Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada
Hey, this is fun!
FuzzyLogic wrote
1. Re: Man' s fascination with guns. You are correct, Colpy. The history of the world revolves around man's use of weapons. The fascination of weapons is linked to the power it gives the holder. The Dawson killer had weapons as a means of holding power and thereby having self esteem in a world in which he sadly felt inferior and ostracized. Time after time after time, the same story emerges.... the killer had a fascination with guns and had ready access to them.
Did I ever point out to you that the development of firearms and democracies go hand in hand? That's because ancient weapons required the user devote his life to the mastery and maintenance of skill with them, and he used them to dominate the peasant population. But the basics of firearms are easily mastered with a minimum of effort, and once in the hands of the people, well......it is no coincidence that the first battle of the first successful peoples' revolution was fought when the British went into the countryside to seize the guns of the Americans......as Mao Tse Tung said....."political power comes out of the barrel of a rifle"......but some people want to leave all that power in the hands of our political masters.....and yeah, stuff like Dawson happens, but it is an aberation and completely unpreventable.
2. The gun registry should have been a very simple affair. It became a financial and bureaucratic nightmare because of the immense resistance and lobbying against it. The law should be clear. Only certain guns will be allowed and you have to register them. Should a machine gun be confisgated from a 25 year old? You bet. Call it infringement of your rights if you want. I call it common sense.
Gun owners like to use the cost of the registry as proof of its stupidity. It would not have cost this if the gun owners cooperated. But why wouldnt they cooperate? They dont want to lose their automatic assault weapons that everyone can see are not used for hunting. They dont want to have to pay a small fee for the use of their weapons, even though dog owners pay more. They dont want to end up responsible for the use of their weapon in a crime or in an accidental death.
Sorry, but this is sheer baloney. It is so obvious you haven't dealt with this bureaucracy very much, if at all. At the Justice Committee meetings looking into Bill C-68, the gov't was told by the shooting public that it costs between 90 and 130 dollars to register one firearm in the old system, for handguns and we asked them to do the math. They wouldn't. We didn't cause that., that is just the way it is.
Remember the Auditor General slapped down the registry, and one of the reasons she gave for massive over-runs was the anti-gun attitude of the people who ran it. i.e. they try to screw US at every opportunity.
A huge part of the cost has been a $250 million dollar computer system that STILL DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY!" How did gun owners cause THAT!
Oh, the tales I could tell you........about a friend who sent in registrations for all his guns, and didn't get 4 cards back, so he called. He wanted to give them the serial numbers to see if they got registered, and they told him that would be a waste of time, as THEY COULD NOT TRACK WHAT WAS REGISTERED OR NOT JUST BY THE SERIAL NUMBER!
They sent me sticky ID numbers for my guns that were old enough they had none........they just fell off. I threw them out.
The old system was so screwed it could not be used as evidence in court, and there is no indication this one is any better. It is useless.
3. Yup, a big majority of gun death are suicides. Now, some suicides are definitive and planned, in that the person really HAS decided to die, and will commit suicide whether they can find a gun or not. However, many suicides are impulsive, and sadly in these cases, access to a gun has ended in tragedy, whereas individuals who didnt have access to a gun often have a more reversible attempt and are saved.
Since the beginning of the serious harassment of gun owners back in about 1980, the number of owners in this country has crashed, as has access to firearms. Now look at the suicide rates.......they have NOT crashed, they have gone up. So much for that argument.
As well as the fact I really dislike being held responsible for anyone silly enough to put a gun in their mouth and try to pull the trigger twice, AND I bet most of you folks are all FOR the "right to die" movement, as long as it is government approved.
As for accidental death, Colpy- what number of accidental gun deaths especially in children, is acceptable? Or will it take your grandchild getting hold of one of your guns to make you say, :NO CHILD SHOULD BE ACCIDENTALLY KILLED BY A GUN.
