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

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Cars are designed to get one from A to B.

Guns are designed to kill. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Actually, they're designed to get a bullet from A to B.

Trust me.  I've used one.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Cars are designed to get one from A to B.

Guns are designed to kill. 

Of course those are the prime purposes. Guns also in many contexts have a much weaker argument in terms of necessity (I realize a gun in bear country is more essential than a car in the city so I won't make this absolute).

But certainly cars are regulated and licensed and so are drivers and they are limited in terms of their design in many respects. And if drivers are fine with this you have to wonder why gun owners are not -- except that there is a different culture where their freedom becomes more important than the safety of others.

NorthReport

And the safety of others is paramount and that is why I no longer have time for

'killing gun" proponents who are systematically and purposely choosing to ignore science. They remind me of the people who similarily deny climate change. 

"Killing guns" will event eventually go the way of cigarettes.

Even the USA is now reaching its tipping point.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

If you're a gun owner, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why you should have to give up your gun?

If you're anti-gun, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why that gun owner shouldn't have to?

I'd guess the majority of both sides are so entrenched that they are wholly uninterested in hearing anything that doesn't support their beliefs. 

I could say that statistically it's safer for me to own a full-auto assault rifle than a hunting shot gun but is anyone going to support that (assuming I provide evidence)?  Nope.

Is a robust study that proves me having a loaded pistol locked in a biometric safe is statistically more dangerous for me and my family than not having one? No, because I believe it's not.

 

The US already has evidence and proof of what the most dangerous guns are and it's wholly ignored.

 

If both sides would relent and find a common ground a lot of improvements could be made. 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

Imagine if some part of the discussion of automobile safety were, in fact, occupied by people who who genuinely insisted that the only way to prevent automobile deaths is, in fact, to take cars away from everyone.

I've actually seen that argument often enough.  Ban all personal moterized vehicles. The only way to work is bus, train, walking or biking.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

I could say that statistically it's safer for me to own a full-auto assault rifle than a hunting shot gun but is anyone going to support that (assuming I provide evidence)?  Nope.

No one is going to support it because it is a nonsense argument.

Because there are more accidents involving passenger vehicles is that a justification for not having more stringent rules and policing around semi trucks?

No. Never mind that that sophistric argument ignores how many people are likely to own each firearm, the reason for the regulation is isn't the numbers, but the relative risk posed by the two, and their usage.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But certainly cars are regulated and licensed and so are drivers and they are limited in terms of their design in many respects.

But that regulation and licensing doesn't seem to do anything at all to prevent DUI deaths, vehicular manslaughter, etc.

As for design limitation, I've always found it funny that when the speed limit on an open stretch of highway is 100kph, cars are manufactured that can easily travel twice that fast.

Want to stop all speeding on highways?  Install a mechanical governor in each car that prevents it from travelling faster than 100kph.  It's THAT easy.  But what do you suppose car owners would say about that?

Quote:
I've actually seen that argument often enough.  Ban all personal moterized vehicles.

I think we know exactly what "car nuts" would say:  "But I'm a safe driver!  I've never been in an accident!"  Well, sorry bro, but you'll need to give up your car anyway because that guy over there keeps driving drunk and there's no way to take his car away without taking yours away too.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

If you're a gun owner, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why you should have to give up your gun?

If you're anti-gun, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why that gun owner shouldn't have to?

I'd guess the majority of both sides are so entrenched that they are wholly uninterested in hearing anything that doesn't support their beliefs. 

I could say that statistically it's safer for me to own a full-auto assault rifle than a hunting shot gun but is anyone going to support that (assuming I provide evidence)?  Nope.

Is a robust study that proves me having a loaded pistol locked in a biometric safe is statistically more dangerous for me and my family than not having one? No, because I believe it's not.

 

The US already has evidence and proof of what the most dangerous guns are and it's wholly ignored.

 

If both sides would relent and find a common ground a lot of improvements could be made. 

The Pro gun position:

1) Go straight to the extreme themselves wanting no regulation or controls whatsover while considering unlimited freedom and privacy for themselves no matter the cost to society.

2) Recast those who disagree to an extreme they did not actually advocate (say they want to remove all guns rather than regulate, register, limit the rate of fire-power etc.). Keep pushing an extreme until the opposite extreme grows (while people die).

3) Then say that nobody is being reasonable and the argument is polarized when they pushed it that way.

4) Then they define what the so-called common ground.

This position might be described as sociopathic.

I suggest that the side that is pushing bizarre, often paranoid extremes might not be the one to suggest both sides relent and seek common ground. Gun advocates have tried for decades to burn and salt any common ground and redefine compromise to be their own position.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

No. Never mind that that sophistric argument ignores how many people are likely to own each firearm, the reason for the regulation is isn't the numbers, but the relative risk posed by the two, and their usage.

