Battle lines drawn over illegal guns

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes killing comes from intent.  But the purpose of some weapons is to kill.  An AK-47 was designed to facilitate killing.  Not hunting, not recreational shooting just killing.  

I think that I would like to know that someone has a .50 cal in his backyard.  And I'd be happy if the authorities knew as well.

The problem is that society is essentially irresponsible.  Take driving.  People still drink and drive.  Most don't intend to kill people when they do, but they do it anyways.

Regulations and laws need to be put in place.  They just have to be effective.  The gun registry is not.

I know of at least one military firearms collector who has a .50...what is the harm? He's never killed anyone with it.

Some people collect swords too - what are they designed to do?

Find one person in Canada that needs an AK-47 as a part of their daily life?

Name one person who "needs" a copy of Maxim Magazine in his house. If it enriches his life and hurts no one, why not?

 

[Remius]

I know of at least one military firearms collector who has a .50...what is the harm? He's never killed anyone with it.

Some people collect swords too - what are they designed to do?

Name one person who "needs" a copy of Maxim Magazine in his house. If it enriches his life and hurts no one, why not?

No harm at all. 

Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.

My argument about needing a car as opposed to an AK-47 was to demonstrate  a point about comparing apples and oranges.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not against gun ownership.  I just don't think it should be a free for all.  We need regulations and rules.  If a guy wants a .50cal and he has the right qualifications and paperwork and is an upstanding citizen.  Then sure why not.  But I think the proper authorities should know about it.  Certain types of weapons should be tracked and regulated. 

Most people don't need a handgun.  Why make it raedily availble?  So you have to take a course and follow a bunch of rules.  Good.  Follow the rules own the gun.  It's that simple.  Now the bureaucracy isn't the most effective.  I don't like the registry.  It's redundant and ineffective.  But I do support the gun laws.  You want a restricted weapon?  Follow the rules.

How many times have you seen an ND before, on a military exercise or on a range?  And some of these people ae supposed to be professionally trained.  Now imagine the same thing with unqualified civies?

I think that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.  A privilege that comes with responsibility and rules.  Unfortunately not everyone is responsible. 

 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it. 

Neither will a firearm if it is safely stored - which we already have laws regarding. 

What you propose is akin to banning cars because people drive drunk - ie don't know how to use them properly or treat them with respect. 

Which is why we have firearms safety courses...the Marc Lepine argument is weak. I see no point to punish thousands if not millions of responsible gun owners because someone might go off the deep end.  The Unabomber didn't need guns to do his dirty work, either.

 

[George Wallace]

Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.

Neither was the weapon (Belt fed) that Marc Lepine used on Mark Lepine Day.  He probably purchased his "look alike" weapon in a Canadian Tire Store.  So your point is moot.

My argument about needing a car as opposed to an AK-47 was to demonstrate  a point about comparing apples and oranges.

Your total argument is apples and oranges......you just aren't looking at it that way.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not against gun ownership.  I just don't think it should be a free for all.  We need regulations and rules.  If a guy wants a .50cal and he has the right qualifications and paperwork and is an upstanding citizen.  Then sure why not.  But I think the proper authorities should know about it.   Certain types of weapons should be tracked and regulated. 

Excuse me, but isn't that the way that all licences were issued in the beginning; before the Liberals came into this mess?  If you were not a licenced Collector, you were not very likely to get a .50 Cal or any other Restricted Weapon.

Most people don't need a handgun.  Why make it raedily availble?  So you have to take a course and follow a bunch of rules.  Good.  Follow the rules own the gun.  It's that simple.  Now the bureaucracy isn't the most effective.  I don't like the registry.  It's redundant and ineffective.  But I do support the gun laws.  You want a restricted weapon?  Follow the rules.

Most people don't want a handgun.  The rules before the Liberal debacle controlled who owned what and where, so we have to ask: what is your point?

How many times have you seen an ND before, on a military exercise or on a range?  And some of these people ae supposed to be professionally trained.  Now imagine the same thing with unqualified civies?

Your point being?  This whole statement is irrelevant.  Accidents do happen.  Have you ever watched the news during hunting season?  Even President Bush has had a ND while out hunting (with a lawyer, no less).  What does this have to do with the topic?

I think that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.  A privilege that comes with responsibility and rules.  Unfortunately not everyone is responsible.  

I am sure we can all agree on that, however, you seem to have appointed yourself "Judge and Jury" over the nation.  Perhaps you ought to re-evaluate your views.

 

[Blue Max]

Even President Bush has had a ND while out hunting (with a lawyer, no less). 

Sorry GW but the hunting accident happened between the VP, Dick Cheney and a high priced Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington. 

