There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
Civilian access to guns isn't just a chance to fight. It's also a sign. If the government can take your guns, they can take anything else. Therefore, civilian gun ownership is a sign that there are still limits to government hegemony.
If the government wants to take your guns, it means they don't trust you. Give away your rights and privileges, and you will suffer far worse.
 

Musicman

Electoral Member
Aug 7, 2005
220
0
16
jjw1965 said:
Civilian access to guns isn't just a chance to fight. It's also a sign. If the government can take your guns, they can take anything else. Therefore, civilian gun ownership is a sign that there are still limits to government hegemony.
If the government wants to take your guns, it means they don't trust you. Give away your rights and privileges, and you will suffer far worse.

Agreed. The government has already taken away too many things, and I am tired of the government, especially the feds, telling me what a "Canadian wants" or what "Canadian values" are. I can make up my own mind, and don't need some dolt from somewhere else telling me how to think.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Vanni Fucci said:
Never before in my life have I wished as many people to suffer excruciating and debilitating gunshot wounds, as I have after reading this thread...feckin' rednecks... :x


tsk tsk ... a might touchy I see ...
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Musicman said:
jjw1965 said:
Civilian access to guns isn't just a chance to fight. It's also a sign. If the government can take your guns, they can take anything else. Therefore, civilian gun ownership is a sign that there are still limits to government hegemony.
If the government wants to take your guns, it means they don't trust you. Give away your rights and privileges, and you will suffer far worse.

Agreed. The government has already taken away too many things, and I am tired of the government, especially the feds, telling me what a "Canadian wants" or what "Canadian values" are. I can make up my own mind, and don't need some dolt from somewhere else telling me how to think.

You're forgetting that the gov't is people that YOU elected to do what YOU want.....So if YOU don't like what the gov't is doing, then YOU need to vote differently.
 

Haggis McBagpipe

Walks on Forum Water
Jun 11, 2004
5,085
7
38
Victoria, B.C.
Re: RE: There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto

Nascar_James said:
Criminals would get discouraged knowing that if they pull out a firearm for criminal intent, another citizen who is also packing is likley to shoot. So long criminal!

You mean the way it works so incredibly well in the U.S.? :lol: Too funny.

As soon as Canadians start touting the NRA line of, "It isn't fair for all the baddies to have guns and the good guys not to have them too." they are heading down the same treacherous, violent and unwinnable road as the Americans. Big mistake. Thankfully Canadians are not likely to fall into that 'mind'set, and I do use the term 'mind' loosely.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
TenPenny said:
Musicman said:
jjw1965 said:
Civilian access to guns isn't just a chance to fight. It's also a sign. If the government can take your guns, they can take anything else. Therefore, civilian gun ownership is a sign that there are still limits to government hegemony.
If the government wants to take your guns, it means they don't trust you. Give away your rights and privileges, and you will suffer far worse.

Agreed. The government has already taken away too many things, and I am tired of the government, especially the feds, telling me what a "Canadian wants" or what "Canadian values" are. I can make up my own mind, and don't need some dolt from somewhere else telling me how to think.

You're forgetting that the gov't is people that YOU elected to do what YOU want.....So if YOU don't like what the gov't is doing, then YOU need to vote differently.

Well that would be the problem then though...they are voting for unelectable parties...have fun at the barbecue though... :p
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Vanni Fucci said:
Never before in my life have I wished as many people to suffer excruciating and debilitating gunshot wounds, as I have after reading this thread...feckin' rednecks... :x

Personally, I find it hilarious ... hilarious that they're several thousand miles away, and I don't have to worry about how big or automatic my gun is.

The idea of needing to own a gun in order to feel safe is truly absurd; too idiotic for words. We have extremely strict gun control laws in the UK, and the risk of being shot is Infinitesimally small. You 'do the math'. :roll:
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Hard-Luck Henry said:
Vanni Fucci said:
Never before in my life have I wished as many people to suffer excruciating and debilitating gunshot wounds, as I have after reading this thread...feckin' rednecks... :x

Personally, I find it hilarious ... hilarious that they're several thousand miles away, and I don't have to worry about how big or automatic my gun is.

The idea of needing to own a gun in order to feel safe is truly absurd; too idiotic for words. We have extremely strict gun control laws in the UK, and the risk of being shot is Infinitesimally small. You 'do the math'. :roll:

Hard-Luck Henry, don't forget that gun ownership isn't for the sole purpose of defending oneself. Most of us folks own guns mainly for hobby (indoor target shooting at the shooting gallery). Others have them as a collection. These are all valid reasons to own a firearm.

You are lucky in that you have little or no criminal activity in the UK. Without any guns, you eliminate armed robbery and armed home invasions. Without a gun, there is not much a criminal can do. In some places like Mexico city however, the opposite is true. Armed kiddnappings there is a serious problem. Due to the strict gun control laws in Mexico, the criminals do not have to worry about meeting any armed resistance by the individuals they are kiddnapping. The police there are overwhelmed by these crimes, so the criminals are free to commit their acts as they please.
 

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
You're forgetting that the gov't is people that YOU elected to do what YOU want.....So if YOU don't like what the gov't is doing, then YOU need to vote differently.

How many times have politicians been voted in office on promises they didn't keep? sometimes I wonder if voting means anything at all. how many laws and bills are passed without the consent of the people?
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
You are lucky in that you have little or no criminal activity in the UK.

