Idiots with handguns and the idiots who report on them
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
Our constitution is largely based on English common law. Citizens possessing arms dates to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Which is exactly the same place the Americans got their rights from. The difference is, they codified their rights in a superbly written constitution. We did not. Even now, most of our rights are grounded in over 400 years of English common law.
Which is exactly the same place the Americans got their rights from. The difference is, they codified their rights in a superbly written constitution. We did not. Even now, most of our rights are grounded in over 400 years of English common law.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
That is the big problem here. I am not advocating that no citizen be allowed to own firearms. I think fully automatic weapons should be unavailable to the public, which they have been since 1977. Things are pretty fair right now. There has to be compromise. We allow citizens to be armed, but the price is people shooting at police and others. It is a trade off. I was just saying that some types of guns are made for nothing other than killing people and that maybe it is not such a good idea to have these weapons available to anyone other to the police and military. The exampel of the tiger print Desert Eagle was used to illustrate how guns have become marketed to the people who are not intended to have them. They are treated like a benign product, when thay are not.
A
aesop081
Guest
neilinkorea said:
Law abiding citizens do not shoot at police and others.
So i should not be allowed to own a 9mm handgun because it could kill someone? If i want to have a gun in case i have to defend myself or my family in the event of a home invasion/break-in, why should i not be allowed to do that ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Nice job Wesley. "Stay in the ROK if you are even there" More of the intelligent debate that pours out of the "Everyone should have a gun" crowd. A bit early to resort to such tactics, isn' it. You make some strong points in your arguments. Why go down that road? It just discredits your position. BTW I do live in Korea. Manditory military service, all guns are illeagal for private ownership I believe. Not a gun culture anyway. People usually stab each other to death.
A
aesop081
Guest
neilinkorea said:
So there is a lobby in the ROK to ban private ownership of knives ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
With respect to the "law abiding citizens don't shoot at police" remark, when CITIZENS are allowed to have guns, not just law abiding ones. There are many people who dont respect the law who don't have criminal records. They will be allowed to buy guns too
A
aesop081
Guest
So when there are no more guns around, people will stop killing other people ?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Comparing knives and guns.....well thats like comparing....knives and guns! A knife is nowhere as lethal as a gun. You have to be really comitted to kill someone with a knife as well as put your own life in serious danger in the process. A gun can do the job from a safe distance and can harm others in the area if used improperly
A
aesop081
Guest
neilinkorea said:
Au contraire mon amis, wether its a gun or a knife, you wind up just as dead. besides, you said it yourself. The ROK has no private ownership of firearms so people use knives to kill other prople.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
This has been argued in many different threads, but the end result is always the same, it is the intent of the user that makes a gun/knife/baseball bat/rock/car/shoe into a lethal weapon. While it is very dramatic and headline grabbing when a disturbed individual uses a firearm to kill people, that same person could have driven a car into a crowded bus shelter and killed a large number of people at once, and indeed with far less effort than using a firearm. I do both open hand and weapons training in my Dojo, and we almost always have live blades at hand, yet I never feel threatened (indeed my young son trains in that same Dojo) since I have no doubt as to the intent of anyone in the Dojo. Even with highly trained swordsmen and women at hand these swords and knives are perfectly safe.
There have also been several instances in the United States where civilians used their own firearms to subdue a potential mass murderer on campus or in a mall (although the MSM generally will not report that part of the story, perhaps only admitting several bystanders "took action" to subdue the perp).
Banning guns or not manufacturing weapons will only change the scale and scope of violence, not end it.
There have also been several instances in the United States where civilians used their own firearms to subdue a potential mass murderer on campus or in a mall (although the MSM generally will not report that part of the story, perhaps only admitting several bystanders "took action" to subdue the perp).
Banning guns or not manufacturing weapons will only change the scale and scope of violence, not end it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
When is the last time anyone heard of a crazed knifeman or a mass stabbing? The Columbine Stabbing wouldn't have been nearly as deadly. I don't mean to use these extreme examples lightly. They are not the norm. All I'm saying is that given a knifeman and a gunman, all other things equal, a gun will kill many more people more quickly. That would mean a gun is more leathal than a knife. Anyone who would disagrees with that is delusional.
As I said earlier in the thread, people always have killed and will continue kill each other. Eliminating guns wont change that. I do think that some violent acts comitted with guns could be lessened or avoided if the general public didn't have the concealable, high powered guns to carry them out. Why do pro gun people get so defensive whan someone even broaches this topic? Even if you aren't willing to give up your right to have these weapons to see if it would make any difference, that's fine. Just stand up and say that your personal right to own guns mean more to you than trying to end gun violence. That is a perfectly legitamate stance.
