Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[EagleSmack]

The thread topic is gun control is completely useless, the facts would seem to indicate otherwise.

You need to look at the intent behind gun ownership how widespread it is and the effects to determine how effective gun control might be. Clearly if guns are being used for illegal activities that have a damaging effect on a society as a whole and a devastating effect on individuals then there's a strong argument for gun control in the interests of collective and individual rights. If giving someone uncontrolled access to firearms takes away from the rights of others then is that fair?

So disarm the legal gun owners and the illegal gun users will be disarmed automatically?

No Cobalt... what you will do is create a bigger black market for the criminals wanting and needing guns to conduct crimes. The world will gladly fill that need.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

If you are assuming that's what he was saying and asked the question rhetorically, it's a non-sequitur.

I was asking if that's what he was saying, you're making an invalid assumption if you're stating otherwise.

So why rant at a small portion of the population doing a much smaller amount of damage then? I think you just single out firearms related issue because you hate them and think everyone else should hate them, too.

I don't hate firearms, I don't own any anymore because I don't hunt now, but I'm not opposed to ownership for valid reasons. I am opposed to people who think they have some inherent right to use them for maintaining of what they see as their interests when that may conflict with mine. If you own guns for hunting or protection against wildlife, if you're a forester, miner or some other profession then fine. If you have guns because you need them to feel psychologically secure then get help, don't put my life in jeopardy by introducing such dangerous tools into widespread ownership.

Is it? You don't think the good people who opposed the registration had ANY other reason for not registering?

You mean besides the massive political grandstand it's been turned into? This is such a non issue for most Canadians, but it's a hot button topic for the core conservative membership.

So?

So I don't fear gun violence here the same way I did in the US. In the small city I lived in I could often hear gunfire, usually people out in the their backyards doing target practice. Drive any of the smaller roads out of town and most signs were riddled with bullets, responsible gun use is an ideal the reality is much different. I prefer to live in a place where there is less ongoing violence even if it isn't directly targeted at people.

The gun culture is based on violence no matter what supporters of little or no gun control may claim. Guns may prevent crime in some limited conditions but overall they raise the level of deadly violence possible. One individual can have a devastating and lasting effect on thousands and even millions through the trauma they cause.

 

[EagleSmack]

Irrational fear mongering by the left.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Don't believe all you hear about plastic weapons being printed, how well they work or how long they last. Time to do some learning about ballistics, pressures etc instead of BS.

These aren't high quality weapons that are going to be used for years, they're limited lifetime fairly capable weapons. And as the technology improves as it is constantly with information technology then so will the capability of printable weapons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/26/gun-enthusiast-prints-weapon_n_1705523.html

The man, named "HaveBlue" on the website, where he is listed as coming from Wisconsin, built the gun and assembled it, before firing more than 200 rounds.

He then posted the design of the gun part on a publicly available website for 3D objects.

He also tried to build a rifle with the part, but said that "feed and extraction issues" meant he wasn't able to make it work.

"No, it did not blow up into a bazillion tiny plastic shards and maim me for life," the man told the AR15 forum.

The guns work and as the technology matures they will get more capable.

Many places have tried to do just that and failed. It'd probably be just as easy to control the idiots who want to use guns wrongly.

Sure places have tried it, but it's a doomed effort if there is effective ways to circumvent efforts. Look at Chicago as an example, guns have been banned there for years, but you just have to drive out to the many gun dealerships on the city boundary and pick up a weapon. Guns also cross international boundaries, many of the guns used for crime in Canada and Mexico came from the US.

With a few backyard items and a couple tools, one can build a gun (or a cannon if they wish) in their garage. So what?

Unless you're name is Williams, Thompson or Garand the weapons you build in your backyard are probably going to be quite primitive and possibly as much of a danger to you as any target. People can- and often do make their own distilled liquor- that doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

 

[L Gilbert]

I was asking if that's what he was saying, you're making an invalid assumption if you're stating otherwise.

It obviously wasn't an assumption. It was a statement saying that IF you <something something>, then it is a non-sequitur.

I don't hate firearms, I don't own any anymore because I don't hunt now, but I'm not opposed to ownership for valid reasons. I am opposed to people who think they have some inherent right to use them for maintaining of what they see as their interests when that may conflict with mine. If you own guns for hunting or protection against wildlife, if you're a forester, miner or some other profession then fine. If you have guns because you need them to feel psychologically secure then get help, don't put my life in jeopardy by introducing such dangerous tools into widespread ownership.

Well then who are you ranting at here then? Because I don't see anyone here that would use a firearm for illegal purposes.

You mean besides the massive political grandstand it's been turned into?

Yes. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability could see that the Gilberal reactionary reply to the Polytechnique shootings was the Registry and the lame excuses for the Registry was just so much horsesh|t in a wheelbarrow and it would have exactly no effect on criminal usage of guns like they claimed it would.

