Glorified Ape said:
Having no publicly available firearms isn't dangerous, having them is (relative to not having them) more dangerous by an exponential amount if one takes all the deaths and injuries from legally owned firearms.
Please explain to me how having publically available firearms is dangerous?
Do you care to back that statement up with facts?
Don't worry, I'll do it for you.
Firearms Deaths In Canada between 1970-1996: Approximately approximately 37,399 (so, very roughly .1 percent of a population of around 30 million).
Percentages of types of deaths:
14% were Homicides (meaning that 86% of the time, criminals used something else)
4% were Accidents
2% were legal intervention (police officers doing their job)
79% were suicides
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/death/default_e.asp
Now, as the figures point out, the rise in firearm use in homicides has risen to 32%, which is a given considering all of the
illegal firearms flowing in throught the rapidly growing Drug Trade. All the murders in the Indo-Canadian community (bit of a news item) in Vancouver in the last 5 years are a perfect example of this. They were not killed with long-guns, assault rifles, or legally acquired 81mm mortars - they were killed with illegally acquired pistols, most likely from the US. So how is a ban supposed to prevent this?
Other then that, what rational do you have for sticking to your viewpoint? Do you want to ensure that any wacko who wants to off themselves can overdose on pills, jump from a bridge, or run into traffic instead?
As a reason, no. As an example of readily accepted property seizure, yes.
I felt Brad Sallows did a fair enough job of differentiating between tax payment and gun seizure. If you can address that, be my guest.
I think it's idiotic - we're in full agreement. The remedy thereto is where we differ.
Have you managed to back your remedy up with any logical base what-so-ever? No.
I've never bought this argument - the old "take our guns and they'll take our freedom" crap. If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.
If we're discussing ridiculous comparisons, I think firearms vs. intangible rights and freedoms is a prime candidate. And now we're getting into the personal attacks, eh? Speaking of juvenile behaviour...
Well, why don't you look into why Firearms ownership is written into the Constitution of the United States - they certainly didn't form their country through debate and reform.
But dealing with the here in now - no, taking guns and taking freedom is not a direct relation. Obviously you are failing to see the point I was making. As Brad alluded to (and you have failed to answer to), restricting the rights of citizens to own private property, whatever it may be, on a purely irrational and emotional standpoint that you are taking is morally wrong. It's a slippery slope when the government bans firearms, because the same justification could be used for pornography, internet access, books.
If you choose to take my ridicule of your viewpoint as a personal attack, then that's your problem. I'm ridiculing your argument because I've yet to see a logical leg to stand on. Clearly, you've got the blinders on full bore, even when the statistics are infront of your face.
Not at all - I have a great interest in firearms and enjoy using them on those rare occasions I have opportunity to do so.
Since interest in firearms is beyond the limits of the military, it is safe to say that people may have a great interest (and choose to use the opportunity) to enjoy using them outside of the military?
Sure - only 22% of Canadians live in rural environments. http://www.rural.gc.ca/cris/faq/pop_e.phtml
Only 4% of gun owners claim property or self-protection as the reason for owning their firearm. Hunting, collecting, and target/sport shooting compose the remainder. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf
Maybe you'd like to prove widespread necessity to non-farming rural dwellers?
If you wish to define "rural" as strictly a community of less then a 1,000 people, then sure, 22% works.
I live in a town of about 10,000 people in which there is a large population of gun owners. Outside of major Canadian cities (of say 100,000 people), you are going to find significantly more of the Canadian population that enjoys the use of firearms.
Besides, what difference does it make where someone lives? If they wish to own a firearm and legally store it, what business is it of yours?
Unless you're dependent on the meat from hunting, none of the categories besides personal and property protection are "necessity" oriented. As for why we should ban firearms, I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm. You may believe otherwise, that's your right.
As for the continued personal attacks, keep it up - it's really getting you somewhere. :
Well, I guess your moral stripe has truly revealed itself (as the
unprincipled egoist). It is good to see that you would denigrate the interests and pursuits of other citizens as "negligible enjoyment". There is no point in arguing this, as you clearly have no respect for what others may wish to do with the private lives.
I've put out the facts that show that access to firearms does not equal an extremely lethal situation. You've shown nothing concrete to back your point up - quite simply, you're talking out of your ass.
Again, if you take my ridiculing your argument on the grounds that it lacks any grounding in the political notion of private property as a personal attack, then that's your problem. Maybe you should pay attention in class.
