Gun Control is Completely Useless.


Taxx
Conservative
#1231
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

Handguns are a different story. Preferred weapon of choice in Toronto is the 9mm, 40mm, 45mm, and then shot gun.
All freely available just south of the border.

40mm ? 9mm & 45mm can both be pistol rounds but a 40mm in my knowledge is a grenade (or ammo for a grenade launcher). Or am I missing something here?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#1232
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Doesn't make sense, sorry.

An older right does not automatically make the right more credible. Your logic forces you to accept slavery as a higher priority than possession of arms since that right existed long before possession of arms did.

You can either admit that your logic is flawed, or that you're a hypocrite, or that you now support slavery.

It's your choice.

You should study a little political science.....

English Common Law is based exclusively on precedent...............the older a continuous precedent, the more powerful it is.

Ahhhh.....slavery is not a right, but a denial of right.......big difference.
 
Unforgiven
#1233
Quote: Originally Posted by Taxx View Post

40mm ? 9mm & 45mm can both be pistol rounds but a 40mm in my knowledge is a grenade (or ammo for a grenade launcher). Or am I missing something here?

Sorry 40 and 45 caliber.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#1234
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

You should study a little political science.....

English Common Law is based exclusively on precedent...............the older a continuous precedent, the more powerful it is.

Ahhhh.....slavery is not a right, but a denial of right.......big difference.

Yes, the slaves should have been given muskets.

Precedent can be broken. Assuming that a continued tradition definitively brings us closer to what is 'good' or 'true' or 'right' or even 'just' the longer it exists is just a silly way of thinking.

If that's your ethical framework for promoting gun use.. that's pretty sad. I'm sure you have other reasons to give the freedom to bear arms some weight, but please don't bother with the historical argument because that's pretty flimsy.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#1235
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, the slaves should have been given muskets.

Precedent can be broken. Assuming that a continued tradition definitively brings us closer to what is 'good' or 'true' or 'right' or even 'just' the longer it exists is just a silly way of thinking.

If that's your ethical framework for promoting gun use.. that's pretty sad. I'm sure you have other reasons to give the freedom to bear arms some weight, but please don't bother with the historical argument because that's pretty flimsy.

Yep. That's right....because free men bear arms. Slaves do not.

But I can't believe this.............

Historical argument is FLIMSY!!!!!! OMG!

That is completely outrageous. The thought that the knowledge and wisdom of generations, the experience, the evidence of past events and their ultimate consequences are not worthy of consideration in your opinion is simply beyond comprehension.

History is the study of human relationships on a grand scale.

History is the ONLY argument that trumps all others.

Man oh man oh man oh man..........how OLD are you?????????

Only a child could have the arrogance to believe all of human history is insignificant to the present.......
 
mentalfloss
#1236
What I meant is that simply saying that 'we've done it for ages' is not a convincing argument. That's what I mean by a 'historical argument.'

You need to go the extra step to show WHY it was used for ages. And how that now applies to our present conditions so you can ultimately prove WHY that freedom is still important now.

You stop at, 'well it's been around for ages.' That's pretty flimsy because I can list a bunch of principles that were around for ages but aren't widely adopted in western culture anymore. Like slavery, for instance.

What's worse is that you gave up so easily and revert to ad hominem attacks now. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by letting you sell this to me.

I know you can do better than that ad hominem attacks.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#1237
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

What I meant is that simply saying that 'we've done it for ages' is not a convincing argument. That's what I mean by a 'historical argument.'

You need to go the extra step to show WHY it was used for ages. And how that now applies to our present conditions so you can ultimately prove WHY that freedom is still important now.

You stop at, 'well it's been around for ages.' That's pretty flimsy because I can list a bunch of principles that were around for ages but aren't widely adopted in western culture anymore. Like slavery, for instance.

What's worse is that you gave up so easily and revert to ad hominem attacks now. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by letting you sell this to me.

