Where are you getting your information from? If the guns are banned, it’s only the law abiding citizens that are losing out and the criminals get to keep theirs.
Would you support an asbolute ban on all guns?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Law abiding citizens are not having to defend themselves from criminals even today as in 99.99% of cases they do not come into contact with them and even when they do, put themselves in a position where they have to rely on their guns to defend themselves. So it is a non issue.
Your argument is that most law abiding citizens don't have guns, and therefore when they're victimized they don't have guns to defend themselves so it's a non-issue?
My argument is that law abiding citizens are not victimized in the first place. It is infact super rare that they are and even when they are, they often times do not have to rely on a gun as there are other ways. So it is a non issue.
Are those unprovoked TTC murders, stabbings, and assaults of innocent people already a distant memory?
Law abiding citizens are victimized every day. It's an issue to them.
Moreover, the sale of handguns is banned across Canada already. Are you or the OP suggesting that the existing handguns that law abiding Canadians own pose a serious threat to society?
Last edited:
It is still a distant outlier. 99.9999% of TTC users do not face any assaults or crime.
Because they allow you to get a second shot quickly.
It's that simple.
Muzzle loaders are slow.
Single shots are slow.
Bolt actions are kinda medium, lever action a bit faster, pump action quite fast, semi-automatic extremely fast.
Double barreled are extremely fast, but limited to one extra shot, and are generally extremely expensive (rifles I am talking about here) and inaccurate.
So there is a continuum.
Automatic aren't allowed in Canada excpet under extreme circumstances and regulations. Anyhow they are incredibly inaccurate especially in high powered calibers.
Semi-automatic are more fun to shoot.
Last edited:
We can argue stats all day in whatever light you wish.
Let's look at crimes involving guns in the USA.
In 2020, there were 19384 murders involving guns in the USA, much of it gangs or criminals killing each other.
That's less than a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of a percent of the US population. In a nation with 400 million guns in circulation.
I assume the cop haters in this thread support civilians not owning guns, but ironically want cops to remain armed?
Cops are not armed in the England, right? So why don't we go all in and disarm our cops too? 'Cause guns are bad.
Last edited:
If you support banning guns completely would you support minimum sentence for illegal gun possession and a very long sentence for someone who actually fired a gun in public?
These discussions ALWAYS feature the same 2 weaknesses, or unstated facts.
It is almost always comfortable URBAN city people trying to curb gun ownership. It isn't their hobby, so , hell, why not stop others from doing it?
Why the hell should Torontonians be telling people in Timmins what to do with their lifestyle?
But the REAL issue with gun control is NOT crime. Oh, sure, that is what is pushed in terms of the so-called debate, but the real issue from gun owners point of view is this:
WHO has the final say on the use of force in society, the government, or individuals?
I firmly believe it should be individuals. I believe that ultimately individuals should have enough resources - PHYSICAL resources, - that they can fight back against a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Democracy implies that you believe ultimately in the common sense, and trustworthiness of the common man. Not that they are perfect, or never make mistakes, but that it is far better to trust individuals than a state. Or, God forbid, intellectuals and the chatterring classes.
It is well known that dictatorships and totalitarian states disarm their populations. They don't trust them.
In the 20th century, FAR more people were killed by their own governments than were by criminals. China's Great Leap Forward. Camodia's Khmer |Rouge. Stalin's purges. Dictatorships everywhere kill opponents at will.
So the chatterrring classes poohs poohs this idea, "It can't happen here, this is Canada|"
BS, it CAN happen anywhere.
One example:
***
Venezuela
It’s no secret that the Venezuelan government has eviscerated property rights and fundamental civil liberties in the crisis beleaguered country. But how has the Venezuelan government been able to stay in power? The Venezuelan government’s civilian disarmament campaign is an oft-ignored abuse of human rights in discussions concerning Venezuela’s political crisis.
The Venezuelan government started by passing the original version of the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law. Since then, the law has been modified to broaden the scope of the firearms regulated by the Venezuelan Armed forces, who have the power to register, control, and confiscate firearms.
The day of reckoning came when Venezuela banned the sale of firearms and ammo in 2012, under the guise of fighting crime. Despite the gun ban in place, crime rates continue to skyrocket.
Now Venezuelans have no way of defending themselves against a government that is free to muzzle their speech, expropriate their wealth, debase their currency, and starve them to death. And if that weren’t enough, the average Venezuelan must contend with the constant threat of common criminals and colectivos, Venezuela’s infamous pro-government paramilitary units.
Even in the 21st century, the nasty effects of gun confiscation are still being felt.
