We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Personally, I'd even put that total ban on the table for discussion, so long as it comes with a compelling argument for how that's going to stop people who don't obey things like "bans".

 

Quebec is going ahead with a long-gun ban.  The RCMP estimate 1.6 million guns in Quebec.  During the last registry there's a lot of estimations that less than 50% of Canadians bothered to register their guns, less so in Quebec.  So this new 17 million dollars plus 5 million a year registry may result in 800'000 firearms being banned out of 1.6M ? 

Not sure what they hope to acomplish with that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

A ban?  Or a new registry?

Paladin1

Typo, I meant registry.

NorthReport

In the wake of all these gun shootings Quebec is reinstituting the long gun-registry.

My hunch is that Canada as a whole will soon get their long gun registry back.

Harper was just a jerk - good riddance! 

Will Alberta be the next province?

Slumberjack

I mentioned that I support a gun registry, but not because I believe it would have any impact on gun related violence if a perpertrator was so inclined.  I look at it from the perspective that some in the community may derive some comfort and a sense of safety from a registry of firearms, whether there would be a basis for that or not is secondary.  It's similar to supporting the right of a person who likes to pray.  Have at it if it makes you feel better.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And I'm still not clear why guns aren't simply registered when purchased, as a matter of paperwork.  Yes, I know that won't address already-owned guns -- only all soon-to-be-owned guns.

NorthReport
Slumberjack

The NY Times reporting on the situation itself makes it a propaganda coup for ISIS.

NDPP

"The United States is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." MLK

I wholeheartedly support the disarming of the United States. The most infernal killing machine in human history. This is an urgent task perhaps the most important in human history. Begin there. From the top down.

NDPP

Slumberjack wrote:

The NY Times reporting on the situation itself makes it a propaganda coup for ISIS.

ISIS = IS-US

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And I'm still not clear why guns aren't simply registered when purchased, as a matter of paperwork.  Yes, I know that won't address already-owned guns -- only all soon-to-be-owned guns.

 

Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934.

Certain "scary looking" guns also need to be registered like the iconic AR15.

There's a number of issues people have with registering their guns.  At one point it cost $15-20 per firearm to register if I recall and the government just couldn't get the information correct and the cards people recieved were all fucked up meaning people kept having to resubmit.

If the security was anything like the quality of the data collection then criminals would very easily have access to an online shopping list of who owns what firearm and at what residence it's stored at. there were a couple cases of the long gun registry data base being breached by hackers.

Lastly people were/are concerned the government will decide over night that a certian gun is now illegal, making them paper criminals over night and they would be forced to turn in their firearm without any compensation. This very senario happened last year when the RCMP decided to ban a $4000 firearm (Swiss Arms) over night. The plan was for people to turn them in to be destroyed and not recieve a penny compensation. The conservative government caved to public pressure and reversed the RCMPs decision (to date the firearm they wanted to ban was never used in a crime in Canada)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-reversed-rcmps-ban-o...

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Personally, I'd even put that total ban on the table for discussion, so long as it comes with a compelling argument for how that's going to stop people who don't obey things like "bans".

Right now the argument looks like this:

Problem -- too many drivers are speeding on this stretch of highway, putting their own and others' lives in danger.

Solution -- stop the drivers who are driving the speed limit and impound their vehicles.  Fewer vehicles = less speeding!

Since you also like to argue ridiculous extremes why don't we test how far your logic goes. so if laws don't work why not ban all laws and have none?

Many crimes have been commited with legally obtained guns -- a lot of those may heve been prevented with more restrictions.

Many suicides have also been committed with legally obtained guns that probably should not have been so easy to get.

Nobody is pretending that anything will eliminate all gun violence and death -- just reduce it. Make it a little harder.

NorthReport

Worst of all, there continues to be no reason to think that any degree of horror will spur cultural or policy change when it comes to the easy access to firearms in America. The empathy I felt for the people at a disability services building made the violence more real to me. But I've felt this degree of empathy before. When Adam Lanza killed all those first-graders on December 14, 2012, I thought about my own son, then a 5-year-old, and imagined him experiencing the horror of a shooter in his school. Surely every parent in America had such thoughts as they sent their children off to school in the following days, and perhaps every day since.

