The Great Gun Control Debate

[Brad Sallows]

>Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine.

The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable.  I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.

 

[dutchie]

The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable. I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.

Would you have us all armed to prevent the violation of this basic right, regardless of the threat level? What would be considered reasonable deterence? A handgun? An SMG? GPMG? Tactical Nuke? Ridiculous, I know, but where do you draw the line? Who decides what is reasonable and for whom? What is reasonable in Vancouver or Toronto may not be reasonable in Grand Priarie.

 

[Infanteer]

It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.  If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?

 

[rw4th]

3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so.

And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.

As for the rest of your post, almost every day I read the newspaper or listen to the news and hear of an incident that could have been prevented had a conscientious citizen been able to defend him or her self. Maybe we just don't read the same news.

How about this, pick statement 1 or 2

1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.

 

[dutchie]

It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.   If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?

I said you MIGHT be able to convince me, not that I was convinced that allowing it would not be adverse.

Anyway, if the problem is the threat of violent crime and the attempted denial of the right to life, I don't see how allowing CWs effectively address' that problem.

We have definite differences of opinion here, and we're not going anywhere. Why don't we discuss how we would determine who is allowed to carry a CW, or how you would change the current gun registry.....

 

[Dare]

I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.

You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?

 

[dutchie]

And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.

Agreed, we aren't doing that now, but 'addressing' the issue with ineffective means is not a solution either. Just as the Gun Registry is not effective at addressing the 'problem' it was desigened to address.

How about this, pick statement 1 or 2

1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.

Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.

 

[rw4th]

Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.

Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?

 

[dutchie]

You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?

Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:

Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.  You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.

rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.

 

[dutchie]

Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?

Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?

 

[rw4th]

Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?

I didn't say it was a right, what I'm saying is that if I want to carry a firearm to defend myself, what right do YOU have to prevent me.

The state does not confer freedom onto us, as people we are all equal and willfully choose to give up some of our freedom to live in a â Å“civilizedâ ? society. We create laws to limit out freedom in various ways that we deem beneficial to this civilized society (you can't kill people, you can't take their stuff, etc...). Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so.

Do we need to have laws governing use and ownership of firearms? Yeah, probably, but whenever we want to prevent someone from doing something we need to be able to justify it.

You want to prevent me from carrying firearm, as opposed to imposing a milder restriction (law) that would require me to be certified to do so. The onus should therefore be on you to prove that my freedom should be limited. It should not be on me to prove that I deserve my freedom.

So how would society be improved by preventing concealed carry of handguns by certified civilians?

 

[Dare]

Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:

Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.  You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.

rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.

*Negatory*. The civilians choose everything. The laws that govern the military are written and chosen by civilians. They can rewrite laws. They can send you anywhere they damn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS. The military generally "decides how to do it", because the civilians give them that level of autonomy but don't think that's always the case. You've proved my point once you said "The civies tell us what to do". The point is the comparative scope proportionally to the level of responsibility required in life or death situations. Which do you believe requires the greatest responsibility? Carrying a gun or directing a nation to attack another nation militarily? If it is proper training, I can understand, but it does not seem as though that is the case. It -seems- as though you do not trust the moral inclinations of the Canadian population as a whole or individually. If you do not trust the people you work for, why do you work for them? I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.

 

[dutchie]

Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so.

The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response.

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.

They can send you anywhere they darn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS.  

Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.

I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.

Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).

 

[rw4th]

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.

The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way.

Show me the proof that indicates that a legally carried handgun poses a significant threat of being used in an illegal way? It seems we already established that empirical evidence points to the contrary. Do you dispute this?

 

[dutchie]

The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.

 

[Torlyn]

The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

Isn't freedom itself a philosophical belief?  How does not allowing you to carry a concealed firearm infringe upon your rights?

T

 

[Dare]

The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response.

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.

The problem with your points are as follows:
1) All current firearms that are used illegally were once legally owned firearms. Even in the most strict gun control societies, you can get guns. Do we ban all tools that can be used in an illegal way?
2) If a person (who is not law abiding)  is trying to kill you with a gun, and another (who happens to be law abiding) is not permitted one... The issue is not overkill, it is underkill.

Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.

As I said. The civilians wrote the laws that ultimately birthed Or Bat. They don't need to go there to have their order followed. They created the Canadian Forces and write the rules for which it is run by. Tasks are delegated. They give the orders, you follow them and your commander follows them. The Prime Minister can give orders anywhere he is.  You don't have to argue this point. It's a fact. Wether you choose to acknowledge it as fact is an entirely seperate issue.

Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).

Who are the elected leaders elected by?  I think perhaps this arguement here comes down to who you, personally, think is a "Wacko"? Then, of course, it filters upstream to a common sanctified definition of what a "Wacko" is. Who chooses this communal definition of who can or can not have a gun? What's to say your definition of a "Wacko" is better than my definition? So far, what I have read, leads me to believe your view of what this definition is, seems to be quite encompassing. You even seem to have more than one version of a "Wacko". A little clarity might be helpful.

 

[Infanteer]

The argument is going to lose its value if its based on philosophical beliefs - people have argued for racial purity, segregation, or economic equality based upon philosophical beliefs.  I think the litmus test is to apply your philosophical beliefs to a set of principles that exist within a Liberal Democracy.  Obviously, gun ownership does not exist specifically within these principles, but there are other, more broader principles (which Brad Sallows has touched upon on multiple occasions).

Caesar has stated that he could care less about owning a firearm or using it to defend oneself in ones home - fair enough; something we agree on.  However, what are you grounding this on?  I have my own ideas, but I'm curious about yours (and Torlyn's).

Is there really a difference between allowing this in the home and allowing it in the public?  Is public/private a legitimate divide for this right/responsibility.  Obviously, it is in some instances (putting up pornographic pictures is suitable in private, but not in public; playing loud music isn't suitable in either if it bothers everybody) but I'm unsure if carrying a weapon in public falls into this category.

If I carried a big sword on my back, would you be equally disturbed (ie: is this issue only about firearms)?

Since this contention is basically is an issue of philosophy, I'm trying to see what the philosophy is and if it is consistent with a general principle of liberal democratic freedom (ie: you tell me what I can and can't do).

 

[Dare]

The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.

Sure you do. Philosophy means the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy is logic and reality. The question is, what is wise, logical and real? Facts, definitely are a major componant in all three.

EDIT: Typo

 

[rw4th]

You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.

Ceasar, now you're avoiding the question, please answer it.

You cannot create laws based on what you think others should and should not do, you need to have some kind of real justification. If you impose laws based on beliefs without any supporting evidence, then legally and morally you are on the same level as those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.

I should not be prevented from doing something because it goes against your philosophy, just like you should not be stopped from doing something because I disagree with it.

I don't need you to agree with concealed carry legislation, hell as human beings we do not need to agree on everything to get along. You just need to recognize that you have no right to restrict my freedom in any area without just cause.

Please show cause on more then a philosophical level.

We made homosexuality illegal because we believed it was better for society. When we realized it was a mistake, we removed/adjusted laws. We passed draconian gun laws thinking it would make us safer. They don't, so why do we still cling to them?