***
When you ban all guns, you effectively eliminate the ability of the population to kick out of power a government by force. The government takes over the judiciary,an arm of the government, (the dictatorship) it becomes then the organs of state power, then VOILA! welcome to the pleasure dome of totalitarianism.
Please, those of you who advocate banning guns, please tell me:
When an oppressive government arrives, destroys independent media and dissent, destoys an independent judiciary - tell me this:
How do you boot the assholes out?
It is almost always comfortable URBAN city people trying to curb gun ownership. It isn't their hobby, so , hell, why not stop others from doing it?
Why the hell should Torontonians be telling people in Timmins what to do with their lifestyle?
But the REAL issue with gun control is NOT crime. Oh, sure, that is what is pushed in terms of the so-called debate, but the real issue from gun owners point of view is this:
WHO has the final say on the use of force in society, the government, or individuals?
I firmly believe it should be individuals. I believe that ultimately individuals should have enough resources - PHYSICAL resources, - that they can fight back against a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Democracy implies that you believe ultimately in the common sense, and trustworthiness of the common man. Not that they are perfect, or never make mistakes, but that it is far better to trust individuals than a state. Or, God forbid, intellectuals and the chatterring classes.
It is well known that dictatorships and totalitarian states disarm their populations. They don't trust them.
In the 20th century, FAR more people were killed by their own governments than were by criminals. China's Great Leap Forward. Camodia's Khmer |Rouge. Stalin's purges. Dictatorships everywhere kill opponents at will.
So the chatterrring classes poohs poohs this idea, "It can't happen here, this is Canada|"
BS, it CAN happen anywhere.
One example:
***
Venezuela
It’s no secret that the Venezuelan government has eviscerated property rights and fundamental civil liberties in the crisis beleaguered country. But how has the Venezuelan government been able to stay in power? The Venezuelan government’s civilian disarmament campaign is an oft-ignored abuse of human rights in discussions concerning Venezuela’s political crisis.
The Venezuelan government started by passing the original version of the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law. Since then, the law has been modified to broaden the scope of the firearms regulated by the Venezuelan Armed forces, who have the power to register, control, and confiscate firearms.
The day of reckoning came when Venezuela banned the sale of firearms and ammo in 2012, under the guise of fighting crime. Despite the gun ban in place, crime rates continue to skyrocket.
Now Venezuelans have no way of defending themselves against a government that is free to muzzle their speech, expropriate their wealth, debase their currency, and starve them to death. And if that weren’t enough, the average Venezuelan must contend with the constant threat of common criminals and colectivos, Venezuela’s infamous pro-government paramilitary units.
Even in the 21st century, the nasty effects of gun confiscation are still being felt.
***
When you ban all guns, you effectively eliminate the ability of the population to kick out of power a government by force. The government takes over the judiciary,an arm of the government, (the dictatorship) it becomes then the organs of state power, then VOILA! welcome to the pleasure dome of totalitarianism.
Please, those of you who advocate banning guns, please tell me:
When an oppressive government arrives, destroys independent media and dissent, destoys an independent judiciary - tell me this:
How do you boot the assholes out?
Last edited:
19384 gun related incidents are exceptionally high. Especially when it involves mass murders involving kids in schools etc., There is something fundamentally wrong and dysfunctional - both in practice and in psyche - about gun culture in the US.
I infact think in an ideal US, cops should be disarmed too and firearms only allowed to be carried under strict guidelines for certain armed response units. The UK does this, and they're doing fine. Much better than the US where poorly trained (mentally and physically) officers resort to unnecessary use of guns which results in too many police shootings.
All in all, guns do more damage than they do good.
Is South Africa Next?
South Africa has recently embraced gun confiscation. According to The Citizen, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ordered the confiscation of about 300,000 firearms on June 7, 2018. To say political tension in South Africa is mounting would be an understatement.
Since ending apartheid, South Africa has embarked on a troubling route of economic statism. To make matters worse, the South African government is currently pursuing land redistribution in order to address so-called racial injustices.
Although politicians from the African National Congress (ANC) party have recently backed down from ramming land confiscation legislation into law, there is no telling what could be in store for South Africans now that gun confiscation has been activated.
It would be a mistake to believe South Africa’s gun confiscation ordinance was a random occurrence; it’s the logical conclusion of South Africa’s current gun control framework. The genesis of this troubling development began with the passage of the Firearms Control Act of 2000, which features an extensive system of gun registration.
It’s easy for anti-gun entities to identify gun owners and confiscate their firearms in the long-run when they have their information on the books. With the wrong political actors in power, yesterday's “common-sense” gun control could be tomorrow's vehicle for gun confiscation.
Time will tell if South Africa will descend down the path of tyranny, but its gun control experiment may prove to be fatal should the country take a turn for the worse.