This is such a non issue for most Canadians, but it's a hot button topic for the core conservative membership.

Yeah, a $2 billion pile of horsesh|t should be a non-issue alright.

So I don't fear gun violence here the same way I did in the US. In the small city I lived in I could often hear gunfire, usually people out in the their backyards doing target practice. Drive any of the smaller roads out of town and most signs were riddled with bullets, responsible gun use is an ideal the reality is much different. I prefer to live in a place where there is less ongoing violence even if it isn't directly targeted at people.

Been there, saw it, saw it here, too.

The gun culture is based on violence no matter what supporters of little or no gun control may claim. Guns may prevent crime in some limited conditions but overall they raise the level of deadly violence possible. One individual can have a devastating and lasting effect on thousands and even millions through the trauma they cause.

Rationalization. Human nature is based upon violence.

Sure places have tried it, but it's a doomed effort if there is effective ways to circumvent efforts. Look at Chicago as an example, guns have been banned there for years, but you just have to drive out to the many gun dealerships on the city boundary and pick up a weapon. Guns also cross international boundaries, many of the guns used for crime in Canada and Mexico came from the US.

It's a doomed effort anyway. People who want to kill, will kill.

Unless you're name is Williams, Thompson or Garand the weapons you build in your backyard are probably going to be quite primitive and possibly as much of a danger to you as any target.

Uh, sorry. I am a pretty good machinist and I know quite a bit about firearms and things that go "boom". But a basic firearm is a primitive thing to begin with. It doesn't have to be fancy and complicated to work well.

People can- and often do make their own distilled liquor- that doesn't mean it should be unregulated.

No argument there. But then there's reasonable regulation and there's ridiculous regulation.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

It obviously wasn't an assumption. It was a statement saying that IF you <something something>, then it is a non-sequitur.

I've already stated it was a question, believe whatever you want.

Well then who are you ranting at here then? Because I don't see anyone here that would use a firearm for illegal purposes.

I'm discussing the issue, you seem more interested on commenting on my intentions. I don't see anyone here at all, determining what people will and won't do based on limited contact online seems quite problematic to me.

Yes. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability could see that the Gilberal reactionary reply to the Polytechnique shootings was the Registry and the lame excuses for the Registry was just so much horsesh|t in a wheelbarrow and it would have exactly no effect on criminal usage of guns like they claimed it would. Yeah, a $2 billion pile of horsesh|t should be a non-issue alright.

Been there, saw it, saw it here, too.

Sure there was a political element to respond to the shooting by creating more control, but it was something that many supported, democratic leadership should include responding to popular desires when appropriate. That's a question outside of the mess the Liberals did turn the Registry into. And it's no excuse for the conservatives to do the same going the other way.

Rationalization. Human nature is based upon violence.

Violence is one element of human nature, there are many others. By emphasizing it we leave less room for other more positive influences to be displayed. It's easy to claim we're all in danger and we'll all be safe when can all own a gun but how honest or accurate is that really. Most gun owners I've known have been very human and some have been very irresponsible about gun safety, there should be some baseline gun control just to provide basic protections, the same way we do in many other areas.

It's a doomed effort anyway. People who want to kill, will kill.

A very limited number of people are like that, allowing them such an efficient means in acting out violently amplifies their violence by many times. People are going to be violent in the wrong kind of situation, that's almost certainly a given, in a responsible society the best policy is to limit the possible damage as much as possible. allowing widespread ownership of certain classes of weapons is going to result in tragedy, the amazing thing is we still treat it as news.

Uh, sorry. I am a pretty good machinist and I know quite a bit about firearms and things that go "boom". But a basic firearm is a primitive thing to begin with. It doesn't have to be fancy and complicated to work well.No argument there. But then there's reasonable regulation and there's ridiculous regulation.

I've shot a lot of guns, but I haven't made one. My cousin is a hunter and machinist and made his own rifle which is pretty straightforward, but beyond a lot of people without the equipment or skill. I think people who'd go to the effort of making their own weapons are probably of the sort who would use them responsibly, but that's an assumption. The weapons that concern me are the large capacity, high rate of fire weapons that can be used to do so much damage in such a short space of time. It would be harder to build a Mac-10 for instance than a black powder rifle.

 

[Colpy]

So basically you're saying that by having so many guns and owners out there it calms people down, and that if they didn't exist we'd all be killing each other with knives, broken bottles and garrotes? I think effective social and policing efforts are a much better way to deal with violence inside a society than allowing vigilantism.

Gun ownership may result in some people acting more responsibly, but it also puts a highly efficient means of killing people in the hands of individuals who in many cases aren't capable of being responsible.

We regulate health care, medications, vehicles, food safety, construction and many other aspects of modern life and that somehow isn't necessary for tools that are so dangerous in the wrong hands?