If only that were so, James; I can assure you, we have plenty of crime over here, but one significant difference is that the absence of firearms means that crime doesn't often end in fatalities. If I get into an argument at the pub, the worst I can expect is to be attacked with a pool cue, or a bottle. No fun at all, but I'd probably wake up eventually. Not so if my assailant can pop out to his car to fetch his pump action rifle. I realise you have a long tradition of gun ownership in the U.S., but the presence of a couple of hundred million freely available firearms clearly makes your society a more dangerous place to live. Sometimes one has to make sacrifices for the common good - leave your guns at the gun club, at least until you're sure the government are coming to get you.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
jjw1965 said:
You're forgetting that the gov't is people that YOU elected to do what YOU want.....So if YOU don't like what the gov't is doing, then YOU need to vote differently.

How many times have politicians been voted in office on promises they didn't keep? sometimes I wonder if voting means anything at all. how many laws and bills are passed without the consent of the people?

EXACTLY!!!

Casting your vote means little within the context of democracy as we know it... :?
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Hard-Luck Henry said:
You are lucky in that you have little or no criminal activity in the UK.

If only that were so, James; I can assure you, we have plenty of crime over here, but one significant difference is that the absence of firearms means that crime doesn't often end in fatalities. If I get into an argument at the pub, the worst I can expect is to be attacked with a pool cue, or a bottle. No fun at all, but I'd probably wake up eventually. Not so if my assailant can pop out to his car to fetch his pump action rifle.

It would be great if we could have only non-gun related crimes here. I personally see non-gun related crimes as a non-issue. Those of us who have training in combat sports like high school wrestling or boxing would very easily be able to stop perpetraitors of a crime commited without a firearm.
 

JomZ

Electoral Member
Aug 18, 2005
273
0
16
Reentering the Fray at CC.net
I have always thought this saying about America. "It was born by the barrel of a gun and it will probably die by it."

I mean people think that owning a gun will keep them safer when its more likely that a family member will be shot either in an armed conflict with an assailant or when a child finds Daddy's gun drawer.

When it comes to criminals having guns its unfortunate, but whats more unfortunate is when an armed robbery of a convenience store degenerating into a gun battle when there are probably other people in the store caught in the crossfire. I know people have a right to defend themselves but there has to be sensibler ways then packing a hand cannon for the outside chance that you might get to play the hero, like on TV.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen...

No such thing, which is the real weakness in the argument.

There are 5 guns in my house: 2 Remington pump action shotguns, a single-shot Winchester shotgun chambered for 3-inch shells, a 1917 vintage Lee Enfield .303, and a single shot Cooey .22. They're all properly registered under Canadian law, properly stored as per the regulations, and I've even gone one better: the firing mechanisms have been removed and stored separately. So even if somebody steals them, they're useless unless they can also find and steal the firing mechanisms. They'd have to pretty much take the house apart to do that, the parts are small and very well hidden. Ammunition is stored in yet a third place. I do that because it ensures it'd take me at least 15 minutes to assemble and load a gun for use, so no matter how drunk or stupid I might get, I won't be able to use one in a crime of passion. I haven't used any of them but the .22 for over 15 years. I don't live in Toronto, for which I'm grateful, or anywhere near it, but the reasons I have for owning those guns would also work legitimately in Toronto.

The .22 is for rats at the lake. Two of the shotguns I own because I used to hunt ducks and geese a lot. They're good to eat. The third shotgun came to me from my father's estate, who owned it for the same reasons I got mine. I've never used it. The .303 is an heirloom, a military-issue weapon carried by one of my grandfathers in World War 1. I've never used it either, and in fact I don't even know if it's safe to use.

Guns for home and personal defense is a completely stupid idea that hurts more people than it helps, a specious claim due mostly to the NRA, which along with the U.S. Supreme Court has done a fine job over the years of distorting the intent of the U.S. Constitution about the right to bear arms. That clause is clearly about maintaining a militia, from the days when the members of such an organization would have had to provide their own weapons. Times have changed.

The only reason you might want a handgun in your car is the knowledge that the guy in that other car you just inadvertently cut off or otherwise somehow managed to severely piss off might have one. If you can be confident he doesn't have one, as you can be in Canada, then you don't need one either.

Hearing from Americans about how personal gun ownership keeps them safe from criminals and bad governments just doesn't wash. One of the highest murder rates in the world, highest rates of violent crime involving guns, a trigger-happy President who thinks it's okay to go shoot up a helpless and sick little country and lie about the reasons for it...

Yeah, U.S. gun laws really work superbly...
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
While no one living on Toronto might have to own a gun,I can certainly understand the wanting to own them[from a collector's point of view!] I'd love to own a pair of 1851 Navy Colts,but,for some reason,the powers that be won't allow it.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Haggis McBagpipe

Walks on Forum Water
Jun 11, 2004
5,085
7
38
Victoria, B.C.
missile said:
I'd love to own a pair of 1851 Navy Colts,but,for some reason,the powers that be won't allow it.

remember my Dad having a German luger... well, I think it was a luger, or something like that, from WW I or WW II, not sure which. Anyway, he was so proud of that thing, would never have used it, he just liked showing it to friends. One day he made the rather foolish mistake of showing it to a cop friend. His friend was very nice about it, but did take the gun away. That was many, many years ago, back in the 60s, haven't thought of it in all this time, not until you mentioned those Navy Colts (whatever they are).