And yet, we've done nothing. The pace of mass shootings is accelerating. Thanks to the power of the gun lobby and their cronies in Congress, all we do is offer empty thoughts and prayers, while we slowly become more and more afraid.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/opinions/perry-san-bernardino-shooting/

NorthReport

Worst of all, there continues to be no reason to think that any degree of horror will spur cultural or policy change when it comes to the easy access to firearms in America. The empathy I felt for the people at a disability services building made the violence more real to me. But I've felt this degree of empathy before. When Adam Lanza killed all those first-graders on December 14, 2012, I thought about my own son, then a 5-year-old, and imagined him experiencing the horror of a shooter in his school. Surely every parent in America had such thoughts as they sent their children off to school in the following days, and perhaps every day since.

And yet, we've done nothing. The pace of mass shootings is accelerating. Thanks to the power of the gun lobby and their cronies in Congress, all we do is offer empty thoughts and prayers, while we slowly become more and more afraid.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/opinions/perry-san-bernardino-shooting/

NorthReport

Why mass death is our new normal: The real root of America’s gun violence

We all hate how routine gun massacres are now. But too few are willing to place the blame squarely where it belongs

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/03/why_mass_death_is_our_new_normal_the_rea...

NorthReport

How They Got Their Guns

By LARRY BUCHANAN, JOSH KELLER, RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and DANIEL VICTOR UPDATED December 3, 2015

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-t...

NorthReport

Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, husband and wife, were suspected of killing 14 people at a holiday office party in San Bernardino, Calif. Four guns were recovered: a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle, a DPMS Panther Arms assault rifle, a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Llama handgun.

NorthReport

OCT. 1, 2015Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where he was a student. He was armed with six guns, including a Glock pistol, a Smith & Wesson pistol, a Taurus pistol and a Del-Ton assault rifle, according to The Associated Press.

NorthReport

AUG. 26, 2015Vester Lee Flanagan II, 41, shot and killed a Roanoke, Va., television reporter and a cameraman with a Glock handgun while they were reporting a story live.

NorthReport

JULY 23, 2015Using a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol bought from a pawnshop, John R. Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at a movie theater in Lafayette, La.

NorthReport

JUNE 17, 2015Dylann Roof, 21, killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.

NorthReport

OCT. 24, 2014Jaylen Ray Fryberg, 15, used his father’s Beretta pistol to shoot and kill four students in his high school’s cafeteria in Marysville, Wash.

NorthReport

APRIL 2, 2014Specialist Ivan Antonio Lopez opened fire at Fort Hood with a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol, killing three people and wounding 16 others.

NorthReport

SEPT. 16, 2013Aaron Alexis, 34, used a Remington shotgun to kill 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.

Paladin1

Slumberjack

Quote:
But too few are willing to place the blame squarely where it belongs

Where exactly would that be?  If someone was angry and deranged enough to go on a shooting spree, it wouldn't make them any less angry and deranged if they couldn't access a gun.  They'd most likely find another way.

NorthReport

We need to rid all our societies of all guns as arming the police has as well become a gigantic failure. Obviously the police with their bigger and more powerful guns for the police mantra haven't a clue how to solve the problem. The police mentality approach has seriously damaged our societies.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

@NorthReport:  could you make some of those tiny thumbnails larger?  I can't quite make out what they are.  Could you make them HUGE, if only for emotional effect?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Where exactly would that be?  If someone was angry and deranged enough to go on a shooting spree, it wouldn't make them any less angry and deranged if they couldn't access a gun.  They'd most likely find another way.

I'm sure studies have shown that when a person is so frustrated or angry that murdering a dozen strangers seems like a good idea, but they can't easily acquire a gun, they'll talk out their problems with a therapist and begin the healing process.  I'll leave it to someone else to post a link to those studies.