When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?
It's not. It is a matter of approaching all issues of a private matter (sexual preference, personal pursuits, political convictions, religion) in a consistent and logical manner. You clearly don't seem to think this applies to you.
To some degree perhaps, but likely nothing substantial. I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime.
Then what other reason do you have for banning them, because you've yet to put it forward here? "Public safety" seems to be your watchword - "Guns are extremely dangerous". So, besides protecting the public from criminals, what is your argument?
I've clearly demonstrated that guns do not present an extreme danger to society (Switzerland is the living case study). Are you going to respond to this at all?
For some reason, I am not expecting to get a response on this one.
A firearm and a blowgun are comparable on the grounds of "projectile weapon" at about the same level as a cherry bomb and C4 are as explosives.
Indeed - weak argument, guy.
But both a blowgun and a firearm can be "extremely dangerous", as can me throwing a rock at someone's head. This is the link that I was drawing.
As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, your perception of "extreme danger" is baseless an lacking of any knowledge of the subject matter.
I believe I specified activities relatively necessary to functioning.
???
You said you would ban firearms. So Canada will have to abstain from skeet shooting, biathlon, pistol marksmanship and the myriad of other Olympic sports centered around the sport of shooting, since this is a "negligible and useless" enjoyment.
What other point to you have to make on utility?
Civilization also got along without the telephone, but I wouldn't try to argue comparable necessity and utility between it and firearms in our society.
A telephone is a tool - it can be misused as a weapon (to strangle someone with), it can be for utility (someone functioning in an Information Age economy), it can be used for enjoyment (my teenage sister sure likes it), or it can be collected by people who find the evolution of the telephone interesting.
As you can see, your notion of an "extremely dangerous" weapon can be applied to just about anything if put in the right (or wrong) hands.
If we're going to argue permissibility based solely on the "as long as you don't do anything bad with it, you can have it" principle, why should RPG ROUNDS be illegal? Proportionality of potential damage and utility to the populous? I already went over both vis a vis firearms and no firearms.
Look at the 100KMH and 200KMH difference as a
reasonable reason to restrict certain activities. I can see the justification for it and obey it as such. I've clearly demonstrated that gas-operated firearms do not present an "extreme" danger to society in any way, shape or form with both rational argument and objective facts.
You've yet to do me the courtesy of returning the favour (argument and fact), all you've done is to continue to stick to your silly line.
Dude, I believe the arguments thus far have been coherent, man. You may not consider them valid, buddy, but I don't see how they're incoherent, pal. But such is your perception, bro, and I'm not likely to change it by arguing it with you, dude.
Again, back your points up. Justify to me why it is essential to outlaw private possession of property (firearms) for the sake of public safety. You don't seem to be able to do this.
As for utility, I'm not defining it based on my own experience, I'm basing it on the item's applicability to some functionally necessary activity or task. Hunting (with exceptions), collecting, and plinking don't exactly qualify.
"Utility" is now the deciding factor in what is legal and what is not? That's lame and you know it.
Indeed - I don't believe gun ownership is the primary cause of gun crime. Even Michael Moore got that right. But since Farmboy was tossing irrelevant statistics around, I thought I'd get in on it. I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime, but not by any substantial amount. From what I understand, most come up from the US.
I've taken what you "believe" to task, and so far, everyone seems to agree. If you are going to put your "belief" up and extend it to what others can and can't do, you better be prepared to justify it (again, with fact and rational argument, incase you missed that part in University).
"I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime"
That's funny, earlier above you said
"I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime."
Wow, you don't even know why you want to ban them now, because you say two of the opposite things in the same post. Obviously, you are not even taking the effort to put some critical thought into this issue, so I fail to see why there is any point in arguing with someone like you.
Alas, I'll sum it up for you again, because you obviously glossed over the presentation of facts and just want to hear (or read) yourself talk (or post) - I've shown that the available supply of firearms has no affect on the crime rate at all. Switzerland (armed to the teeth) and Japan (no guns at all) have the same crime rates and murder rates.
Counter this with facts and rational argument or do us a favour and go away.
I believe you meant phenomenA, but I digress... dude.
That was cute. Anymore useless points to make in this debate, or are you just going futher "troll" for argument and increase your reputation here amongst your fellow soldiers as a fool?
Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners. :threat:
