|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11289314)
but that need does not absolve society from trying to limit access to firearms.
It's simply not possible. There have been mass shootings everywhere in the world, regardless of what their gun laws are, including places with really severe gun laws like China and South Korea. You only have to look at the UK to see what a fool's errand it is, they tightened up the licensing system (which was already really tough) after Hungerford, banned various types of firearm, then a school was shot up in Dunblane, so handguns were banned too, then Derrick Bird went bonkers with a double-barrel shotgun and got a similar body count in Cumbria. Gun controls don't stop mass shootings. They are too isolated of an event with unique causes. It's not feasible to absolutely ban all guns completely because too many people need them for legitimate purposes so the determined crazy person will always find a way (and there have been several mass shootings with illegally owned guns anyway). Really it's only luck that stops it, such as when people see that someone is going off the rails. Unless of course you want to live in a police state - but there are police states where mass shootings have happened. I was just having this discussion with someone and they mentioned there have been no mass shootings in Australia since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996, which were followed by tougher gun laws - yes there has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash...rsity_shooting I'm totally for having background checks on people buying guns and some basic obvious stuff like that because you don't want to make it too easy for unstable people to get their hands on guns, but that's about as good as you can get it, especially in a free society. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 11289387)
It appears to be perfectly legal to sell guns privately. Small ads in the paper, even a handwritten note on a noticeboard at the local store.
No licence to sell needed. But a private sale just seems ridiculous. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11289490)
If the exposure of kids to guns in Canada and the US is much the same, and exposure to guns turns some kids into gun toting killers as a result, should there not be the same proportion of gun toting killers in both places as a result?
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11289881)
Gun controls don't stop mass shootings. They are too isolated of an event with unique causes. It's not feasible to absolutely ban all guns completely because too many people need them for legitimate purposes so the determined crazy person will always find a way (and there have been several mass shootings with illegally owned guns anyway). Really it's only luck that stops it, such as when people see that someone is going off the rails. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11289862)
From the pictures in the paper, it's an M1A (semi-automatic rifle, but not an assault rifle) and a pump-action shotgun with a collapsible stock he's carrying. On CBC they're saying two rifles, but they're wrong.
Having briefly looked at his facebook page, it was gibberish, so I don't think he's all there. Personally I think he's gone out into the woods and topped himself, and the reports of people seeing him this morning were wrong. They'd have found him with FLIR by now if he was still alive. I am now going for a beer and a smoke in my garage. No innocent bystanders will be harmed. Unless my garage gets invaded, in which case my Fubar III will lose it's virginity. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 11289820)
The problem for Canada is, of course, the open border with the US. Canadian gun legislation will not be ideally effective while the US has such a surplus of weapons (as a case in point, marijuana is not legal in Canada while it is in parts of the US, nonetheless there's pot smoking in Canada!) A coordinated approach would be ideal.
Since that's not going to happen I think a multi-pronged approach is needed: - the Chris Rock policy, tax bullets at the level of alcohol (and drop the tax on alcohol) - stop issuing new gun licenses - stop the retail sale of new weapons All of that can be done by legislation. Then the hard bit: - government offers cash for guns - government offers a program whereby the guns of deceased license holders are handed in - government campaigns to change social attitudes with a view to making gun owners pariahs like smokers. Many years later there'll be less guns in use. Were you looking for an overnight miracle? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 11289504)
Because the sport/hobby is inherently dangerous, the purpose the tool used is to kill or injure people or animals.
This is why there is always an enormous gulf between recreational gun owners and say, people who live in dodgy areas with lots of drug dealers, because neither side can relate to the other's situation. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11289655)
Can anyone explain to me why a farmer has a greater need for a gun than any other profession?
I just don't see it. Do crops regularly attack people? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11289897)
It's not inherently dangerous, this is one of the flaws I always think when it comes to people comparing banning guns to say, banning smoking. Smoking when done properly is dangerous. Drinking alcohol can be dangerous. If you use a firearm for hunting properly then no-one gets hurt and it's even less likely on a fixed target shooting range.
This is why there is always an enormous gulf between recreational gun owners and say, people who live in dodgy areas with lots of drug dealers, because neither side can relate to the other's situation. But what do I know. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by ArthurBrit
(Post 11289874)
It can and it has.
In the case of Society VS. smokers. Society in Winnipeg has now deemed it unlawful to smoke A) Indoors at a public/work building, B) On patios C) in personal cars when children are present D) At beaches, E) In parks> In the case of Society VS. Drunk drivers. Drunk driving is flat out illegal (blood alcohol content being the filter). The regulations for smoking has been done - is there still opportunity for review/more restrictions? Yes The ban on drink driving has been done - can they look at this policy and make it stricter? Yes. What people are talking about right now in this thread is gun ownership, I am pro gun ownership, I would like to see the regulations constantly reviewed and questioned but would never like to see an outright ban. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11289902)
Pest control, shooting rats, crows, etc.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11289871)
What kind of gibberish was it? What was his beef?
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11289905)
Why do those on acreages, or those that live at the edge of urban areas, not need firearms for the same reason? Why are farmers special?
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11289881)
You keep making this argument and you don't seem to realize that there is no happy medium (as you said you don't oppose banning guns) where guns are "better regulated" and there are no mass shootings.
It's simply not possible. There have been mass shootings everywhere in the world, regardless of what their gun laws are, including places with really severe gun laws like China and South Korea. You only have to look at the UK to see what a fool's errand it is, they tightened up the licensing system (which was already really tough) after Hungerford, banned various types of firearm, then a school was shot up in Dunblane, so handguns were banned too, then Derrick Bird went bonkers with a double-barrel shotgun and got a similar body count in Cumbria. Gun controls don't stop mass shootings. They are too isolated of an event with unique causes. It's not feasible to absolutely ban all guns completely because too many people need them for legitimate purposes so the determined crazy person will always find a way (and there have been several mass shootings with illegally owned guns anyway). Really it's only luck that stops it, such as when people see that someone is going off the rails. Unless of course you want to live in a police state - but there are police states where mass shootings have happened. I was just having this discussion with someone and they mentioned there have been no mass shootings in Australia since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996, which were followed by tougher gun laws - yes there has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash...rsity_shooting I'm totally for having background checks on people buying guns and some basic obvious stuff like that because you don't want to make it too easy for unstable people to get their hands on guns, but that's about as good as you can get it, especially in a free society. How many mass shootings are there in the US per 100,000 population? From the rather haphazard statistics I googled quickly, the number in the US is about 10 times that in the UK, and about double that in Canada. Again, though, limiting this to a binary relationship between gun ownership and mass shootings is very naive. Expecting there never to be a mass shooting is very naive, regardless of the strictness of gun regulation. dbd put it well up-thread. American society has decided that losing a few dozen people per year to mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for the gun ownership culture that prevails. The UK decided that it is not. Canada is prevaricating. Plus ca change... |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11289903)
If my son is sitting in Isla Vista and someone blows tobacco smoke over him, personally I think that is preferable to shooting him.
But what do I know. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:22 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.