Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Let's look at these quotes unemotionally and subject them to the test of common sense. Remember the context - gun control. Control does not necessarily mean prohibition or banishment. Too many people assume that it does. It leads to the unfair assumption that any support of safety equals equally unsafe public disarmament. Traffic control such as school zone speed limits does not lead to outlawing of motor vehicles, and neither does gun safety have to mean gun prohibition.
The notion of needing control says much. If the product is inherently safe, control is irrelevant. Most of us do not feel the need to be in control of others or their property.
Why does a desire for public safety mean fear of weapons? I doubt very much that Freud said any such thing in the context it is being used. Is a person who slows down in a school zone displaying symptoms of impotence? IMO this is a poor attempt to intellectualize an issue that is mere common sense.
Polite or afraid? Politeness based on fear of weapons is not respectful, it is subservience.
Do you mean like, "Booze doesn't cause drunkenness, people cause drunkenness?"
The Dalai Lama, you say? Why would you have to shoot back with your own gun? It seems to me that if somebody is shooting at me any old gun would do in a pinch? I doubt very much that the Dalai Lama said any such thing, and certainly not in this context.
Most women who are threatened by guns are threatened in their own homes by their mates. Public gun control is irrelevant to that issue.
Indeed it has, which is why only extremists call for absolute gun prohibition.
The vote is the symbol of democracy, not the gun. The gun is the symbol of power.
True in a dramatic literary sense but irrelevant to the issue. Fighting government with arms is not the normal state of affairs in any democracy. Armed resistance to reasonable democratic governance merely forces government to arms. In the United States every routine traffic stop is considered by police to be an armed confrontation. This is excessively dangerous to peaceful citizens.
"Foolish?" Naming as foolish entire groups on the basis of political difference of opinion is itself foolish. Obviously the author is not claiming that guns cannot be considered safety hazards so his opinion sounds like nothing but partisan rhetoric. What is under discussion is degree of control and not safety per se. Once again the debate reverts back into extremism, that any control equals surrender. By reverting to extremism the argument loses its credibility.
Am I an "anti" or a gun hater? Certainly not. I own eight guns - three high powered rifles, three shotguns and two .22's. I hunt every year. I believe that every gun owner has a duty of safety to society. I am vigorously opposed to any notion of gun confiscation. But anything can become too much of a good thing. The United States has a gun problem. Canada does not. In Canada we do not have too much gun control now that the national gun registry is closed. In fact I think the entire registry issue was a wake-up call for our governments - it showed them that Canadians would rebel if pushed too far.
The notion of needing control says much. If the product is inherently safe, control is irrelevant. Most of us do not feel the need to be in control of others or their property.
Why does a desire for public safety mean fear of weapons? I doubt very much that Freud said any such thing in the context it is being used. Is a person who slows down in a school zone displaying symptoms of impotence? IMO this is a poor attempt to intellectualize an issue that is mere common sense.
Polite or afraid? Politeness based on fear of weapons is not respectful, it is subservience.
Do you mean like, "Booze doesn't cause drunkenness, people cause drunkenness?"
The Dalai Lama, you say? Why would you have to shoot back with your own gun? It seems to me that if somebody is shooting at me any old gun would do in a pinch? I doubt very much that the Dalai Lama said any such thing, and certainly not in this context.
Most women who are threatened by guns are threatened in their own homes by their mates. Public gun control is irrelevant to that issue.
Indeed it has, which is why only extremists call for absolute gun prohibition.
The vote is the symbol of democracy, not the gun. The gun is the symbol of power.
True in a dramatic literary sense but irrelevant to the issue. Fighting government with arms is not the normal state of affairs in any democracy. Armed resistance to reasonable democratic governance merely forces government to arms. In the United States every routine traffic stop is considered by police to be an armed confrontation. This is excessively dangerous to peaceful citizens.