Gun control may not have a path dependency toward tyranny. However, gun confiscation is an egregious form of gun control that allows authoritarians to steamroll their subjects at will. The way gun confiscation enhances the consolidation of state power is undeniable. A disarmed populace is simply no match for a repressive apparatus that has a monopoly on the use of force.
Gun rights might not guarantee victory against tyrants, but being deprived of them all but guarantees submission.
South Africa has recently embraced gun confiscation. According to The Citizen, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ordered the confiscation of about 300,000 firearms on June 7, 2018. To say political tension in South Africa is mounting would be an understatement.
Since ending apartheid, South Africa has embarked on a troubling route of economic statism. To make matters worse, the South African government is currently pursuing land redistribution in order to address so-called racial injustices.
Although politicians from the African National Congress (ANC) party have recently backed down from ramming land confiscation legislation into law, there is no telling what could be in store for South Africans now that gun confiscation has been activated.
It would be a mistake to believe South Africa’s gun confiscation ordinance was a random occurrence; it’s the logical conclusion of South Africa’s current gun control framework. The genesis of this troubling development began with the passage of the Firearms Control Act of 2000, which features an extensive system of gun registration.
It’s easy for anti-gun entities to identify gun owners and confiscate their firearms in the long-run when they have their information on the books. With the wrong political actors in power, yesterday's “common-sense” gun control could be tomorrow's vehicle for gun confiscation.
Time will tell if South Africa will descend down the path of tyranny, but its gun control experiment may prove to be fatal should the country take a turn for the worse.
Gun control may not have a path dependency toward tyranny. However, gun confiscation is an egregious form of gun control that allows authoritarians to steamroll their subjects at will. The way gun confiscation enhances the consolidation of state power is undeniable. A disarmed populace is simply no match for a repressive apparatus that has a monopoly on the use of force.
Gun rights might not guarantee victory against tyrants, but being deprived of them all but guarantees submission.
This argument may seem sound to you.
But the moment you make this argument, you just sound nutty because that is not remotely a possibility in our part of the world. Practically speaking. In fact if they wanted to oppress you the best way to do that is to make you think you were not in an oppressive state, which is what they would ideally do. Sort of how they instituted vaccine mandates and created a moral narrative around it.
So tell me how exactly will a fully armed populace go up against a totalitarian Canadian govt, armed with missiles, drones, 5th gen fighter jets, tanks, artillery, surveillance etc.,?
You can see how this could play out in Canada:
I assert that it most certainly IS a possibility anywhere, because history shows it to be so.
An armed population of citizens becomes unoccupiable.
Who would this government fully armed with missiles and drones etc be made up of ? People. If this government run by people have a large population armed against them, they will lose.
How I sound is irrelevant if my facts and logic make sense.
I assert that it most certainly IS a possibility anywhere, because history shows it to be so.
An armed population of citizens becomes unoccupiable.
Who would this government fully armed with missiles and drones etc be made up of ? People. If this government run by people have a large population armed against them, they will lose.
However naive it may be, I can at least respect the consistency of the anti-gunners who would also seek to disarm police and I could probably respect an anti-gun politician who wasn't a hypocrite and didn't outsource their personal security to armed details.
I think the solution is simple, if you don't like guns, don't own guns and leave those who choose to do so alone. How's that for tolerance?
I think the solution is simple, if you don't like guns, don't own guns and leave those who choose to do so alone. How's that for tolerance?
It doesn't make sense.
We have constitutional protections against a govt actually becoming tyrannical.
But if they infact do become tyrannical you are assuming that a fully armed populace will be able to stand up to an army. You are assuming that this fully armed populace will put themselves on the line with no regard to their families safety. You are assuming that they are even trained enough and physically and mentally in shape to be able to fight an army. Lastly you are not even considering that the army has superior fire power and technology that a fully armed population does not.
Realistically, in the event the US govt. turns on its citizens, the people will lose big time and lose fast. In most cases they will simply surrender.
You're assuming that "the army", as one cohesive unit, will fire upon its own citizens, as if some, if not a large portion won't defect or disobey an order such as that one. That may seem to be the case in certain countries, I doubt it will be that clean cut in the US.
but what if you don't count criminals on criminals violence and only look at civilian victims?
it depends a lot on how much your population is fucked in the head. Israel and Switzerland have a shit ton of guns but they don't use them as Muricans do.In countries with absolute bans, there are essentially no murders or suicides by firearms.
Is it worth banning all guns, or should we allow them, or loosen restrictions like the US?
List of countries by firearm-related homicide rates - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They definitely will. 100%. Just look at what happened just during the George Floyd protests. They 100% will and it has happened in the past as well in other countries.