I know you can do better than that ad hominem attacks.

I saw no attack in that, except to reflect on the possibility of your youth.............I only wish I was still young, ignorant and arrogant.

Now you are getting a history lesson.

There are two technical developments that were essential elements in the emancipation of western civilization after the Middle Ages. The first of these was the printing press. Ideas could no longer easily be suppressed, once it became relatively quick, easy and cheap to print a pamphlet and give it wide-spread circulation. Martin Luther was the first manifestation of this........there had been hundreds of "heretics". largely ignored, preaching whatever variation they pleased....But Luther....his ideas caught fire....because they were printed, and distributed.......giving birth to the Reformation......Other ideas could not easily be suppressed either.....

That the press is so important in the spread of ideas, and was so important in the developments of the last 600 years, is why we have freedom of speech in general, and freedom of the press specifically.

Because it is essential to our freedom.

The other essential technical development was the firearm. Throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period there were peasant uprisings by the score..........always bloodily suppressed. Why? Because the profession of arms belonged to the elite. To become proficient with edged weapons required much training and regular practice. To become proficient with the long bow required hours daily. Horses and armor were completely out of reach of the peasant. Thus the Lord, with his men at arms, possessed such an advantage over the masses that they could put down any revolt with little risk to themselves. But then along came gunpowder......good-bye elitist advantage against the people. The Japanese samurii recognized the danger, and banned gunpowder for 300 years. The people of the west slowly became armed, the firearm is easy to learn and use, and its smashing power negates the advantage of armor and horse, exposing the gentry to peril.......it is no coincidence that the first battle of the first successful modern war for freedom was fought when British troops set out into the countryside to seize arms.....and had their asses kicked by farmers with rifles.

That is why we have a right to keep and bear arms.

because it is essential to our freedom.

That is the lesson of history.
 
TenPenny
#1238
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

...the first battle of the first successful modern war for freedom was fought when British troops set out into the countryside to seize arms.....and had their asses kicked by farmers with rifles.

That is why we have a right to keep and bear arms.

because it is essential to our freedom.

That is the lesson of history.

That's a lovely story. Tell me, where do you live again? Oh, right. The Loyalist City. That's where all the British went after they got their asses kicked.

So what, exactly, does your story have to do with us? Was I asleep, and we had a revolution and formed our own country? Did I miss the midnight ride of the Colpy?
 
mentalfloss
#1239
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

A lovely story by Colpy.

You still haven't tied that into why we need to bear arms now.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#1240
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

That's a lovely story. Tell me, where do you live again? Oh, right. The Loyalist City. That's where all the British went after they got their asses kicked.

So what, exactly, does your story have to do with us? Was I asleep, and we had a revolution and formed our own country? Did I miss the midnight ride of the Colpy?

Yep, and my ancestors on both sides were refugees from that little fight....I could put UEL after my name

It has lots to do with us. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution sprang directly from the 7th clause of the English Bill of Rights of 1689......that Parliament forced the new monarchs to sign before they took the throne. it is part and parcel of our heritage as well.

BTW, back when I was in university, my history adviser wanted me to do a Master's thesis on the cultural effect of the UEL on the culture of Canada.......because they were, despite having backed the losing side, American in their dedication to the ideals of individual rights....and that includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Their determination in this country was to build a better society than that down south.....
 
TenPenny
#1241
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Their determination in this country was to build a better society than that down south.....

Which is likely why we don't have a 'right to bear arms' in our constitution.
 
DaSleeper
#1242
How does that go again.....?
When the People fears the Government.....you have Tyranny!

When the Government fears the People......you have Democracy!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#1243
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Which is likely why we don't have a 'right to bear arms' in our constitution.

Ahhh, but as I keep telling people....we DO!