"Foolish?" Naming as foolish entire groups on the basis of political difference of opinion is itself foolish. Obviously the author is not claiming that guns cannot be considered safety hazards so his opinion sounds like nothing but partisan rhetoric. What is under discussion is degree of control and not safety per se. Once again the debate reverts back into extremism, that any control equals surrender. By reverting to extremism the argument loses its credibility.
Am I an "anti" or a gun hater? Certainly not. I own eight guns - three high powered rifles, three shotguns and two .22's. I hunt every year. I believe that every gun owner has a duty of safety to society. I am vigorously opposed to any notion of gun confiscation. But anything can become too much of a good thing. The United States has a gun problem. Canada does not. In Canada we do not have too much gun control now that the national gun registry is closed. In fact I think the entire registry issue was a wake-up call for our governments - it showed them that Canadians would rebel if pushed too far.
" Am I an "anti" or a gun hater? Certainly not. I own eight guns - three high powered rifles, three shotguns and two .22's. I hunt every year. I believe that every gun owner has a duty of safety to society. I am vigorously opposed to any notion of gun confiscation. But anything can become too much of a good thing. The United States has a gun problem. Canada does not. In Canada we do not have too much gun control now that the national gun registry is closed. In fact I think the entire registry issue was a wake-up call for our governments - it showed them that Canadians would rebel if pushed too far."
What makes you think that closing the registry changes anything other than a few fools minds? The entire "gun control" agenda is working just fine for lemmings, figure it out.
What makes you think that closing the registry changes anything other than a few fools minds? The entire "gun control" agenda is working just fine for lemmings, figure it out.
tober makes some good points, it's not an all or nothing scenario. We regulate all sorts of things that have various degrees of risk, it's naive to think that guns won't come under this kind of socially responsible control.
It is all or nothing to those who long to control all weapons, including minds. You cannot fight progressives by joining their agenda.
Not to people who aren't fanatical about gun control one way or the other. We regulate things that can harm people in society, why should firearms be sacrosanct?
Because firearms do no harm.....I have never heard of a gun loading itself, stalking some poor individual, and shooting him.
People cause the harm.
Which is why I have no problem with licensing, and a huge problem with gun control.
.............but it does mean prohibition to gun controlers. Wendy Cukier will claim to Canadians she is not after your guns, while vocally supporting the referendum on a complete ban in Brazil.
If guns were inherently safe, they'd be useless........and the quote was a joke.
Correct. I researched it, and Freud did NOT say it. Kudos to you on this one.
Respectful of others is not necessarily fear, although it might be inspired by wariness of consequences. Neither is it subservience.
No. He means, and he is correct, that dangerous men kill (rightly or wrongly) regardless of their possession of weapons.
Not this time...
Yeah, he did say it.Here's another for you......
True...but if they survive, they are prevented weapons for defense, and must depend on the all-powerful restraining order.
But keeping weapons for the purpose of defending yourself is illegal in Canada..........try listing "self-defense" as a reason on your PAL application....
And that power in the hands of the people is the essence of democracy.....the vote is merely a symptom.
Perhaps you could do two things to further the discussion....
1. Read the original OP.....wayyyy back there.
And
2. Express your own idea of a perfect gun control regimen.
How do you differentiate between the two? Licensing is part of control IMO, is it not?
So what? There will always be those who disagree.
Oh well. We're playing with semantics. If you are only polite because others are armed it reeks of fear. I'd rather live among people who are not afraid to tell me to FO than among people who are afraid to say it because people are armed.
Not always. This statement contains too many undefined terms. Germs kill too but there is a world of difference between healthy and unhealthy environments. The above statement invites extreme comparisons. No thanks.
So? We are not and do not want to be the US. The state has a monopoly on the legal use of force in terms of legal and sociological definition. There is room for a world of difference and definitions within legal and social definitions, all valid. Let's go there.
Register as a sportsman and you will get your license. It beats registering as a vigilante. The difference is significant.
We'll have to disagree. Your position sounds like US republicanism - tending towards extremism. I don't always agree with the Canadian result but I'd rather be Canadian than Yank. Americans have lost too many of their freedoms. No culture is perfect but America has become the 21st Century fascist, IMO.
