- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thanks for your points HT and Remius.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Colin P said:Yes, just a few months ago the Liberals were saying "We aren't going after anyone guns"....
which is why no experienced gun owner trusts the Liberals.
RocketRichard said:There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar) in this forum. Many gun owners (myself included) here. Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun... Thanks all for the debate.
Great reply, worthy of posting to papers in the an editorial. As if that would even happen given the Mainstream Media’s bias on the storyline.Jarnhamar said:I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!)
It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.
I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business.
Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?).
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people want it.
If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.
We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)
Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.
I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.
A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and that easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 Toronto 18 planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market.
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec).
No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.
Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).
Whoa. That was more of a response than expected. Really appreciate it J. You almost have me convinced I will use your points when I get into a debate with my friends that are very ‘left wing’. Maybe I will even buy a hand gun, nah, too much of a PIA. Have a great day.Jarnhamar said:I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!)
It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.
I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business.
Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?).
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people want it.
If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.
We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)
Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.
I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.
A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and that easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 Toronto 18 planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market.
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec).
No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.
Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).
Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools.Colin P said:Then they are fools who don't bother studying history. The Liberals are always one crisis away from banning firearms, generally by taking a few slices at a time.
Colin P said:Wasn't just a few months ago we were told the Liberals aren't coming for your guns.......
RocketRichard said:Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The gun used to shoot 15 people on a busy Toronto street was likely obtained from a “gang-related source,” according to a person familiar with the case.
CP24 safety specialist Cam Woolley says a police source has told him the semi-automatic handgun used in the shooting is illegal in Canada and was originally from the United States. American authorities are helping track the gun’s exact origin.
Hussain opened fire on Danforth Avenue in Toronto Sunday night, killing two people and wounding 13 others.
CTV News has further learned that ammunition and large-capacity magazines were found by police officers searching the apartment Faisal Hussain shared with his parents. Police are also looking into the connection between Hussain’s brother, who is currently in a coma, and a 2017 seizure of more than 30 guns in Pickering, Ont.
But now your making sense, stop that it’s anti CanadianPuckChaser said:CTV is now reporting the gun used was illegal to start with, and smuggled from the US.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129
So how many laws were broken here? Prohibited weapon, prohibited device, carried concealed, murder, attempted murder, weapons trafficking... a handgun ban stops none of them.
recceguy said:Mentally ill :
Xylric said:I seem to recall reading a statistic from some years back (2010 or so) which strongly indicated that the majority of murders in Canada aren't even committed with firearms...