The Constitution Act of 1982 does not in any way reduce or eliminate the rights and priviledges that we inherited through English common law.......and that includes a declared right to keep and bear arms "as allowed by law"....but it IS a right, and it IS declared to be "for....defense". Look up the English Bill of Rights

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

You still haven't tied that into why we need to bear arms now.

To keep ourselves free.

In many ways, it is more the attitude of the armed citizen that is desirable, rather than the ability to defeat tyranny....although that is a factor.

An armed man has a completely different sense about himself and his place in society.......a good man carries with his arms a sense responsibility, an inherent confidence, a directness, a sense of his own independence, a feeling that is inherent in the knowledge that he can not be coerced with impunity.

Ask anyone, armed people are stubborn people. I think the refusal of the firearms community to bow to 15 years of pressure by gov't idiots is ample evidence of that! And that is extremely healthy in a society that increasingly believes it has a right to involve itself in every single aspect of life.........

To say nothing of the fact that a heavily armed citizenry makes the gov't think twice........

And then we get into the right of self-defense....which no one (I hope0 would argue exists....but is largely irrelevant if we are not allowed the tools for the job.

And for the same reason Unforgiven thinks he should be allowed to spark up.....it is simply none of the gov't's business to interfere with normal behaviour.....something they long since seem to have forgotten.
 
mentalfloss
#1244
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

To keep ourselves free.

In many ways, it is more the attitude of the armed citizen that is desirable, rather than the ability to defeat tyranny....although that is a factor.

And for the same reason Unforgiven thinks he should be allowed to spark up.....it is simply none of the gov't's business to interfere with normal behaviour.....something they long since seem to have forgotten.

Okay, but you're forgetting some pretty important points here..

1.) Guns can get into the wrong hands and hurt people
2.) You don't need guns to defend yourself due to improbability alone
3.) There are plenty of mockups that will make you feel just as manly
4.) In a fight between you and these guys... you won't win..




So, if we're going to consider the well being of others and the sanctity of our own lives - it doesn't look like guns are going to help much.

In fact there is a much higher probability they will do harm rather than help.

Why would you endorse hurting your Canadian neighbours?
 
TenPenny
#1245
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

includes a declared right to keep and bear arms "as allowed by law"

Therefore, we have a right to keep and bear arms as allowed by law, which means restrictions, limitations, and registrations as defined by law.
 
DaSleeper
#1246
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Therefore, we have a right to keep and bear arms as allowed by law, which means restrictions, limitations, and registrations as defined by law.

And we also have the right to protest those laws by any and all non violent means at our dispoasal, unless physicaly attacked.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#1247
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Okay, but you're forgetting some pretty important points here..

1.) Guns can get into the wrong hands and hurt people
2.) You don't need guns to defend yourself due to improbability alone
3.) There are plenty of mockups that will make you feel just as manly
4.) In a fight between you and these guys... you won't win..




So, if we're going to consider the well being of others and the sanctity of our own lives - it doesn't look like guns are going to help much.

In fact there is a much higher probability they will do harm rather than help.

Why would you endorse hurting your Canadian neighbours?

You've spent far too long in the nanny-state culture.....

First of all, the "bad guys" will always get guns. Fact of life. ask any Jamaican street punk on Jane and Finch....that's probably carrying a Glock 9mm that I can't afford...lol.

Secondly, it is practically unheard of for a gun to hurt somebody........and even for that to happen they must have been misused. People attack people. I have never seen a gun load, aim, and fire itself.......

Third.....I carried guns to defend myself for years. The police carry guns to defend themselves. What exactly makes them a higher classification of citizen than I???? Because that is the only explanation possible in their being armed, and my being disarmed......

Fourth....man, you are just like the guy that wrote in the Globe that hunting should be illegal and hunters should just play hunting video games.....you have absolutely no concept of the culture nor the essence of which you speak. Not a clue. Weapons are weapons, mock-ups are TOYS! When I became a man, I put away childish things.

Fifth, wanna bet? I been on the range with a lot of police....