No gun deaths are "acceptable", same as no drowning deaths, no trip and fall deaths, etc. The point is you can't make life safe.....it isn't. And the attempt to make life perfectly safe increasingly enrioaches on our freedom......that is a mistake.
And what is an illegal gun? One stolen from someone who had it legally? A shotgun bought from Canadian Tire and sawn off? How many of the guns used criminally were bought LEGALLY?
Illegal Guns......guns smuggled in from elsewhere, this is probably the largest portion of the handguns that are most often used in gang murders etc. Guns stolen from legitimate owners. I can list you three cases where multiple guns were stolen from POLICE agencies.Guns simply not registered.
4. Do not try to evade the issue by comparing gun death rates to cancer rates or motor vehicle accident rates or rates of people falling off mountains. That is so pathetic.
Why not? It is simply a way of putting things in perspective. If you say 1200 people die a year from misuse of guns, that sounds a horrific figure. Even if I cut it down by pointing out that most of those are suicides, it still sounds large, because people have trouble comprehending the fact that is in a population of 35 MILLION! A VERY small risk factor. When I point out that there are 35 times that number that die from SMOKING, it puts it into perspective.
Are you suggesting as an analogy, that we should not spend money on research of childhood cancers because the rate of adult cancers is so much higher? That is crap reasoning. Why is it the main reasoning of all you gun toters?Note Zzarchov uses this reasoning too
Simple. There are limited resources available in society, believe it or not. Those resources should be directed to the places they are needed most. Gun control is NOT one of them.
5. Yup. The cost of gun injuries is huge. Not just in medical expenses. Not just in economic loss of the victim's livelihood. Not just in the police investigations required. Not just in the loss of learning capacity of students shot at in school or the psychologists hired to repair damage. Not even just the cost of sanitary cleanup of the blood.
But of course, you are correct. If we counter those costs against the profits made by gun makers, then it is a piss in the ocean.
Dealt with this and the $6 Billion number. It is bullshit. Pure and simple.
6. Your argument against you registering your guns is "Why should I" For the same reason you have to register a car and a dog and a boat. Why arent you out campaigning that you should have a car without it being registered. Because you want to be able to find out which pig smashed up your car or hit your kid.
Gee, you can get ten years in prison for failing to register your DOG! I didn't know. AND, BTW, you only have to register your car if you drive on public roads, it is a TAX. Tell you what, I won't register my guns, and I promise I won't use them on the public roadways.
And nobody has ever used registration lists of cars, boats, or dogs to go around and seize them without compensation. They have done that to gun owners REPEATEDLY!
Gun owners should be responsible for their guns. They should be liable if a gun is used accidentally.
If I steal your car and run down a kid, or kill someone as the result of a high speed chase, are YOU responsible? You have to be FAIR in these things.
They should be under the rules of cars re drinking. No alcohol and guns. It should be that if you have a hunting accident and you have been drinking, you are convicted of a criminal offence.
This is already part of the law in Canada.
But as long as we have idiots like Dick Cheney who are avidly campaigning against gun control, we wont see this. Sure, it is OK for the vice president to drink and then shoot his buddy. This is such crap.
Was Cheney drunk?
Didn't think so, he had a glass or two at dinner, and would have been fully capable of driving. Accidents happen, and Cheney was foolish, but this is overblown. BTW, ever read the US Bill of Rights? If you want to talk about gun control in the USA, it is a necessary prerequisite.
I know you wont let go of your phallic symbols, Colpy. You obviously have the type of personality that requires the ego boost of holding that slick piece of metal in your hands, caressing it like a woman's tit, salivating at the power. Do you have a pit bull too?
Nope.....hate the things. They are uncontrolable. People who have them for security should buy a gun instead, and use it first to shoot the damn dog.
As for the rest of it, if you knew me in the slightest, you would know how ridiculous that attack is.
May you never see the power of the weapons you hold misused. May you never come home to find your kid with your granddaddy's sweet antique stuffed into his mouth with his head blown off. Good luck to you.
Already raised my kids, thank you. Safely.
