• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
KevinB said:
The biggest aspect people need to understand is that guns are neutral - not evil or good, they are a tool -- used by people, people who need to be responsible for their actions -- cars and alcohol kill more folks than guns -- but oddly we do not see bottle of liquor being registered, or bans on cars that have bigger engines or large fuel tanks.

Although it is currently true that Cars kill more people than guns in the US it is expected to change very shortly.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths. In no way am I saying you should not have the right to carry but obviously there is a problem in the US. I only see gun deaths rising in the US for the future until something is figured out.
 
Right. So no mention of the proportion of these deaths related to suicides.

What would be better: Controlling the tool or better mental health support?

If you want to kill yourslef, a gun is one of the options. Remove the firearm and there will still be plenty of ways to do it. So whats the point.

ETA: That graphic is misleading, it only accounts for the trends in the last decade. If you plotted this graph properly, I think the results would be close enough to show no significant difference. Which means little in any case, any vehicle or firearm related deaths will be too many.
 
In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.

Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

However, when I look at the Norinco type 97 and other black rifles which are on the non-restricted list (http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/),I seriously think Parliament still has homework to do. For God sake, why would you need these guns to go hunting. Be a man and use un bon 12 as we say in french.

By the way, we are not in the XVIIIth century anymore, USA are not at war with the hostile native tribes or Red Coats. I still do not understand why don't they simply adopt progressive policies on that matter. Eh? The constitution must evolve according to the society, one said. Well, 2nd Amendment does not and it still bring the USA 240 years back in the past.

Anyway, it was my editorial.
 
darfafa09 said:
In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.

Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

However, when I look at the Norinco type 97 and other black rifles which are on the non-restricted list (http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/),I seriously think Parliament still has homework to do. For God sake, why would you need these guns to go hunting. Be a man and use un bon 12 as we say in french.

By the way, we are not in the XVIIIth century anymore, USA are not at war with the hostile native tribes or Red Coats. I still do not understand why don't they simply adopt progressive policies on that matter. Eh? The constitution must evolve according to the society, one said. Well, 2nd Amendment does not and it still bring the USA 240 years back in the past.

Anyway, it was my editorial.


Your view seems a tad misguided IMO... :facepalm:

Your point about the Norinco type 97 is especially irrelevant. All guns are designed to kill. Full stop. Whether is a tiny little .22 or a .50BMG, The point of their creation has always been to deal death, I doubt that a piece of lead has the ability to discriminate between human and animal flesh, so the hunting point is moot as well. The firearm's colour has absolutely nothing to do with their lethality. You seriously think just because it's painted black it's any more dangerous than a all-wood firearm that has a varnish on it? Firearms are inanimate objects and are therefore unable to do any harm of their own accord, the question is not whether we need more gun control - we have more than enough of that already. What we really need is people control: extensive mental health checks to be sure potential gun owners are in a stable frame of mind. Sane people don't pick up a firearm and immediately start planning a killing spree.

To reinforce the silliness of your "hunting vs assault firearms" theory, I'll give you a different example using your line of thought: If a steak knife is intended to cut steak, it is therefore unthinkable that someone could ever conceive to use it for another purpose. There, do you see how silly your theory sounds now? :nod:
 
darfafa09 said:
Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

If someone wants to kill another human being, they can do it with a bolt action, muzzle loader, semi-automatic, automatic firearm or resort to a knife. Legislation limits law-abiding citizens and criminalizes them for little to no reason other than a false sense of security. I hope you're a minority in these ideals so logic and common sense can override your absolute disregard of how firearms actually work.
 
Teager said:
Although it is currently true that Cars kill more people than guns in the US it is expected to change very shortly.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths. In no way am I saying you should not have the right to carry but obviously there is a problem in the US. I only see gun deaths rising in the US for the future until something is figured out.

Actually gun deaths in the states have declined over the last 20 years. Read the article that I've attached:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-gun-homicides-the-gap-between-perception-and-reality-1.1858107
 
>IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths.

Easy.  Indefinitely incarcerate everyone affiliated with a gang.  Then see how many gun-related deaths remain and tackle another cause.
 
>Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun?

For the same reason some people climb a mountain, own a hot-rod, or spend the night at a bathhouse - it's what they enjoy.
 