Already did that and answered it. Your example is sociologically invalid IMO. The question of comparing the two nations is huge and complex. It cannot be adequately reduced to the example given in the OP.
Define perfection? Sounds like a tough order. Tell me what you disagree with for discussion's sake if you wish?
That's ridiculous.
A car parked in a garage doesn't do any harm, but if it's handled irresponsibly it can cause serious injury or death. The same with aircraft or drugs or food or many other things.
We regulate the risk factors in society for a greater good and that includes firearms. There's nothing morally intrinsic in a .308 or 30-30. Just having a gun doesn't make you a hero and some people shouldn't have guns, like the mentally ill and violent felons. And it's a good thing to know if they do, that was one of the benefits of the longarm registry that the police did use.
This blind trust in ideology that some people seem to have is just that...blind.
Firearms are like any other aspect of society, they need to be regulated to provide the greatest benefit with the least harm. I think Canada does a better job at this than the US because we're not as ideologically driven as the Americans are on this.
They're still regulated, if you get stopped with an illegal knife you can be charged.
They're looking at doing away with them altogether here.
Knife ban slammed | Edmonton | News | Edmonton Sun
But a knife, a rock and even a slingshot doesn't give you the range, fire power and volume and accuracy of a firearm. They are clearly dangerous, one semi-auto handgun can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds, giving people little chance to get away.
I'm inclined to agree .
first of all:
The rural murder rate is HIGHER in the Rural Prairies than in the Prairie urban areas for a lot of complex social reasons. ( I grew up there).
Gun control became a 'government industry' in Canada, centered in that lovely island province of Bureaucracy, PEI. My late father, in his high eighties, received REGISTERED letters from the Long Gun registry demanding that he appear in person with my mom, as they had not received the confirmation reply letters from her, as to her well being living with a 'gun owner'- or surrender his hunting weapons.
we wrote back with a copy of her death certificate( from natural causes). Welcome to the 'nutty Natttering nannies, Colpy
I blundered into my post replying to the OP and thought I'd copy it here in response to your question. Here 'tis:
This post comes closer to the nub of theissue than the OP. The OP's comparison is unrealistic. American culture isinherently violent. Canada's is not. As to the issue that guns don't kill, thattoo is a cute, unrealistic play-on-words. It is the equivalent of saying thatbooze doesn't get people drunk, people get people drunk.
The Liberal gun bill was a bull**** property grab by elitist politicians andproduced something that I had not seen in Canada before - mass civildisobedience. I am glad we disobeyed. We should have. OTOH should we have zerolaws regulating guns? I used to think so but not any more. We regulate drivingmotor vehicles, so not regulating firearms makes no sense. The devil is in thedetails. America has mass amounts of gun laws, but because it is an inherentlyviolent culture it also has a gun problem. Canada is not inherently violent anddoes not have a gun problem. We don't need a lot of gun regulation, especiallynot US type. However basic public safety rules don't necessarily offend me.
What offends me is the twisting and misleading police chiefs did on the gunregistry. They told us that the gun registry must have been necessary becauseit was used so much. They don't say it was used so much because policeprocedure required it to be used even when no evidence suggested that it wasnecessary. Police chiefs must recognize that they are not elected leaders. Theyshould not speak up from their official positions and attempt to influencepolitical debate. We each get one vote plus are permitted to take privatepolitical positions. I don't want my cops using my tax dollars to tellpoliticians what laws to make. That is how police states work.
All IMO, of course.
Care to respond?
The long gun registry got completely hijacked, there's no question of that. It went from the $2 million dollar limited system that Allan Rock announced originally to a multi-billion dollar behemoth that was out of any real control. It might have been workable if it had stayed within realistic limits.
Is Winterpeg considered prairie? If it is, its rate of over 4 per 100,000 is greater than the rural rate.
I thought they taught EVERYONE in school, Canada has 3 prairie provinces- Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and they also taught us Winnipeg is in Manitoba, hence Winnipeg considered prairie. Logic 101 for the day!
