You cheated - that wasn't one or two sentences.
However, since you took the time (twice), and I enjoy deconstructing silly rantings and ravings (for the last 30 pages), I'll run through this.
Zipper said:
Ok. To start, I don't believe the gun registry is a good thing. It is nothing but a government attempt to grab money from gun owners. It does not solve a thing, and criminals are still able to get them (guns).
Agreed.
As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.
Agreed - as a bit of a backpacker/camper I've done the same; sometimes you go without (especially if backpacking); usually the Parks and Trails systems are busy enough and have the right means (food hangers) to keep thing relatively safe. Sometimes I throw the 20-gauge under the backseat of the truck (properly locked of course) if I'm heading of to Grizzly or Cat country (like alot of the miners in my hometown); Never hurts to have around - I've got a friend who was terrorized by a cougar for hours once, so there might be a time for dealing with a threat.
Now for above. I'm surprised you used social in there, as what you have posted is yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution.
Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric. As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).
If anything is going to be solved as far as crime is concerned, you have to look at prevention.
If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention". If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?
1) Tougher sentences - Ok, but who is going to pay for it? You? I thought you guys wanted lower taxes? Putting more people in jail for longer means more prisioners and thus more prisions. Not to mention that stiffer penalties have been proven NOT to deter crime.
Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).
Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all. I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend. How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??
2) More security personal - Yet another who's going to pay for it? Expensive. As well it has a negative effect on society to have to many police running around. Unless you don't mind us coming closer to a police state?
The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry. Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are. That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.
As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts. All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.
3)Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death. Humans make mistakes. More humans make more mistakes. Humans with guns make bigger mistakes. How long before little Billy gets a hold of daddies gun and takes it to school? And blows away his class?
Are you going to back that? More "junk food" here. How is it that the Gebusi have
NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?
As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada". Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.
Also this argument still smacks of fear to me.
You're the one who states that
"Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."
People who have to carry weapons to "feel" safe are afraid. Do we need a lot more people walking around in fear for their lives? Especially when their not only afraid of criminals, but those people who carry guns may be criminals too. Whos to say who is and who isn't? Lets all be afraid of one another. Pretty miserable to me.
Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it? Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general? Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".
4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. But property? C'mon. Compared to yours or anyones life, what is a car? Or a TV? Or a necklace? Their just objects. In other words, they mean NOTHING. As for protection of life? You have to prove your life was in danger and you had no choice but to take the actions you did. Not easy.
I've been held up at knife point. Is my life worth my wallet? I don't think so. Whats the cost of life compared to a few dollars? Credit cards? I can cancel those as soon as the guy goes around the corner. Big deal. The guy was caught later that day trying to use my cards. Charged. What did I really lose? I was inconvieneced and my ego took a hit. So what.
Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue. A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.
Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring. This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.
The only thing about number 4 is ego. Get over it.
If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves). You should be mindful that others may not share such a
laissez faire attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.
To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.
Okay - I'll just break out my copy of
Das Kapital and do that tommorrow. :
How are you going to do this?
As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences. Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.
Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"? I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.
Considering I came from the butt end of North York, I got to see it all the time up close. Its not pretty and in some cases I can relate to some of these guys at the ends of their ropes wanting to take something from the "rich" guy over there. So before you throw the guy in jail and throw away the key, try living in his shoes for awhile.
"Living in his shoes for a while"? Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony? It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".
Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line. Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?
Honestly, I would love to see all handguns banned outright. But that doesn't work because the criminals will just get them from the south.
So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns. I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:
"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored. OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."
I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").
So I'll leave you with two cliche's that work.
An once of prevention instead of a pound of cure.
Tell that to a victim of a violent crime. If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here. As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"
And live in the other guys shoes for awhile and see if you can come up with better solutions.
The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested. Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".
Oh, and to head off the screaming of "liberal". I prefer to see myself as a small c conservative (red tory if you like).
As well, this is more logical then emotional.
I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as
"yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution". Good job painting with a broad brush though.
As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data. All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments. You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy. Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?
