Second is, again for lack of a better term, the capitalistic. This is where individuals, becasue of dis-trust, conflict or lack of ability to effectively communicate, try to advance their self-interests and needs at the expense of othter individuals, often using or taking advantage of others in some way. THis is more than just competition (which in its pure form is not at all exploitative and has a cooperative fundamental). Rather it is the practice of taking something from someone or before someone else because you might not get it at all. Once you have it you use it in some often coercive way to get more. This is where class society and top-down power structures come from.

Our world is full of both examples, although, sadly, the latter is dominant in our economics and governance.

In terms of gun ownership, I don't agree that this right is totally conducive to the latter. Rather, it's conducive to both, again, depending on the situation.

Communities throughout history, no matter how socialistic or cooperative or even pacifist, have usually kept weapons as defensive and safety or ritualistic tools.

Obviously, governments and corporate elites of various kinds have kept weapons as ways of taking things from others when they feel they need to.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 21 September 2006 05:41 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

This is why the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. You just tossed of a smart-assed comment and a winkie smilie that shows either a purposeful misunderstanding of the point that poster was trying to bring to your attention or complete cognitive dissonance on your part.

The comment regarding the kirpan didn’t express a personal opinion on the issue at all you jsut assumed it did and you assumed what that opinion was.


ugh, what? No sense of humor or somewhat similar comparison. A feeble attempt to dismiss me?

I was quite serious about the Aboriginal group. I find it wrong their right to express their heritage is infringed upon yet the other group was granted full rights.

A Kirpan has no other reason than to wound another individual, just as ccw allows self defence yet it was ok because it was part of their heritage?

The United-States use the possession and carry of guns for self-defence and symbolically to fight tyranny, to beat the State.

The Kirpan worn by the Sikhs is almost on par with it's symbolic application and the fact is more people are stabbed than shot with guns in Canada yet we allow them to wear knives. Just as individual with good intent who wear the Kirpan wouldn't use it offensively the same goes for guns.

There will of course always be those with guns and knives that will kill and tarnish the object's meaning.

So while the U.S and their right to self defence is so highly frowned upon, what makes the Kirpan which in essence has a very similar meaning acceptable?

Just as some find it laughable the populace thinks it could compete against the Army I doubt Sikhs with Kirpans could overtake the Canadian army either. Symbolic as you say.

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


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 21 September 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ugh, what? No sense of humor or somewhat similar comparison. A feeble attempt to dismiss me?

I was quite serious about


Are you reading the same thread? I have a sense of humor, your just not that funny and truthfullly considering the sincerty both sides of this debate are bringing attempting a joke about a racial charged issue is in poor taste, and I still can't find the funny.

You're not interested in a genuine dicussion of this issue so here's a truly brawny dismissal for you, wouldn't want to be just a feeble female: you are a dishonest, unfunny wanker who lacks the ability to stay on point or maybe you just change tactics to avoid dealing with arguments you can't handle and you aren't fit to waste the time of the average babbler and you should stick to the silly cute thread,there more up your alley with your sense of humor deficit - the joke factor is a foregone conclusion so you won't have to exaplain your unfunny jokes.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 21 September 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ownership of dangerous objects, it seems that the subject has been left hanging.

Anything can be dangerous. I think that the subject concerns an object, whose only purpose is to kill or at the least, hurt purposely.

We don't collect guns to leave all over the house as ornaments.

As for the Kirpans in school and other, necessities for one's religion.

Schools are for learning should be completely neutral where no religion can be detected by a certain way of dressing.

You want to wear a sword wear it outside the school.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 21 September 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking in general principle, it's useful to compare these thoughts on banning things with prohibition. Granted, Martha is talking about things that are used to do deliberate harm, but that's an artificial distinction, as we also frequently ban things that do accidental harm.

Alcohol satisfies all three of Martha's points in that it has the potential to cause serious harm, it very often does (accidentally or through reckless use), and modern society could function quite normally without it.

A few things about Martha's list:

- Before banning something, it should be necessary to establish that the ban itself has significant benefit; in the case of guns, it is often pointed out that the majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that are illegally acquired and owned, so it is not clear an overall ban will do anything... this was one big reason prohibition was completely wrongheaded. If the ban will simply result in an expanded market, then there's little point.

- 'Widespread use ... causing serious harm' is an exercise in profiling. It's a lot more complicated than it seems. Rather than getting into why generalizations like this are hard, I'll just link to Malcolm Gladwell's essay on the subject.

- Testing whether 'modern society could function well without it' is not a good way to measure the harm done by a ban. That is essentially a utilitarian position, a philosophy that is devoid of principle. Freedom isn't good only because of some enumerated list of things you can do with it, it is good in it's own right. Reducing freedom is inherently harmful, in a way that is difficult or impossible to measure. As I pointed out above, modern society can function perfectly well without alcohol. The same goes for pornography, sports, gambling, television, and video games, all of which cause harm to greater or lesser degrees. We don't permit them because they are useful or necessary, but rather because people want them, and we profess to live in a free society.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
BrianG
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13228

posted 21 September 2006 09:04 PM      Profile for BrianG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not sure where the answer to "prohibition in the interest of the public good" ought to start or stop, but this quote from a recent British publication should demonstrate to us all that the "prohibitionist perspective" cannot be the whole answer. In fact, this may well demonstrate that it can constitute only a very small part of the answer. Keep in mind that the UK is the environment with the longest history of firearms prohibition....
---------------------------------------

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".
The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.
The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.
French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.
A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.
The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.
"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.
"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
-------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, the "prohibitionist perspective" becomes ridiculous. It would seem that this point is not apparent from within......

[ 21 September 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]

[ 21 September 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 22 September 2006 03:54 AM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Are you reading the same thread? I have a sense of humor, your just not that funny and truthfullly considering the sincerty both sides of this debate are bringing attempting a joke about a racial charged issue is in poor taste, and I still can't find the funny.

You're not interested in a genuine dicussion of this issue so here's a truly brawny dismissal for you, wouldn't want to be just a feeble female: you are a dishonest, unfunny wanker who lacks the ability to stay on point or maybe you just change tactics to avoid dealing with arguments you can't handle and you aren't fit to waste the time of the average babbler and you should stick to the silly cute thread,there more up your alley with your sense of humor deficit - the joke factor is a foregone conclusion so you won't have to exaplain your unfunny jokes.


Hello pot, this is kettle. You really couldn't fabricate a rebutal that wasn't two paragraphs of sheer attempted insult? You show submission in an odd way. I'm disappointed.

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


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 September 2006 04:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is long enough. And just a note - keep it civil or the warnings will start. And that includes for baiting behaviour, Who?.
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