Would you support an asbolute ban on all guns?

[jerbear15]

I live in an urban environment and don't hunt, so I have no interest in guns. Having said this I can see that farmers need a rifle or two to protect their animals and livestock, and I can see that some people have an interest in target shooting with either a handgun or rifle. From what I know (and that's not much!) about how to legally obtain and own a hand gun or rifle I believe the current laws on the books in Canada are satisfactory.

What I don't understand is why are automatic, and semi automatic rifles permitted for Joe Public??? I see absolutely no reason why the average person should own one!

You can't apply for handguns licenses anymore.

 

[cunning linguist]

I do. Don't you? Though I'd argue the AR15 is closer to an M4 than .223 Remington is to 5.56x45 NATO.

Of course I do as I have no problems with civilians owning ARs...which isn't even what the Tennessee shooter used, which isn't what the majority of shootings are committed with. All rifles, make up a fraction of a fraction of shootings in the US, but the morons want to ban it because in their minds, "it's basically the same as what the military is issued", which it isn't.

 

[krealtarron]

You do realize the majority of gun crimes are committed by unlicensed criminals with illegal guns from the states. The mass shooting in NS , all those guns came from the US , Maine to be exact. Average Joe hunter like myself aren't going out with our deer rifles causing chaos.

I agree what I am proposing throws hunters like you under the bus. The only other solution I can think of is ammunition control and strict documentation on who buys, what cartridge and how many. Whatever the actual solution may be, in the US, there is a fundamental issue with the narratives, psyche and justifications for gun culture. Not to mention the economics of it all.

 

[barnacler]

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.

Good Lord, a tyrannical governmetn ALWAYS overrides , or pays lip service, or ignores the constitutional protections.

Thsisis where words become so important - do you really think that Russia does not have a constitution guaranteeing all kinds of protection? Of course they do! they just redefine - say - a critique of something the government does as treason, and a COMPLIANT JUDICIARY takes care of the rest.

Of course an armed population can stand up to a government, but more importantly, an armed population will not let itself get that far down the road in the first place.

The US would be the most unoccupiable country on the face of the earth, who are you kidding?

 

[barnacler]

Everything you have written tells me you grew up in a privileged household, never been in a fight and know nothing about firearms.

You're another armchair intellectual like basketcase when it comes to firearms.

I also appears you have never heard of Columbine before.

If you disarm the street police officer, you will get the Columbine situation happening over and over again. They waited for SWAT which resulted in a high body count. Tactics have now changed where patrol officers are now equiped with semi automatic rifles so they can stop the threat as soon as possible.

Banning firearms will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime because we share the longest undefended land border with the United States where the number of guns outnumbers the entire population.

It's also obvious you don't know much about history. Despite having superior firepower and technology, the U.S. could not win in Vietnam. Despite having superior firepower and technology, the coalition forces could not win in Afghanistan.

Get out of your Toronto apartment or whatever bubble you live in and see how the rest of Canada lives.

Lord, I couldn't have said it better.

 

[dirtyharry555]

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.

No army on the planet including the US government can take on the citizens of the USA... other than nuking the entire country and turning it into an unlivable wasteland.

Fighting against citizens armed with over 400 million guns would be intractable guerilla warfare on a level never seen before... almost half the guns owned in the world are by USA citizens.

You would also see defections from the US army left and right... as members would not only support their family members and freedom... they would know in no uncertain terms that fighting against the citizens of the USA is a guarantied losing battle.

The only true bulwark against tyranny is the threat of violence against those that would try to impose it.

One of the most common themes throughout history is the abuse of citizens by their governments. Learn the lessons of the past.

 

[poker]

No. I would not support a total ban on firearms.

a firearm is a big responsibility…. (And everybody gets sad angry sometimes)… so some reasonable controls are necessary.

Nobody liked seeing Reagan get shot.

 

[pete1952]

hand guns yes rifles for hunting no .I have a licence for hunting and have been doing it safley for years
start giving stiffer peneltys for hand guns instead of a slap on the hand for non licened kids that think
its cool to have a gun build more jalls, legal hunters pay for conservation effordsand put millions of dollars
into the system

 

[Ceiling Cat]

If you want a hit on someone, call Von. His cousin Giovanna is a mafia sit woman. For a price ( and a pizza ) she will do a mafia sit on your victim.