People should be required to prove they're capable of understanding the responsibility of gun ownership before they're allowed to own and use guns, that should include gun safety courses and licencing just as we have in many other areas. This is a common welfare issue as much as an individual rights one.

First of all, yes, people kill without guns. Much more often than they kill with guns. There are countries out there with VERY tough gun laws, and murder rates many time that in the USA.

BTW, self-defense is NOT "vigilantism".

Such faith in the people!! Actually, the vast majority of people are decent, and very much "capable of being responsible" and should not be punished or restricted due to the actions of a tiny minority, all of whom can get guns illegally anyway.

The gov't of Canada has put too much regulation in most of our lives, including gun control. There is a point of diminishing returns, reached many years ago with Canadian gun control. Time to back it off.

I have no problem with safety courses (I used to teach the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, I quit when they decided none of us were competent to teach handguns, in a blatant attempt to make that course impossible to get....), nor do I have a problem with licensing after a background check.

 

[L Gilbert]

I've already stated it was a question, believe whatever you want.

A pointed question can be as much of a statement as a regular statement. But I wasn't suggesting I "believe anything"; just pointing out the apparent non-sequitur.

I'm discussing the issue,

In a limited fashion, I suppose you are.

you seem more interested on commenting on my intentions.

Not really. I simply made an observation because you apparently don't seem to think anyone else has a valid point here, or at least not as valid as your points.

I don't see anyone here at all,determining what people will and won't do based on limited contact online seems quite problematic to me.

Really? You're going to pretend you don't know what I meant? Has anyone here given you reason to think they would use firearms in a criminal manner?

Sure there was a political element to respond to the shooting by creating more control, but it was something that many supported, democratic leadership should include responding to popular desires when appropriate. That's a question outside of the mess the Liberals did turn the Registry into. And it's no excuse for the conservatives to do the same going the other way.

Irrelevant to the point I made. You said, "Registration is something that people who are interested in covert and possibly illegal activity would be opposed to." I asked if that was the only reason you could think of why people would oppose the Registration. Haven't got a clear answer back yet. I can think of several reasons, both political and non-political. And I have no doubt there still are good people out there that have essentially become criminals because of the Gliberals moronic Registration.

Violence is one element of human nature, there are many others.

So?

By emphasizing it we leave less room for other more positive influences to be displayed.

Yet you focus on making comments in a thread about guns. What other discussion of aspects of human nature did you expect to encounter when you started commenting in this thread?

It's easy to claim we're all in danger and we'll all be safe when can all own a gun but how honest or accurate is that really. Most gun owners I've known have been very human and some have been very irresponsible about gun safety, there should be some baseline gun control just to provide basic protections, the same we do in many other areas.

There are and have been controls laid out for decades.

A very limited number of people are like that,

I'd say anyone with average intelligence with enough ambition could research about building a firearm and do it quite easily. Most people don't have the ambition to do that, though.

allowing them such an efficient means in acting out violently amplifies their violence by many times.

Baloney. I am a non-violent person by nature and my tendency to do violence is NOT increased by my ownership of firearms. In fact, if I do become violent I prefer using my bare hands anyway.

People are going to be violent in the wrong kind of situation, that's almost certainly a given, in a responsible society the best policy is to limit the possible damage as much as possible. allowing widespread ownership of certain classes of weapons is going to result in tragedy, the amazing thing is we still treat it as news.

More firearms per capita in Switzerland than there is in Canada by a wide margin, yet there's less violence. Why is that?

I've shot a lot of guns, but I haven't made one. My cousin is a hunter and machinist and made his own rifle which is pretty straightforward, but beyond a lot of people without the equipment or skill. I think people who'd go to the effort of making their own weapons are probably of the sort who would use them responsibly, but that's an assumption. The weapons that concern me are the large capacity, high rate of fire weapons that can be used to do so much damage in such a short space of time. It would be harder to build a Mac-10 for instance than a black powder rifle.

How many Mac 10s do you think are loose in Canada?

 

[skookumchuck]

So Cobalt, would you like to see a person who was very angry and upset take off down the street with a firearm? Of course not, they can get into 3000 lbs of vehicle though, you see, they have a license.
Now you can check the number of deaths by vehicle as opposed to the number by firearms on a daily basis. Oops better check physicians death rate also, they are also licensed. Look through the Huff post it will keep you informed about what the citiots want. Stop putting the BS on anyone who does not live on your block.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

First of all, yes, people kill without guns. Much more often than they kill with guns. There are countries out there with VERY tough gun laws, and murder rates many time that in the USA.

BTW, self-defense is NOT "vigilantism".

Such faith in the people!! Actually, the vast majority of people are decent, and very much "capable of being responsible" and should not be punished or restricted due to the actions of a tiny minority, all of whom can get guns illegally anyway.