So I went today to get a membership at a local gun club and discovered that as well as the membership fee and mandatory orientation I have to pay to take an ATT course. I asked why I was required to do that since all the rules pertaining to safe transport of a restricted weapon were covered in the safety course? It was then explained to me that all gun clubs in ON require this as a prerequisite to members firing restricted weapons.

Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?
 
X_para76 said:
Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?

No.

ETA: My club does not. Other local clubs require orientation and/or have ROs on staff (who can be quite obstrusive) and there are also clubs which require the black badge course in order to shoot from a holster (and only on specific ranges).

YMMV
 
I was going to post on the funny video forum, but decided here would be better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0
 
Darfafa09,

Thank you for posting that.  Every now and then I forget that there are people who actually think this way and this sort of antigun fear mongering isn't just an attempt by hardcore firearm advocates to dream up an anti-firearm boogyman.  I liked your subtle way of insinuating women are weak or somehow lesser.  It's important we base our decisions off of "being a man"

Question for you. You pointed out that the US constitution basically needs to change with the times. Where is the wisdom in obeying stuff from the past, we've grown as a civilization etc..
Canada has two official languages but English is basically the language of the world,  the language of business.  Do you think Canada should get rid of French as a language?  I mean it's 2014, why teach a language that isn't  really used in business or by most of the other countries in the world?
 
Brad Sallows said:
>IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths.

Easy.  Indefinitely incarcerate everyone affiliated with a gang.  Then see how many gun-related deaths remain and tackle another cause.

Largest gun related deaths in Canada are by suicide. Only way to tackle it is through education I believe. But on the positive side the number is coming down, maybe due to the CFSC/CRFSC. I'm just new to this whole debate though.
 
Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.
 
darfafa09 said:
In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.

Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

However, when I look at the Norinco type 97 and other black rifles which are on the non-restricted list (http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/),I seriously think Parliament still has homework to do. For God sake, why would you need these guns to go hunting. Be a man and use un bon 12 as we say in french.

By the way, we are not in the XVIIIth century anymore, USA are not at war with the hostile native tribes or Red Coats. I still do not understand why don't they simply adopt progressive policies on that matter. Eh? The constitution must evolve according to the society, one said. Well, 2nd Amendment does not and it still bring the USA 240 years back in the past.

Anyway, it was my editorial.

Is that you, Wendy? Or is it Wyatt? In both cases, your mascara is leaking!
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.

The best statistics are 0 or 100%, but we are humans so those rarely happen. Stats do give an opportunity to prioritize on the largest problems, athletes do this to identify their weakest skills to improve on. Which is why I just decided to highlight that the largest area for gun safety improvement is suicides in Canada. I am not celebrating anything besides taking some comfort that it is headed in the right direction, I really detest suicide. It is unfortunate that us humans do not improve over night.

Not touching the Chicago subject because I do not have the full slate of socioeconomic problems in front of me. I do agree that the politicians were not giving credit to the right source. They get that wrong all the time, just like the connection between abortions and lowering crime rates. That is a different debate though.
 
Please, don't start crying in terror...but these evil guns live in my basement:

20140330_211709_zpsmw05vrtg.jpg


Look carefully, and you'll see that there are a series of "assault" weapons there, from the 1860's era Snyder Enfield (which was, actually, a front-line assault weapon.) To the WWI Era Ross Rifle, dated 1917, and came from the HMS CANADA....it was, quite likely, carried in the trenches before that, so it too can be defined quite clearly as an "Assault" rifle. 

The Enfield(s) in the photo are of similar get, and the Longbranch there was most likely used in Korea.  Again, a true Assault rifle, used on the front.

So.

The guns in this photo that ARE in fact Assault rifles are the ones you would have me keep...because they have wood stocks....?

I'm sorry, the argument doesn't hold much water if you ask me. 

To propose that the 'scary black guns' in the bottom half of the picture (none of which have ever been used in any form of "assault" except against a paper target) are more dangerous than those in the top half simply because of their looks is, in my opinion, stupid.

Would you ban black motorbikes because they are more 'scary' looking than red ones?

I'm going to take one or two of these guns out to the range today.  I might even take the old Ross, and let loose a few rounds from a REAL assault rifle, one that's seen the front lines, the trenches, and is still going strong a hundred years later.

NS

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top