 

[Uncharted]

So we have a Government, and a Dictator, that will take away your right to protest, by declaring Marshall law.
They have already circumvented the right to freedom of speech with the new internet law, which gives the government the power to determine what content on the internet, especially anything that criticizes them, can stay on the internet.
A government that is happy to ignore the errosion of our democracy by China, as long as it works in their favor.
And you want the people to be completely unarmed, with this treasonous, dictatorial Government in place?

 

[luvyeah]

If everyone could potentially be carrying a gun it surely reduces the probability people are jerks...

 

[krealtarron]

No army on the planet including the US government can take on the citizens of the USA... other than nuking the entire country and turning it into an unlivable wasteland.

Fighting against citizens armed with over 400 million guns would be intractable guerilla warfare on a level never seen before... almost half the guns owned in the world are by USA citizens.

You would also see defections from the US army left and right... as members would not only support their family members and freedom... they would know in no uncertain terms that fighting against the citizens of the USA is a guarantied losing battle.

The only true bulwark against tyranny is the threat of violence against those that would try to impose it.

One of the most common themes throughout history is the abuse of citizens by their governments. Learn the lessons of the past.

There are fundamental flaws in your premise that a) Citizens will be united against the government b) That they all define tyranny in the same way c) That they are physically and mentally up for it. d) That they won't lay down their weapons when threatened. The majority of people gun owners or not, absolutely will shit their pants and surrender after a few threats.

In reality, they will only look after themselves and their family and won't come to the aid of anyone else let alone be aligned on a singular goal of defeating the government.

The US army on the other hand, will most definitely work together and do the govt's bidding. Dont you doubt that. They will by all means attack and kill US citizens. A tyrannical govt becomes tyrannical because it has support within. So they will use the army against you and an institution like the army has rules to make sure people in their ranks dont stray. None of the 400 million guns can do anything to the tanks, missiles, drones, and other weaponry the US govt has. They dont even have to nuke anything.

 

[Lenny Weinrib]

No. I like guns. They are fun.

 

[Lenny Weinrib]

What are the good calibers?

I think I would be completely for banning weapons or at the very least the majority of calibers. If someone requires to hunt etc., then they can apply for special licenses. But guns should be a privilege, not a right.

 

[krealtarron]

What are the good calibers?

None. Just ban everything.

 

[dirtyharry555]

None. Just ban everything.

Looks like we're back to square one. Guns disallowed for everyone except the privileged class who can afford to pay for armed security (i.e. the wealthy and powerful).

No thanks.

It's about equality and freedom for all, not for a select few.

 

[basketcase]

Canada does pretty well balancing the need for guns as a tool and the threat they create.

Wouldn't object to even tighter restrictions on hand guns though (but as long as they are easy to get down south, we will have an issue with illegal imports).

 

[basketcase]

So we have a Government, and a Dictator, that will take away your right to protest, by declaring Marshall law.
They have already circumvented the right to freedom of speech with the new internet law, which gives the government the power to determine what content on the internet, especially anything that criticizes them, can stay on the internet.
A government that is happy to ignore the errosion of our democracy by China, as long as it works in their favor.
And you want the people to be completely unarmed, with this treasonous, dictatorial Government in place?

Nice to see the militia movement is alive and well in the 2020's.

Pretty scary that people actually believe that shit.

 

[barnacler]

The only true bulwark against tyranny is the threat of violence against those that would try to impose it.

One of the most common themes throughout history is the abuse of citizens by their governments. Learn the lessons of the past.

You nailed it.

ALL rule of law is backed up by PHYSICAL FORCE.

Those who rely on constitutions etc are ridiculously naive and don't do their historical homework.

 

[Uncharted]

Nice to see the militia movement is alive and well in the 2020's.

Pretty scary that people actually believe that shit.

Pretty scary that people actually excuse a Government that pulls this shit.