NorthReport

if i knew how to make them smaller I would be glad to oblige.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

@NorthReport:  could you make some of those tiny thumbnails larger?  I can't quite make out what they are.  Could you make them HUGE, if only for emotional effect?

NorthReport

Wrong assumption.

Why do people have locks on their doors? 

It's a deterrent.

When you make something difficult lots of people give up.

How many people get their doors smashed in?

Access to guns makes it too easy.

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
But too few are willing to place the blame squarely where it belongs

Where exactly would that be?  If someone was angry and deranged enough to go on a shooting spree, it wouldn't make them any less angry and deranged if they couldn't access a gun.  They'd most likely find another way.

Slumberjack

Quote:
Obviously the police with their bigger and more powerful guns for the police mantra haven't a clue how to solve the problem. The police mentality approach has seriously damaged our societies.

Well at least this actually says more about the situation than the MSM ever will.  For them if it's terrorism they're content to offer that up as an answer to their listeners, with few other explanations required.  Terrorism occurs because it's terrorism.  What more do people need.  If not terrorism, then the specter of a lone, insane individual will suffice.  Mass shooters who aren't terrorists have to be depicted as loners, aside from the possibility that they likely were, because the loner designation is almost subliminal in it's attempt to soothe the frayed nerves of the public by implying that these incidents, terrible and prayer-worthy as they are, constitute rare situations and not a general theme permeating through the collective psychosis of the society that has been constructed.  For the media and politicians, these incidents are certainly not symptoms of a condition indicating something is seriously wrong with the way we're living, or bellweathers of how rotted out the society we live in really is, so much so that it's almost guaranteed that odd individuals here and there conclude that they can't take it anymore.  And of course, the main obfuscation in all of this is the debate around guns.

NorthReport

Republicans, Democrats criticized over San Bernardino prayers and gun reform

Some have been accused of 'prayer shaming,' others of hypocrisy

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/prayer-shaming-us-bernardino-1.3348658

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
@NorthReport:  could you make some of those tiny thumbnails larger?  I can't quite make out what they are.  Could you make them HUGE, if only for emotional effect?

Yes, we need them made large enough to attempt metallurgy with the naked eye.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Why do people have locks on their doors? 

It's a deterrent.

When you make something difficult lots of people give up.

OK.  But how many people claim that if we only had the courage to make door locks mandatory, there'd be no more break-ins?

NorthReport
Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Wrong assumption.

Why do people have locks on their doors? 

It's a deterrent.

When you make something difficult lots of people give up.

How many people get their doors smashed in?

Access to guns makes it too easy.

 

Good choice of words. How about a woman who has been sexually assaulted and wants to carry a handgun for self-defense? What if it gives them the confidence to walk outside at night and gives them the feeling they can prevent themselves from being brutalized again by detering another attack?

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

I wonder what he was thinking when tke last breathe of life was oozing out of him

 

He probably wished he had a gun with him.

NorthReport

Nobody, but nobody needs a gun in our society. Not the police. Not victims. 

One of the biggest mistakes we have ever made in society was arming the police on the beat.

NorthReport

After 354 Mass Shootings This Year, Stopping Gun Violence Is Totally Up to Us

A close look at the shocking data.

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/mass-shootings-america-gun-control

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
I wonder what he was thinking when tke last breathe of life was oozing out of him...

On the other hand, he could have been run over in the parking lot on his way home.  Laying there in that situation, it wouldn't make much sense to second guess his ownership of an automobile, and support for automobile ownership in general.  Plenty of people actually get run over by automobiles.  Some people use their automobiles on a daily basis as if they were weapons.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Nobody, but nobody needs a gun in our society. Not the police. Not victims.

Police should just outwit criminals.

And really, so should victims, right?  If you can't convince someone to not prey on you then isn't that just natural selection??

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
But too few are willing to place the blame squarely where it belongs

Where exactly would that be?  If someone was angry and deranged enough to go on a shooting spree, it wouldn't make them any less angry and deranged if they couldn't access a gun.  They'd most likely find another way.

This is a rather sad attempt at the guns don't kill people argument.

Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
Nobody, but nobody needs a gun in our society...

Not when there's spears and arrows that could be resorted to for subsistence hunting, or better yet, a trip to the protein department at the supermarket, armed with a re-usable shopping bag. Corporate food conglomerates are more than capable of providing everything we need anyway.

Slumberjack

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

No, not the point.  A person could just as well drive theri truck into a crowd of people at practically any venue where people are known to gather.  Numbers of casualties and the capacity for first response on the scene is one thing.  The motive behind it all is the point.

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

No, not the point.  A person could just as well drive theri truck into a crowd of people at practically any venue where people are known to gather.  Numbers of casualties and the capacity for first response on the scene is one thing.  The motive behind it all is the point.

So let me guess there is no relationship between the ease of getting guns and the use of them to kill people and the numbers of murders.

Just all a coincidence. Just a nasty conspiracy to suggest that these devices designed to kill people actually do and that without them fewer people would die.

Right.

(sarcasm alert)

Slumberjack

Take away all the guns, and people will find another way.  Fertilizer bombs or something else.  Ricin as someone mentioned, pipe bombs such as at the Atlanta Olympics.  No one is suggesting a ban on cutting lengths of pipe that might be conducive to making pipe bombs.  If that was all people had to use I'm sure there'd be talk like that.  That you could only cut a length of pipe for specific, work related reasons, provided that the pipe was registered, and cut and used under close supervision to make sure it isn't being used to make a pipe bomb.

It seems as if it is harder for social democratic minded folks to wrap their minds around certain realities.  I sense that this is due in part to the fact that social democracy, in the various campaigns for power, are not actually in the business of identifying fundamental problems and working toward systemic changes to society. They merely want their turn at managing what the commodity regime has already laid down.  It's probably why any talk about the fundamental source of the problems in society zips on by as if it were nothing, and why instead, we keep dancing around dead end topics like the choice and availability of weaponry.  The form the violence comes in as opposed to the source.

Paladin1

Slumberjack wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

No, not the point.  A person could just as well drive theri truck into a crowd of people at practically any venue where people are known to gather.  Numbers of casualties and the capacity for first response on the scene is one thing.  The motive behind it all is the point.

Like what happened to Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So let me guess there is no relationship between the ease of getting guns and the use of them to kill people and the numbers of murders.

I think this is where it could be useful to be clear about where we're talking about.

Yes, in the U.S. it's still not unheard of to open a new bank account and receive a free gun.  But that's SO not the case in Canada.  And somehow things get strangely slippery and we end up discussing how CANADA needs to amp up its gun control laws because someone in Florida bought an assault rifle using a library card as identification.

Quote:
Just a nasty conspiracy to suggest that these devices designed to kill people actually do and that without them fewer people would die.

Possible rhetoric fail:  some folk, even progressive folk, have fired a gun and miraculously avoided murdering someone when they did.  Perhaps the meme that "guns are designed for murdering humans" doesn't resonate with anyone who's actually fired a gun and not murdered a human.  Maybe telling others that guns are just for murder is asking people to salute your silly.  What if we all just agreed that guns are made to fire a projectile?  Is that where the Venn diagram overlaps?

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

No, not the point.  A person could just as well drive theri truck into a crowd of people at practically any venue where people are known to gather.  Numbers of casualties and the capacity for first response on the scene is one thing.  The motive behind it all is the point.

So let me guess there is no relationship between the ease of getting guns and the use of them to kill people and the numbers of murders.

Just all a coincidence. Just a nasty conspiracy to suggest that these devices designed to kill people actually do and that without them fewer people would die.

Right.

(sarcasm alert)

 

Not to shoot a red herring (heh) but speaking about killing people, why aren't we this emotional about alcohol? Deaths due to alcohol compared to firearms are as much as 10 to 1. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 20:1.   NorthReport mentioned 354 mass shootings in the US. How many fatlities have their been from drinking and driving or other alcohol related accidents?

If the bottom line is saving lives, wouldn't banning alcohol save a hell of a lot of them?

Pages