The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

Let me try put it in a nutshell for you.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The arguement being that, I, a responsible, law abiding, trained ( and we can all use more) person should have the right to defend myself from bodily harm with whatever means I decide, within the law.

If you feel confident with a knife, fill your boots. If a person feels a pistol is better for them, that's thier decision.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

A semi-derail, but sometimes these arguments range into the bizarre...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMoJ-9G68k  ;D

Perhaps if we just vote the right way next time, we can kill the LGR once and for all. 

And in my experience, people who are inclined to take measures to protect themselves, whether it is melee weapons, guns or martial arts generally are not the people who need to worry about being attacked.  Sheeple will always be sheeple and blithely watch themselves get mauled.  Legislation won't change that. 

 

[The_Falcon]

Let me try put it in a nutshell for you.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The arguement being that, I, a responsible, law abiding, trained ( and we can all use more) person should have the right to defend myself from bodily harm with whatever means I decide, within the law.

If you feel confident with a knife, fill your boots. If a person feels a pistol is better for them, that's thier decision.

And I don't disagree, I just feel that any broadening of gun ownership laws should be made on more than just a "self defence" argument.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If we're going to post vids, young Katey Montague makes some of the clearest and succint statements on the state of firearms and the registry in this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFKAIT1auI&feature=channel

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We are still on topic, I am merely trying to point out that the "self-defence" argument for owning/using/carrying firearms is not that solid, when even professionals who carry them on a daily basis are not always able to effectively use them for the purpose of defending them selves.

If people can't employ arms with near perfection to defend themselves, they should instead have to defend themselves with no arms at all?  That's a strange argument to try to make.  I have a counter-proposal: one's proficiency is irrelevant.  Something is always preferable to nothing in the mix, and certainly as a deterrent - which is the real point to carrying.

 

[The_Falcon]

If people can't employ arms with near perfection to defend themselves, they should instead have to defend themselves with no arms at all?  That's a strange argument to try to make.

I never said that.  I did say one shouldn't rely solely on self defence as basis for expansion of our current laws, and that by merely carrying a firearm you are adequately protected from people who may do you harm.

I have a counter-proposal: one's proficiency is irrelevant

I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?


 

Something is always preferable to nothing in the mix

Again I agree.

and certainly as a deterrent - which is the real point to carrying.

Now this is what I was getting at "mutual defence" and deterence.    But unfortunately unless there is a radical shift in the way most Canadians think, I doubt we would ever get to the point where enough people would be carrying a firearm, to make either of these two arguments viable.  Not to say we shouldn't try though, there are plenty of jurisdictions (usually because ownership and CCW is mandatory for people living in those jurisdiction) that have reached the point were mutual defence and deterence are viable due to the number people who have firearms in their possession practically 24/7.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Toronto freeway traffic + widespread, common CCW.  Nothing could go wrong with that plan  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?

To own a handgun you need to belong to a handgun club. Most of the people at my handgun club shot, I'd wager, a heck of a lot more often than police officers.

I'm not sure how I feel about Canadians having automatic weapons or conceal carry permits.
The latter would greatly reduce violent crime (or at least kill more of the criminals initiating it) but at the same time there's a lot of stupid people out there too. 
Lots of people out there have more money than brains.  I don't think owning/bearing arms should be a right, it should be a privilege.

 

[hippz]

My 2 cents: You either believe in the freedom to be able do something, or you don't. Sure there are tons of stupid people out there, but there are a lot more smart, rationally thinking Canadians that wouldn't dare shoot someone unless they were about to die themselves. In my opinion, nobody would try to shoot anyone on a public street ever again, as instead of running away everybody else would train their guns on the one causing trouble. As well, if you keep law-abiding citizens from owning powerful guns, outlaws WILL find some, and when they use it on you (and let's just say you were a civilian if you're not) you're gonna want more than just a pea-shooter. Plus, you're going to have to have licensing to get the gun in the first place, so that'll weed out a lot of the dummies.

I say allow all citizens to bear arms, only with licensing. Additional licensing for concealed carry, handguns, full auto, etc.. But the buck stops with explosives, leave that to the pros. 

 

[zipperhead_cop]

My 2 cents: You either believe in the freedom to be able do something, or you don't. Sure there are tons of stupid people out there, but there are a lot more smart, rationally thinking Canadians that wouldn't dare shoot someone unless they were about to die themselves. In my opinion, nobody would try to shoot anyone on a public street ever again, as instead of running away everybody else would train their guns on the one causing trouble. As well, if you keep law-abiding citizens from owning powerful guns, outlaws WILL find some, and when they use it on you (and let's just say you were a civilian if you're not) you're gonna want more than just a pea-shooter. Plus, you're going to have to have licensing to get the gun in the first place, so that'll weed out a lot of the dummies.

I say allow all citizens to bear arms, only with licensing. Additional licensing for concealed carry, handguns, full auto, etc.. But the buck stops with explosives, leave that to the pros. 

Wh..... :-\

Nah. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wh..... :-\

Nah.

So I'm not the only one :

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?

I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

>I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?

I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.

Exactly the point I was trying to make to him also Brad.

 

[The_Falcon]

>I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?

I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.

I thought I was being clear in my post (guess not), arguing for an expansion SOLEY based on self-defence is not a strong argument (IMO).  Expansion based on self defence/mutual defence/deterence, gives the argument more legs to stand on.

 

[bdave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with a Canadian issue, I personally don't care about a US internal matter, lets keep this relevant to us.

 

[bdave]

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with a Canadian issue, I personally don't care about a US internal matter, lets keep this relevant to us.

You honestly think that I posted the link because it had anything to do with the second amendment?
She just happened to mention the 2nd amendment at the very end.
Pay attention to everything before that part.

 

[ballz]

Just got off the phone with an RCMP officer in NB who was asking me questions.

Question #1 right off the bat was "Why do you want to own a Restricted firearm."

Then asked about who my references were, then asked a bunch of "Have you ever..." questions that basically if I said "yes" to any of them I'm sure I'd be screwed.

She informed me that they will be calling my references as well...


I never thought about it much before but I have a weird feeling like my privacy is being probed and poked and violated a bit all cause I want to go target shooting...

 

[Kat Stevens]

Told ya so!  Told ya so!

 

[ballz]

Wow my roommate just got off the phone with them cause he was a reference and they were asking questions like:

Has he shown any fascination with violence?

Can you think of *any* situations where he would approve of violence?

and of course "can you think of any reason he should not own a firearm" blah blah...