Sixth......if you are trying to restrict my freedom, the onus is on you to prove that my freedom is causing significant damage and cost to society at large....since the imposition of the long gun registry, the murder rate has CLIMBED, then dipped.....but it is not yet back to where it was before the registry was complete. The gov't has failed completely..................

Seventh.....I endorse no harm to my neighbours.....but there is NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RISK.......and the campaign to eliminate risk is incredibly dangerous to our freedom.
Last edited by Colpy; Apr 26th, 2011 at 03:27 PM..
 
mentalfloss
+1
#1248
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

First of all, the "bad guys" will always get guns. Fact of life. ask any Jamaican street punk on Jane and Finch....that's probably carrying a Glock 9mm that I can't afford...lol.

I've actually got a few friends from Jane and Finch. And they would laugh themselves to tears by your ridiculous profiling generalization.

P.S. None of them have guns.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Secondly, it is practically unheard of for a gun to hurt somebody........and even for that to happen they must have been misused. People attack people. I have never seen a gun load, aim, and fire itself.......

That's why we keep them away from people.
There's the guns... *pew pew pew*
And there's the people............................................ .................................................. .........................."hello hello!"

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Third.....I carried guns to defend myself for years. The police carry guns to defend themselves. What exactly makes them a higher classification of citizen than I???? Because that is the only explanation possible in their being armed, and my being disarmed......

Police have a much higher exposure to threat. Statistically speaking, you really don't need to defend yourself because you will have very little exposure to someone who wants to seriously injure you.

Like, duh!

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Fourth....man, you are just like the guy that wrote in the Globe that hunting should be illegal and hunters should just play hunting video games.....you have absolutely no concept of the culture nor the essence of which you speak. Not a clue. Weapons are weapons, mock-ups are TOYS! When I became a man, I put away childish things.

Well so far, you have done nothing to convince me yet that you will get any tangible use for a gun other than boosting your ego. You know viagra apparently works wonders as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Fifth, wanna bet? I been on the range with a lot of police....

You let me know a date, time and place. I'll make the call.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Sixth......if you are trying to restrict my freedom, the onus is on you to prove that my freedom is causing significant risk and cost to society at large....since the imposition of the long gun registry, the murder rate has CLIMBED, then dipped.....but it is not yet back to where it was before the registry was complete. The gov't has failed completely..................

You're not the only person that exists silly. If you were the only one with a gun, I might let it slide, but you're part of a group now. A group of people with guns. A big group of people with guns.

And here is the only argument that might change my mind. If this big group of people with guns had free reign of their fire arms, without any control from the government, and I could be assured that it would have no significantly negative impact on the well being of others - I might be convinced to let them have this freedom.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Seventh.....I endorse no harm to my neighbours.....but there is NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RISK.......and the campaign to eliminate risk is incredibly dangerous to our freedom.

Right. And that freedom is not worth the risk, from what I understand.

Based on your flimsy arguments - you still do not deserve to be armed. *stamps gavel*
 
Unforgiven
#1249
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ahhh, but as I keep telling people....we DO!

Not the way you mean it we don't.

Quote:

The Constitution Act of 1982 does not in any way reduce or eliminate the rights and priviledges that we inherited through English common law.......and that includes a declared right to keep and bear arms "as allowed by law"....but it IS a right, and it IS declared to be "for....defense". Look up the English Bill of Rights

Allowed by law. Important part of that sentence. Not regardless of law, allowed by law. A Bill introduced and making it's way through the levels of legislature, given royal accent is the law part of that sentence. Your rights don't exceed the law.

Quote:

To keep ourselves free.

You are free. Who wants you as a slave anyway?

Quote:

In many ways, it is more the attitude of the armed citizen that is desirable, rather than the ability to defeat tyranny....although that is a factor.

I'm having my fun and screw you if it kills or injures you isn't the attitude that desirable by any stretch of the imagination. No one is going to be shooting at any Canadian politicians without spending a long time in jail afterwards.

