Gun violence article

[lookingforitallthetime]

I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I'm also not opposed to gun regulation.

 

[dcbogey]

So you want to own a gun THAT badly, that you put it on the same level as Freedom of speech and expression and movement, congregation, etc?

Well, I guess just because it sounds absolutely ABSURD doesn't mean its not true and valid, so lease tell me why. I can't, for the life of me, understand WHAT could be so great about owning guns... ?

And don't tell me it doesn't matter and that you don't have to justify your love for firearms.

Yes I do put it on the same levels as those other freedoms (often under attack as well, by the way). Understand that I am am talking about the LEGAL ownership of firearms. For me, the ownership of a firearm is much more about what it allows me to do - put food on my table; spending a December day in a duck blind with my father and brother, talking about nothing and everything; listening to the forest wake-up on a spring morning trying to lure a turkey within range. It is part of MY culture (and no I'm not native) and I will not give it up easily. Do I "love" firearms? No, but I appreciate their beauty and what they allow me to do.
Do I expect you to understand - no. And it doen't matter to me in the least.

 

[LancsLad]

Is that just rhetoric or do you actually think we do not have freedom of expression?

The charter of human rights and freedoms gaurantees "Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"... speech counts as one of those.

Try standing on a street corner and saying out loud or publishing a pamphlet that questions the accuracy of "accepted facts" regarding a certain internal german matter during WW2 and see how long it takes you to be confronted by the Police. Due to political correctness in Canada there are certain opinions that people are ( rightly or wrongly) not allowed to express. Certain lobby groups have amazing clout in the "free" country.

That is NOT Freedom of Speech.


.

 

[LancsLad]

I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I'm also not opposed to gun regulation.

Is this the first plank in your platform when you run as a "typical" Canadian in the next election?????




Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Is this the first plank in your platform when you run as a "typical" Canadian in the next election?????

I'm never going to run for office. Unlike you, I'm afraid of the skeletons in my closet.

Sometimes Lancs, the typical Canadian has it right.

Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.

I don't believe it's inconsistent to support gun ownership and regulation at the same time. I would have thought a sportsman such as yourself would have no problem with gun regulation. You don't really want everyone packin' do you?

Tombstone wasn't a nice place to raise a family.

 

[LancsLad]

I'm never going to run for office. Unlike you, I'm afraid of the skeletons in my closet.

Sometimes Lancs, the typical Canadian has it right.



I don't believe it's inconsistent to support gun ownership and regulation at the same time. I would have thought a sportsman such as yourself would have no problem with gun regulation. You don't really want everyone packin' do you?

Tombstone wasn't a nice place to raise a family.

I don't have problems with general rules as regards safety issues.

I was winding you up, as they say, with the King quote. That one strikes me as so typical of the "Canadian" approach.


Long day, time to rest the humour generator.

Check out the poll thread in politics, our little weiner buddy webby was back. Maybe he did put the whole Board on ignore, that way the lucky bugger won't have to read his own drivel. ( insert smilie here)

 

[wikiwild]

Yes I do put it on the same levels as those other freedoms (often under attack as well, by the way). Understand that I am am talking about the LEGAL ownership of firearms. For me, the ownership of a firearm is much more about what it allows me to do - put food on my table; spending a December day in a duck blind with my father and brother, talking about nothing and everything; listening to the forest wake-up on a spring morning trying to lure a turkey within range. It is part of MY culture (and no I'm not native) and I will not give it up easily. Do I "love" firearms? No, but I appreciate their beauty and what they allow me to do.
Do I expect you to understand - no. And it doen't matter to me in the least.

Yes it does matter to you, because there are many people who would lobby for banning guns altogether and they have just as many votes as you do. They are all part of the democratic process just as you are. If you want something to be legal/illegal, you have to be able to influence other minds.

Oh and Loblaws and Dominion are great 'put-food-on-the-table' resources that don't involve guns. And can you not get the same outdoor experience from fishing or camping?

What century is this? Where the hell am I?