Regarding the topic, I believe that anyone that is of sane mind should be allowed to own whatever firearm they can collect as long as they prove they are knowledgeable, responsible and licenced under some system that works (The Liberal solution does not meet this criteria) ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Missed by that much!  ;D

 

[Remius]

Neither was the weapon (Belt fed) that Marc Lepine used on Mark Lepine Day.  He probably purchased his "look alike" weapon in a Canadian Tire Store.  So your point is moot.


Your total argument is apples and oranges......you just aren't looking at it that way.
Excuse me, but isn't that the way that all licences were issued in the beginning; before the Liberals came into this mess?  If you were not a licenced Collector, you were not very likely to get a .50 Cal or any other Restricted Weapon.
Most people don't want a handgun.  The rules before the Liberal debacle controlled who owned what and where, so we have to ask: what is your point?
Your point being?  This whole statement is irrelevant.  Accidents do happen.  Have you ever watched the news during hunting season?  Even President Bush has had a ND while out hunting (with a lawyer, no less).  What does this have to do with the topic?

I am sure we can all agree on that, however, you seem to have appointed yourself "Judge and Jury" over the nation.  Perhaps you ought to re-evaluate your views.

The point was that a gun is not a sword.

The vice president actually had an ND.   All the more reason to have rules governing the safe storage of firearms and courses to own them.    The statement I made is very relevant in that we can't just have a free for all.  Read the whole thread to see what I'm responding to.

Please explain how my total argument is apples and oranges?

Oh, and I'm not being judge and jury over the whole nation.  I just believe that in a society you need rules and regulations otherwise you end up with anarchy.  This applies to guns just as it applies to alcool or cars or street zoning.

 

[KevinB]

*my personal firearms have killed less people than Teddy Kennedy's car

 

[George Wallace]

The point was that a gun is not a sword.

No.  The point you made was that a sword was not belt fed.  The point I made was that the gun that Mark Lepine used was not belt fed either.

To me you are confusing your apples and oranges and throwing in a lot of other fruit too.

 

[Remius]

Neither will a firearm if it is safely stored - which we already have laws regarding. 

What you propose is akin to banning cars because people drive drunk - ie don't know how to use them properly or treat them with respect. 

Which is why we have firearms safety courses...the Marc Lepine argument is weak. I see no point to punish thousands if not millions of responsible gun owners because someone might go off the deep end.  The Unabomber didn't need guns to do his dirty work, either.

Yep.   I agree with most of that.  As I said before I support gun ownership and gun laws.  I never said ban guns.  Just that rules are needed to regulate who can own and operate them.

 

[Old Guy]

Yep -- the government has to have rules to protect the citizens from themselves.

That's how gun registration and eventual confiscation starts.

I'm turning Libertarian, turning Libertarian, I really think so.

Heh.
Jim

 

[Remius]

No.  The point you made was that a sword was not belt fed.  The point I made was that the gun that Mark Lepine used was not belt fed either.

To me you are confusing your apples and oranges and throwing in a lot of other fruit too.

Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.  

I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.

 

[KevinB]

Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.  

I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.

I killed a guy (overseas dont worry I dont do homicidal rampages in Canada or the US) with my hands (and during grappeling we fell over a lip - fortunately I got up).
that was pretty lethal to him...

Lethality or Lack therof is in the mind of the beholder -- ANYTHING can be used to kill with intent -- the MIND is the weapon.
* I view the AK47/AKM/AK74 - damn AK series - as an inefficient killing tool - large amount of explosives work best --
Maybe we should ban Deisel and Amonia Nitrate Fertilizer?

 

[Remius]

I killed a guy (overseas dont worry I dont do homicidal rampages in Canada or the US) with my hands (and during grappeling we fell over a lip - fortunately I got up).
that was pretty lethal to him...

Lethality or Lack therof is in the mind of the beholder -- ANYTHING can be used to kill with intent -- the MIND is the weapon.
* I view the AK47/AKM/AK74 - damn AK series - as an inefficient killing tool - large amount of explosives work best --
Maybe we should ban Deisel and Amonia Nitrate Fertilizer?

Agreed.  The mind is the most lethal weapon.  Hell, a hammer is quite lethal depending on how it is used.  I'll say it again, I have not proposed a ban on firearms.  If you asked someone what could kill more people though, an automatic firearm will outdo a sword any day.  A pistol can be concealed a lot easier than a claymore.  Blah blah, that not the point.  The point is that we need rules.  More effecient rules?  Absolutely.

Don't laugh, there is talk of regulating Nitrate Fertilizer.  Is it going to stop the people that want to use it?  Probably not.

 

[KevinB]

Maybe I should get back to Canada quickly and stock up on my fertilizers  ^-^

Personally if when I have my coup -- I will mandate that all citizens have a C8, and compete in monthly matches.