Quote:

An armed man has a completely different sense about himself and his place in society.......a good man carries with his arms a sense responsibility, an inherent confidence, a directness, a sense of his own independence, a feeling that is inherent in the knowledge that he can not be coerced with impunity.

All well and good but that goes for an unarmed man as well. The Charter is the weapon to keep us all free of tyranny
which is why it's such a problem for Harper.

Quote:

Ask anyone, armed people are stubborn people. I think the refusal of the firearms community to bow to 15 years of pressure by gov't idiots is ample evidence of that! And that is extremely healthy in a society that increasingly believes it has a right to involve itself in every single aspect of life.........

Yeah like guys who feel it is well within their rights to make their own shooting range that endangers farms.

Quote:

To say nothing of the fact that a heavily armed citizenry makes the gov't think twice........

As I've told you many times before, you don't stand even a slight chance against the police and the military both which are operated by the government to keep order.

Quote:

And then we get into the right of self-defense....which no one (I hope0 would argue exists....but is largely irrelevant if we are not allowed the tools for the job.

Sure I feel everyone is entitled to self defense. But it has to be reasonable. That is the part that you and others don't seem capable of grasping.

Quote:

And for the same reason Unforgiven thinks he should be allowed to spark up.....it is simply none of the gov't's business to interfere with normal behaviour.....something they long since seem to have forgotten.

Cannabis harms no one. If someone finds my Cannabis the worst thing that could happen is the munchies and a nap.
The same can't be said about your guns. Still I would welcome regulation regarding Cannabis use. As then it would be even more legitimized than it already is.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

And we also have the right to protest those laws by any and all non violent means at our dispoasal, unless physicaly attacked.

Not according to the G20 precedent. You can try and protest if you like but the police have it seem, the right to beat your ass, arrest you, lock you up for a few days without identifying themselves, no food no water and make you go to the bathroom in the middle of the room on a bucket without any privacy. Then dump you outside at 3 in the morning and tell you to fu ckoff or their will give you a ticket for loitering.

I suppose there are some who might laugh and say "You deserve it gun nut." but I wouldn't be one of them.
 
CDNBear
#1250
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I've actually got a few friends from Jane and Finch. And they would laugh themselves to tears by your ridiculous profiling generalization.

P.S. None of them have guns.

No one that lives or 'hangs' in the Jane and finch corridor, have guns? Or just the couple you know?
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#1251
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I've actually got a few friends from Jane and Finch. And they would laugh themselves to tears by your ridiculous profiling generalization.

P.S. None of them have guns.



That's why we keep them away from people.
There's the guns... *pew pew pew*
And there's the people............................................ .................................................. .........................."hello hello!"



Police have a much higher exposure to threat. Statistically speaking, you really don't need to defend yourself because you will have very little exposure to someone who wants to seriously injure you.

Like, duh!



Well so far, you have done nothing to convince me yet that you will get any tangible use for a gun other than boosting your ego. You know viagra apparently works wonders as well.



You let me know a date, time and place. I'll make the call.



You're not the only person that exists silly. If you were the only one with a gun, I might let it slide, but you're part of a group now. A group of people with guns. A big group of people with guns.

And here is the only argument that might change my mind. If this big group of people with guns had free reign of their fire arms, without any control from the government, and I could be assured that it would have no significantly negative impact on the well being of others - I might be convinced to let them have this freedom.



Right. And that freedom is not worth the risk, from what I understand.

Based on your flimsy arguments - you still do not deserve to be armed. *stamps gavel*

Go away.

I might as well debate with my dog as with you.

You long ago exhausted not only my patience, but also any shred of respect I might have had for your opinion, or your intellectual capability, as you refuse to address the facts that do not support your view........

The truth is the registry has been a colossal failure, proven by the fact that the murder rate is now higher than it was eight years ago.

Deal with it.

