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

Typo, I meant registry.

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?