 

[Remius]

Maybe I should get back to Canada quickly and stock up on my fertilizers  ^-^

Personally if when I have my coup -- I will mandate that all citizens have a C8, and compete in monthly matches.

Hehehe.  Right, for all those "crops".

Will you be paying for those C-8s  ;D

 

[GO!!!]

Agreed.  The mind is the most lethal weapon.  Hell, a hammer is quite lethal depending on how it is used.  I'll say it again, I have not proposed a ban on firearms.  If you asked someone what could kill more people though, an automatic firearm will outdo a sword any day.  A pistol can be concealed a lot easier than a claymore.  Blah blah, that not the point.  The point is that we need rules.  More effecient rules?  Absolutely.

Don't laugh, there is talk of regulating Nitrate Fertilizer.  Is it going to stop the people that want to use it?  Probably not.

I'm just not "feeling" you here.

Poor examples and comparisons aside, your argument that there needs to be even more rules in place to deter gun violence is pretty antiquated, and already disproven. Automatic firearms and handguns are already severely restricted in this country, so much so that they are extremely expensive and difficult to purchase, store and use legally.

Yet gang bangers in TO still have no problem finding a piece to blast away at each other with. Tighter gun control in Canada has already been proven to be ineffective at controlling criminal actions, because, as mentioned, the bad guys don't follow the rules as they pertain to training, purchase, storage or use.

As Michael said, our problem is not too many guns, it is too many criminals. Dispose of the criminally inclined quickly and efficiently, and gun violence (along with all other types of violence) will dissapear. More rules are ineffective unless enforced and backed up with swift and severe punishment.

 

[George Wallace]

[Just a note:  I wasn't fast enough to post this earlier, but seem to see that the same opinions are being put forward by Crantor and counter opinions by others, which don't seem to be getting the proper acknowledgement, so I will post it now.]

Look I don't mind a friendly debate but insulting me isn't going to get you anywhere.  Read the thread.  Someone said that a swords were also designed to kill.  No argumet there except that swords are not guns nor are they as lethal.  

I'd like to keep this civil.  My intent isn't to stir a hornets nest.

Who's insulting you?  You have made a statement.  You then went on to ignore what you said, and say that it is apples and oranges.  I went on to point out what you said, and that you are confusing your apples and oranges with other fruit.  I am of the opinion that your arguments are a little warped and not as accurate as you may think they are.  If you want to look at it as an insult or as stirring up a hornets nest, fine with me; but you are in a discussion forum and as such you will have to take some criticism.

Do you deny that you said this:

Yep, swords are designed to kill as well.  But a sword isn't belt fed and won't accidentally go off if your four year old touches it.  Marc Lepine wasn't wielding a Gladius when he killed those women.

?

That is what I responded to.  I took it to imply that a sword was not belt fed and that Mark Lepine's weapon was not a sword, and was belt fed.  

You are arguing for rules and regulations.  Rules and regulations have been in effect for ages, as has been pointed out to you several times in this topic.  I have to agree with GO!, that you seem to be missing out on this fact.  

Anyway, the conversation has moved on.

 

[Remius]

I'm just not "feeling" you here.

Poor examples and comparisons aside, your argument that there needs to be even more rules in place to deter gun violence is pretty antiquated, and already disproven. Automatic firearms and handguns are already severely restricted in this country, so much so that they are extremely expensive and difficult to purchase, store and use legally.

Yet gang bangers in TO still have no problem finding a piece to blast away at each other with. Tighter gun control in Canada has already been proven to be ineffective at controlling criminal actions, because, as mentioned, the bad guys don't follow the rules as they pertain to training, purchase, storage or use.
 
As Michael said, our problem is not too many guns, it is too many criminals. Dispose of the criminally inclined quickly and efficiently, and gun violence (along with all other types of violence) will dissapear. More rules are ineffective unless enforced and backed up with swift and severe punishment.

I never said more rules.  Just more efficient ones.  And yes the rules in Canada are pretty strict, I'm experiencing it right now as we speak (trying to get my hands on a WW1 pistol).  My entire argument in the last few threads is that we need rules.  Not a free for all.   That's it.

The fact is that gun registration has been around for a while.  The latest incarnation is a failure.  Gun related deaths have steadily declined  since the 70s and more so in the 90s.  There is no proof either way that gun registration has had/not had an impact.  In fact most gun related deaths have been from suicides.

Perhaps I haven't been clear in responding to various statements.  I am not in favour of more rules or banning guns.  We just need more efficient ones.  And that includes punishment for gun related crimes.

 

[George Wallace]

Well.  If you are going through the process of trying to get a WW I pistol, then you know how the rules work and unless you have the proper permits, you will not be able to get that pistol.  Unless you are trying to tell us that you are special and should have that permit and get the pistol?