The gov't of Canada has put too much regulation in most of our lives, including gun control. There is a point of diminishing returns, reached many years ago with Canadian gun control. Time to back it off.

I have no problem with safety courses (I used to teach the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, I quit when they decided none of us were competent to teach handguns, in a blatant attempt to make that course impossible to get....), nor do I have a problem with licensing after a background check.

It's a complex issue, I just got a bunch of books out of the library to do a little research, both pro and anti gun control. The history is interesting and less straightforward than I realized, gun control started early in the US.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

"You know my position on arming morons, Ollie. You arm one, you gotta arm 'em all. Otherwise it isn't good sport."
--Judge Flatt, Nobody's Fool

 

[Walter]

Smart guy. No wonder the TX economy is doing so well.

Texas governor to Connecticut gun maker: "Come on down"

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

So Cobalt, would you like to see a person who was very angry and upset take off down the street with a firearm? Of course not, they can get into 3000 lbs of vehicle though, you see, they have a license.

How is that relevant to the discussion, just because someone has access to deadly force in one area shouldn't set the standard. If we can reduce the overall level of violence in society and the desire is to do so then why not control deadly weapons?

Now you can check the number of deaths by vehicle as opposed to the number by firearms on a daily basis. Oops better check physicians death rate also, they are also licensed.

Most people don't use firearms as a part of their everyday life, they do with vehicles. They also rely on physicians.

 

[skookumchuck]

"How is that relevant to the discussion, just because someone has access to deadly force in one area shouldn't set the standard. If we can reduce the overall level of violence in society and the desire is to do so then why not control deadly weapons?"


Since you are unable to recognize your own lack of understanding i must leave the discussion.

 

[JamesBondo]

Colbalt Kid, murder requires both opportunity and desire. You've had thousands of opportunities to kill someone either by firearm, car, golf club, knives, clubs, poison, etc. But, you haven't killed anyone because you don't have the desire to kill.

It is simply not possible to get rid of all firearms, and all opportunity to kill. If someone is deemed to have the desire to kill, you need to look at alternative solutions like imprisonment or 24/7 supervision( ie mental ward, etc)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Colbalt Kid, murder requires both opportunity and desire. You've had thousands of opportunities to kill someone either by firearm, car, golf club, knives, clubs, poison, etc. But, you haven't killed anyone because you don't have the desire to kill.

It is simply not possible to get rid of all firearms, and all opportunity to kill. If someone is deemed to have the desire to kill, you need to look at alternative solutions like imprisonment or 24/7 supervision( ie mental ward, etc)

It is, however, possible to make it harder to kill.

Not that I approve of that, mind. Just that it's a fact you have to deal with.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I don't hate firearms, I don't own any anymore because I don't hunt now, but I'm not opposed to ownership for valid reasons. I am opposed to people who think they have some inherent right to use them for maintaining of what they see as their interests when that may conflict with mine. If you own guns for hunting or protection against wildlife, if you're a forester, miner or some other profession then fine. If you have guns because you need them to feel psychologically secure then get help, don't put my life in jeopardy by introducing such dangerous tools into widespread ownership.

The inherent right to own and keep arms for defense of self and of the realm, has been affirmed and re-affirmed by British monarchs since the 13th century. I am curious as to what devine right you may have to detemine what is considered a valid reason for someone to own arms. NZ doesn't consider self defense a valid reason, but defense of livestock is valid, that is morally f*cked up. How does someone's ownership of arms, "because you [sic] need them to feel psychologically secure" differ from your wish to disarm them so you can feel psychologically secure?

The gun culture is based on violence no matter what supporters of little or no gun control may claim. Guns may prevent crime in some limited conditions but overall they raise the level of deadly violence possible. One individual can have a devastating and lasting effect on thousands and even millions through the trauma they cause.

Violence is a human trait, always has been, always will be, and there has always been one individual, ( but it was one after another after another) who has caused a devestating and lasting effect on thousands and millions, but they were the ones who disarmed the populace leaving them for the slaughter. I shouldn't need name them, there are many, and many more to follow.

 

[JamesBondo]

It is, however, possible to make it harder to kill.

Not that I approve of that, mind. Just that it's a fact you have to deal with.

I'm not convinced that is a reasonable conclusion.

Did prohibition make it harder to get alcohol?

Does the war on drugs make it harder to get drugs?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm not convinced that is a reasonable conclusion.

Did prohibition make it harder to get alcohol?

It's harder to manufacture a gun than to make bathtub gin.

Does the war on drugs make it harder to get drugs?

Yes, it does.

In China, the day before the Newtown massacre, a deranged man attacked a class of six-year-olds and their teachers. He used a knife, presumably because he couldn't get a gun. Twenty-three were wounded.

All survived.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not everyone who gets shot dies either.
Also, making booze requires more time, equipment, and materials.