Slam the gavel all you want....I am armed, and will be armed always. Not a thing you, or anyone else, can do about it.
 
Unforgiven
#1252
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Go away.

heh heh Nice debate maneuver. Did you think this one up yourself?

Quote:

I might as well debate with my dog as with you.

The dog will win also.

Quote:

You long ago exhausted not only my patience, but also any shred of respect I might have had for your opinion, or your intellectual capability, as you refuse to address the facts that do not support your view........

"Hello Pot?" "It's Kettle calling."

Quote:

The truth is the registry has been a colossal failure, proven by the fact that the murder rate is now higher than it was eight years ago.

Murders, accidents and suicide by long guns have been reduced. It's fact, the stats are there to prove that.

Quote:

Deal with it.

Still trying to deal with that dumb ass debate trick you used at the top the the post.

Quote:

Slam the gavel all you want....I am armed, and will be armed always. Not a thing you, or anyone else, can do about it.

Just abide the law so no one gets hurt.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#1253
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I've always heard that there is a pro-gun stats argument. I would be more inclined to be on board if I could see a direct correlation between the increase of freedom and less deaths caused by gun abuse. This would also have to be a pretty universal stat and not just something that relates to Canada - because it otherwise could just be a huge fluke.

For what it's worth, I believe Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws in the US while Washington DC has the strictest. It would be interesting to see how Texas stacks up as I'm pretty sure toting a gun is a legal requirement.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#1254
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post




Murders, accidents and suicide by long guns have been reduced. It's fact, the stats are there to prove that.



.

Produce them or STFU.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

For what it's worth, I believe Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws in the US while Washington DC has the strictest. It would be interesting to see how Texas stacks up as I'm pretty sure toting a gun is a legal requirement.

Vermont has a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000.....much lower than Canada.......and has no state gun control laws. Want to carry a handgun? Load it and drop it in your pocket. Assault rifles are fine. No problem. Vermont scores 8 out of a possible 100 on the Brady Scale for gun control.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Washington DC has a murder rate (2009) of 23.8 per 100,000. That is 12 times the Canadian rate, and 20 times the rate in Vermont. Washington has a gun control regimen tougher than Canada's......

From what I can tell, the Brady Campaign doesn't want to talk about DC, which is their showcase of gun laws....lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#1255
Yes, but as Unforgiven said, murders do not necessarily constitute those committed by shooting. Also, you're comparing individual states to an entire country???

Oh, hold on.. sorry, I forgot to translate..

BARK BARK BARK.. BARK.. RUFF.. RUFF RUFF.. BARK BARK BARK
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1256
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, but as Unforgiven said, murders do not necessarily constitute those committed by shooting. Also, you're comparing individual states to an entire country???

Oh, hold on.. sorry, I forgot to translate..

BARK BARK BARK.. BARK.. RUFF.. RUFF RUFF.. BARK BARK BARK

 
CDNBear
#1257
I wonder if the local constabulary would know how many bows I have, if I didn't know many of the local constabulary.

I wonder if the gun control crowd knows just how deadly, and quick a bow can be in th right hands.
 
cranky
#1258
If a law is found to violate a Charter right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that the law is “rationally connected” to its purpose; that it impairs the right involved “as little as possible”; and that there is a proportionality between the harm done and the good achieved. No impartial judge could find that the Firearmsct licensing and registration requirements satisfy these criteria.
 
Taxx
Conservative
#1259
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I wonder if the local constabulary would know how many bows I have, if I didn't know many of the local constabulary.

I wonder if the gun control crowd knows just how deadly, and quick a bow can be in th right hands.

The only issue with a bow is that it is large and noticeable (although I do agree that bows are pretty deadly and I do know how to use one). Chances are you would notice someone aiming a bow at you, as opposed to a small gun, such as a pistol, pulled and fired within 1/2 of a second.
 
cranky
#1260
Bows have probably killed more people than guns