|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by ArthurBrit
(Post 11290884)
There are always going to be risks but one of the true reasons that the "right to bear arms" was added to the constitution is that if society broke down and you lost or even wanted to fight your government, wouldn't you rather be standing with a gun than standing with nothing.
The gun to the american people is a symbol of independence from their government you take their gun away and the american people view there government as a dictatorship. This isn't the only use or reason for guns but it is a major social obstacle when it comes to the legislation and right of access to guns in America. Canada is a slightly different kettle of fish though |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290898)
No they don't, as Oakvillian points out knives have many other uses needed in everyday life
You appear to accept this above. Your argument appears to be: when people go crazy, a gun will enable them to shoot people. How is this different from: when people go crazy, a knife will enable them to kill people? Your solution to the "gun" issue is to ban guns. Why argue otherwise for knives? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11290908)
Guns don't either. They are not purchased in Canada to enable the purchaser to shoot people, just as knives are not purchased to enable the purchaser to shoot people.
You appear to accept this above. Your argument appears to be: when people go crazy, a gun will enable them to shoot people. How is this different from: when people go crazy, a knife will enable them to kill people. Your solution to the "gun" issue is to ban guns. Why argue otherwise for knives? Eh? What practical purposes do guns have that people use in their everyday lives? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290905)
But surely that's just paranoia? If breakdown of society is a real threat then why don't other westernized countries allow their citizens to 'bear arms'. I understand what you are saying though & that whole way of thinking is so deeply ingrained in the Americans that it's probably a lost cause.
Canada is a slightly different kettle of fish though Canada is like a conjoined twin of America. It may want independence but attaining that independence has the potential to kill it. Believe it or not there is a huge influx of tourism by Americans into Manitoba mainly for hunting, you ban guns they will no longer bring their hard earned cash north. In terms of other Westernized countries, they are not true republics and therefore this is the fundamental difference between say the UK and the US. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290915)
:banghead:
Eh? What practical purposes do guns have that people use in their everyday lives? There are more reasons but these are the major ones. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290915)
:banghead:
Eh? What practical purposes do guns have that people use in their everyday lives? Calgary's worst "mass murder" was recently performed with a knife. What you are really saying is that you don't use them, so they should be banned? Go on, why don't you just admit it;) |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by ArthurBrit
(Post 11290920)
To feed, to protect live stock, to protect foresters & to protect the nation.
There are more reasons but these are the major ones. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290924)
Yes all very good reasons for a small minority of people to have them but what's the practical use for anyone else? Everyone uses knives, they are more of a tool than a weapon
I can learn to fly - so can you. I can learn to drive - so can you. I can go to university - so can you. We only take rights away from offenders, but you can't take my rights before I have done nothing wrong. We may put cautionary measures in place before we allow you to practice something dangerous (such as a pilots license, a drivers license, a degree) but we can not stop you from applying yourself. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11290921)
People that have them tend to shoot at things. 99.99999999999% of the time, they do not shoot at other people. They believe that they have good, practical uses. I accept that you don't.
Calgary's worst "mass murder" was recently performed with a knife. What you are really saying is that you don't use them, so they should be banned? Go on, why don't you just admit it;) |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290915)
:banghead:
Eh? What practical purposes do guns have that people use in their everyday lives? When was the last time someone killed 3 policemen and injured two with a knife? The loony arguments are back. I still can't believe IainK tried to bring cars in again. The reality is most shootings are carried out by individuals who obtained their fire arms through legal means and were not criminals until that point. If the law had been more restrictive or firearms weren't so readily available they'd have been reduced dramatically. This forum's Gun lobbyists are yet to tell us why gun ownership is a good or important thing for society. The criminal argument is rubbish. The smoking and car argument beaten down to idiocy half a dozen times now. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by ArthurBrit
(Post 11290928)
In the western mentality you have no more rights than I do.
I can learn to fly - so can you. I can learn to drive - so can you. I can go to university - so can you. We only take rights away from offenders, but you can't take my rights before I have done nothing wrong. We may put cautionary measures in place before we allow you to practice something dangerous (such as a pilots license, a drivers license, a degree) but we can not stop you from applying yourself. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11290934)
I never said they should be banned outright, I understand certain people need them, I just don't think they should be as freely available as they are. There is no need for the average person to own one, it has no practical use, & comparing it to knives (which everyone uses for reasons other than stabbing) is stupid. Guns are for shooting (not necessarily people) that is their only purpose, if you have no need to shoot anything you do not need one.
Who are "average people"? How freely available do you think they are? What further restrictions would you impose? You may, or may not, be aware, that questions are asked of those applying for PALs relating to why they require guns. If an inappropriate answer is given, the PAL is not issued. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 11290935)
Yeah.
When was the last time someone killed 3 policemen and injured two with a knife? The loony arguments are back. I still can't believe IainK tried to bring cars in again. The reality is most shootings are carried out by individuals who obtained their fire arms through legal means and were not criminals until that point. If the law had been more restrictive or firearms weren't so readily available they'd have been reduced dramatically. This forum's Gun lobbyists are yet to tell us why gun ownership is a good or important thing for society. The criminal argument is rubbish. The smoking and car argument beaten down to idiocy half a dozen times now. Shooting weapons is an activity that many regularly perform, from which few human fatalities result. I suspect, but don't know, that as many injuries are inflicted with knives as with guns in Canada. I am confident that the purchasers of those knives were not "criminals" at the point of purchase. Why shouldn't knives be banned? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11290955)
Are you posting in an inebriated state?
Shooting weapons is an activity that many regularly perform, from which few human fatalities result. I suspect, but don't know, that as many injuries are inflicted with knives as with guns in Canada. I am confident that the purchasers of those knives were not "criminals" at the point of purchase. Why shouldn't knives be banned? Guns are for the insecure to feel they have the power to settle a score. Nothing more. Again you are unlikely to kill 3 policeman with a knife they are simply not as dangerous. Surely even you understand that? |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11290938)
Is shooting at targets a sufficient need? If not, why not?
Not really, it's just a hobby, there are plenty of others to choose from Who are "average people"? People living in suburbia with no threat from wild animals that requires guns for protection or uses them for hunting food How freely available do you think they are? What further restrictions would you impose? Pretty freely as they are available at Walmart, even the local gas station sells them. You should have to prove you need one. Shops shouldn't display them (like they don't cigarettes). If you want to shoot targets you should have to join a gun club & use their guns (no need to have them at home if that's all you want it for) You may, or may not, be aware, that questions are asked of those applying for PALs relating to why they require guns. If an inappropriate answer is given, the PAL is not issued. Anyone can lie though can't they. If some actually wanted one to kill a person they would be pretty stupid to put that on the form |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:47 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.