Sure, I love Tom Clancy novels as much as the next guy, but if you're not in the armed forces or police force, I'd say there is very little justification for your having a gun. Face it, its a toy you like playing with it. There is nothing noble about a gun, unless you happen to live in the early 1800's.

Banning firearms needs to be looked at seriously. I suspect that the negative effects on the objective (reducing gun violence) may outweigh the positives in the long run, but you can't just toss a potential solution outside just because someone can't play with their gun anymore. There are more important things at stake.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I don't have problems with general rules as regards safety issues.

I was winding you up, as they say, with the King quote. That one strikes me as so typical of the "Canadian" approach.


Long day, time to rest the humour generator.

Check out the poll thread in politics, our little weiner buddy webby was back. Maybe he did put the whole Board on ignore, that way the lucky bugger won't have to read his own drivel. ( insert smilie here)

Cheers mate.

I responded to maxxie, but he won't be able to learn from my wisdom.

 

[Moraff]

Hitler was an advocate of gun control. That certainly worked out well didn't it?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Hitler was an advocate of gun control. That certainly worked out well didn't it?

Sorry, I missed the irony.

 

[wikiwild]

Try standing on a street corner and saying out loud or publishing a pamphlet that questions the accuracy of "accepted facts" regarding a certain internal german matter during WW2 and see how long it takes you to be confronted by the Police. Due to political correctness in Canada there are certain opinions that people are ( rightly or wrongly) not allowed to express. Certain lobby groups have amazing clout in the "free" country.

That is NOT Freedom of Speech.


.

Freedom of speech has its limits, specifically 'Clear and present danger'. I.e. you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre and expect to be covered under the Free speech laws. Clear and present danger is a matter of interpretation, and that probably changes based on the times and current state of affairs.

That's why we have judges by the way, so they can interpret and be arbiters of the constitution and the charter.

Many people don't get this because people love absolute rules because then they don't have to think or use their own judgement. But not very many things are absolutely always right or absolutely always wrong.

And that goes for gun ownership too. It may be good for some people to have guns. Perhaps only people who demonstrate enough need and then go through an intensive training course to earn a license (like we would for a car). I doubt any such cases exist though.

 

[wikiwild]

Hitler was an advocate of gun control. That certainly worked out well didn't it?

Argument Ad Hitlerum (aka Reductio Ad Hitlerum) - Hitler also had a mustache, therefore mustaches must be evil.

 

[dcbogey]

Yes it does matter to you, because there are many people who would lobby for banning guns altogether and they have just as many votes as you do. They are all part of the democratic process just as you are. If you want something to be legal/illegal, you have to be able to influence other minds.

True - but the anti-firearm votes tend to be concentrated in urban centres and whether we like it or not, under the current system, one vote does not always equal another.

Oh and Loblaws and Dominion are great 'put-food-on-the-table' resources that don't involve guns.

Some of the kind of food I like to eat you can't buy (at least legally)

And can you not get the same outdoor experience from fishing or camping?

No

What century is this? Where the hell am I?

Sure, I love Tom Clancy novels as much as the next guy, but if you're not in the armed forces or police force, I'd say there is very little justification for your having a gun. Face it, its a toy you like playing with it. There is nothing noble about a gun, unless you happen to live in the early 1800's.

In very simplistic terms, it is most definitely NOT a toy, but a tool to be used.

Banning firearms needs to be looked at seriously. I suspect that the negative effects on the objective (reducing gun violence) may outweigh the positives in the long run, but you can't just toss a potential solution outside just because someone can't play with their gun anymore. There are more important things at stake.

No one I know "plays" with their firearms. Your comments about firearms being "toys" is one of the symptoms of the "gansta culture", along with that culture's lack of respect for human life.

I didn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from and it truly doesn't matter to me if you do. There are two sides to every coin and ours are on opposite sides. C'est la vie.

 

[dcbogey]

And that goes for gun ownership too. It may be good for some people to have guns. Perhaps only people who demonstrate enough need and then go through an intensive training course to earn a license (like we would for a car). I doubt any such cases exist though.