As I said earlier in the thread, people always have killed and will continue kill each other. Eliminating guns wont change that. I do think that some violent acts comitted with guns could be lessened or avoided if the general public didn't have the concealable, high powered guns to carry them out. Why do pro gun people get so defensive whan someone even broaches this topic? Even if you aren't willing to give up your right to have these weapons to see if it would make any difference, that's fine. Just stand up and say that your personal right to own guns mean more to you than trying to end gun violence. That is a perfectly legitamate stance.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
neilinkorea said:
I'm in agreement with most of your position and it's all been hashed over many times in this forum in one thread and another. Most of the threads end up in two solid positions that never budge. The illegal guns in this country are mostly being smuggled in from the US as we are not a gun culture that promotes corner gun stores where one can buy any kind of weapon one sees fit. This country wasn't built on a wild west model of everyone owning guns and may the best shot win...it was built on repect for the rule of law and one another.
Most of the murders in this city (Halifax), and there is one it seems every weekend now, are also being committed by edged weapons.
- Reaction score
- 5,156
- Points
- 1,060
You're out of your lane and don't know what you're talking about.neilinkorea said:
You're stating the obvious. Which is probably why you keep talking about automatic weapons, but can't cite a single case where one has been used.
And why not pistols for those times when their hands are full of tools, or they're tending the herd, and the rifle becomes cumbersome and out of reach. What do they do when that griz tops the ridge at 25 miles an hour? Should they not have the option of carrying a pistol as their forefathers did, for the same purpose?
No, but my right to security of person, and my right against unwarranted search IS guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Unless you give every person in Canada their own personal security team, in order to fulfill section 7, everyone MUST be given the option to protect themselves.
Currently, the Ontario gov't has broken section 8 innumerable times, by forcing inspections, without warrants, on law abiding citizens to do firearms checks. These inspections are not removing guns from the street. Meanwhile, the gang banger, drug dealer gets off because the liberal judges won't issue a warrant.......which is required to search said drug dealer's abode. If the cops bust the guy, he gets off on a charter challenge. Tossed by the same judges that won't issue the warrants. Should they catch the guy cold and arrest him, the courts give him bail, to continue shooting and dealing until his case comes up.
If the court is going to let these thugs wander the street, armed and dealing. I'm entitled to defend myself against this garbage. If he's going to use a gun, I should be able to as well, and I'm a damn sight more proficient than most of this trash.
Stopping the legal manufacture of firearms will not stop the proliferation of illegal ones on the street. It is simply to easy to make a firearm. As we all know, if there is a market, someone will fill it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Almost everyone who has posted here has deviated from the original discussion. I never talked about the gun registry once. That is not gun control, it is gun registration. Big difference. Gun control is limiting the types of guns people can buy, where they can obtain them, and who is allowed to buy them. Gun registration is letting the government know where all guns are and who owns them. The registation system in Canada is rediculous. It serves no real purpose because it is voluntary. If you are going to do crime with a gun, I'm sure you wont register it with the govt. Anyway, I am a fan of Canadian gun control as it exists now, and think an all out ban on hand guns wouldnt be so bad. I do agree that punishment needs to be severe. Mandatory jail time for any gun crime. Serious time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
We have police so that every citizen isn't running around trying to ensure the security of their person with a gun! We give policemen guns and special powers over us so that they can do this for us. Equating a persons right to personal security to the right to own a handgun is a pretty big leap.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
We have police so that every citizen isn't running around trying to ensure the security of their person with a gun! We give policemen guns and special powers over us so that they can do this for us. Equating a persons right to personal security to the right to own a handgun is a pretty big leap.
- Reaction score
- 5,156
- Points
- 1,060
neilinkorea said:
I have not spoken about registration.
Refute my statements as I have yours above. If you don't want to discuss and defend your points, drop your activity here, on the subject. I THINK you're simply pushing a personal agenda with nothing but a gut feel and dislike for handguns. Your argument is neither thought out or factual. It's like talking to a formula one racer about driving when you have never even been in a car. You're simply talking to hear yourself heard. Ante up or back off, cause you're wasting people's time.
- Reaction score
- 5,156
- Points
- 1,060
neilinkorea said:
Wrong. The average response time is twelve to 15 minutes, should someone report it. Cops like the motto 'To serve and protect" in reality it's "to serve and investigate". The police, as much as they try, cannot protect you. That's why there is so much crime. If they could, there wouldn't be any would there? It's also not up to you to define what the Charter means and force that narrow opinion on me or others. It is what it is.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Your idea of refuting my statements is telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about? You have offered nothing but your personal distate for my point of view to support your claims.
- Reaction score
- 5,156
- Points
- 1,060
neilinkorea said:
You don't have an argument to discuss, simply a personal biased opinion, with no basis in fact. Tell us how banning handguns and their manufacture will stop their use, and not drive the whole system underground. Tell me why your definition of the Charter does not allow me to defend myself. Tell us the last time someone was shot or murdered with an automatic weapon. What is the percentage of stolen handguns used to commit a murder in Canada (hint: much smaller than the anti gun lobby says). Why, if the cops are there to protect us, so many people get stabbed, mugged, beat up, etc. You came here, tossed an uneducated opinion, pushed your agenda, and can't back it up. I'm done arguing, can't call it a discussion, with someone that really doesn't have a clue about the subject they raise.
Hopefully a Mod will be along to lock this drivel up.