Perhaps you should look into what is required these days to get a firearms license or a hunting license.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Perhaps you should look into what is required these days to get a firearms license or a hunting license.

I think this is a good thing, don't you? I have no problem with sportsmen owning guns but if they're resposible and safe, regulation won't diminish their experience.

I don't believe in banning guns and it won't reduce gun violence anyway. Maybe more regulation won't either, but it's a reasonable response. Perhaps regulating the purchase of ammunition is something to look at more closely.

 

[themexi]

Given that it is a cultural problem, would it not make sense to take the guns out of the equation rather than risk culture 'misusing' the guns?

I mean, when's the last time you felt the need to form a militia and overthrow the government?

Why not isolate the induviduls/families/"communities" that exhibit these particular cultural traits (completely separate from race) & eliminate them? I've had enough of these gangstas ruining stuff for everyone else....Get Rid Of them

 

[dcbogey]

I think this is a good thing, don't you? I have no problem with sportsmen owning guns but if they're resposible and safe, regulation won't diminish their experience.

I agree with a tough course and test to be able to purchase and possess firearms. When the gun registry was first proposed I remember calls for all firearms to be stored in a central location - in my mind not a good idea.

I don't believe in banning guns and it won't reduce gun violence. Maybe more regulation won't either, but it's a reasonable response. Perhaps regulating the purchase of ammunition is something to look at more closely.

Every time I've purchased ammunition, I've needed to show ID, usually my possesion license.

 

[gentle_lover]

I also believe that banning guns it is not the solution to this on going gun-related crimes. I agree with some people here. It is more like cultural and mentalilty problem. Blaming guns because guns related crime? It is not fair for other law-abiding gun owners who don't do the crime.
How does it sound if government start blaming black community because of high crime rate done by and related with them? Wouldn't it be unfair for the rest of black community who obey the law.

Role models is the one to blame here. For people who smart or wise enough to know the differences between the reality and entertainment, songs lyrics about gang-bangers are just like any other songs.
But for this "special" part of community who are constantly looking for a role model, it becomes a problem.
The whole community also contributes to this culture. One example: being a bad boy is widely accepted by "cool" community as "cool" or "sexy" thing. Soon after, every guy wants to be a bad boy.

that's just my 50 cents

 

[LancsLad]

Freedom of speech has its limits, specifically 'Clear and present danger'. I.e. you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre and expect to be covered under the Free speech laws. Clear and present danger is a matter of interpretation, and that probably changes based on the times and current state of affairs.

That's why we have judges by the way, so they can interpret and be arbiters of the constitution and the charter.

Many people don't get this because people love absolute rules because then they don't have to think or use their own judgement. But not very many things are absolutely always right or absolutely always wrong.

And that goes for gun ownership too. It may be good for some people to have guns. Perhaps only people who demonstrate enough need and then go through an intensive training course to earn a license (like we would for a car). I doubt any such cases exist though.

Typical lieberal.

Of course you don't just yell fire for kicks in a crowded building. That is far and away different from expressing an opinion that some people have deemed offensive.

We had justice at one time, its called British Common Law, now we have that farking civil code drivel that trewdough snuck in while good men slept.

 

[gdurham]

So you want to own a gun THAT badly, that you put it on the same level as Freedom of speech and expression and movement, congregation, etc?

Well, I guess just because it sounds absolutely ABSURD doesn't mean its not true and valid, so lease tell me why. I can't, for the life of me, understand WHAT could be so great about owning guns... ?

And don't tell me it doesn't matter and that you don't have to justify your love for firearms.

Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming a pencil for making a spelling mistake or Rosie blaming her spoon for making her fat.

Let's put it this way, if they ban guns they are going to have a real tough time getting mine, 'cause I am not handing them over without a fight. To me gun ownership is sacred, and I would put it on the same level as freedom of speech.

I don't have to justify the 'why', and I simply will not to someone like yourself. Hunting and guns are part of my heritage and lifestyle, as they are for many, many other Canadians.