 

That's exactly the issue with gun control. They're pushing for restrictions based off assumed relative risk. It's false.

Full-auto firearms haven't always been illegal in Canada. I don't have the date on hand but they were legal to own and use not all that long ago. Even after they were made phorhibited there are still 7100 or so full-auto firearms in Canada including belt fed machine guns.

Number of muders commited with full auto firearms in Canada before or after the ban? 0

The US is full of them right?  The number of homicides with legal (registered) full-auto firearms in the US is something like 2.

Now the police have came across illegal full auto firearms in Canada but they weren't used in murders.

 

If you listen to the media full-auto firearms would turn the streets red with blood but they're out there and not accounting for many shootings.

Semi-Automatic AK47s and all their variants are phorbhibited because they're scary and incredibly deadly. It's iconic right?  I own a firearm that for all intents and purposes is the same as an AK47. Same caliber, same operating system, same size.  This near-AK47 "killing gun" [ just for you North Report :)  ] has been available in Canada as a non-restricted firearm (can drive around with it under your car seat) since 2006. Number of homicides or even shootings commited with it? 0    Any guesses why that is?

 

Why aren't we putting more efforts into stopping illegal firearms from coming in across the border?

Why does the RCMP seem to care so much about full-auto firearms when they aren't the weapon of choice for murders in Canada ?

Why don't we hear more about firearms that "go missing" from police stations. That's go missing as in as in cops stealing them. [ back in 1997 over 3000 small arms in police possession went missing from the Toronto police department and were found to be sold by police and citizens who worked there]

 

The risk isn't the name, style, plastic parts or accessories. It's in the availability of illegal firearms.

6079_Smith_W

I refered directly to the misleading nature of number arguments in the same sentence, Paladin. Was that not clear enough?

When I say relative risk I'm not talking about comparing stats between very different machines, only one of which is in common usage. I am talking about relative risk in terms of how deadly they are.

And if you have something which is almost an AK47, all I take from your argument is that there is good reason to widen the restriction.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I refered directly to the misleading nature of number arguments in the same sentence, Paladin. Was that not clear enough?

When I say relative risk I'm not talking about comparing stats between very different machines, only one of which is in common usage. I am talking about relative risk in terms of how deadly they are.

Sorry Smith I'm not following (honestly). I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

Quote:

And if you have something which is almost an AK47, all I take from your argument is that there is good reason to widen the restriction.

Why Smith?  There's thousands of them in Canada and they haven't been used in a single shooting in the 10 years since they were introduced.  What will widening the restriction against them acomplish?  You hear 'like an AK47' and it's somehow more dangerous.  Would imposing restrictions on how I use it legally stop a criminal from using it however they wanted?

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I refered directly to the misleading nature of number arguments in the same sentence, Paladin. Was that not clear enough?

When I say relative risk I'm not talking about comparing stats between very different machines, only one of which is in common usage. I am talking about relative risk in terms of how deadly they are.

Sorry Smith I'm not following (honestly). I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

Quote:

And if you have something which is almost an AK47, all I take from your argument is that there is good reason to widen the restriction.

Why Smith?  There's thousands of them in Canada and they haven't been used in a single shooting in the 10 years since they were introduced.  What will widening the restriction against them acomplish?  You hear 'like an AK47' and it's somehow more dangerous.  Would imposing restrictions on how I use it legally stop a criminal from using it however they wanted?

The idea that you need stats of deaths to establish that guns are dangerous and need regulation is really strange.

6079_Smith_W

Because automatic weapons, and semiautomatics which can be converted are potentially more deadly. And that function has absolutely no legal useful purpose.

There is no need in my mind to give a reason any more than there is to override a decision that a car is unsafe to drive on the road, or that full strength Tiger Balm is too strong to be used in Canada.

The numbers are irrelevant. Start using that as an excuse and the position of our friends here who advocate a complete ban starts to to make more and more sense to me. As it is, any death raises the question of whether it is worth having these machines available at all.

I don't think we really have to have incidents like that Yemeni wedding to justify restrictions on firearms.

 

 

NorthReport

Like Dustin Hoffman said in Runaway Jury "Let's make killing gun violence a killing gun industry problem".

Paladin1

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Because automatic weapons, and semiautomatics which can be converted are potentially more deadly. And that function has absolutely no legal useful purpose.

In the context of firearm crimes in Canada evidence shows that it's not more dangerous. Even when found in possession of criminals it's more of a novelty thing.

Besides are we really worried about what's more deadly or the image?  .50 caliber semi-auto matic rifles are non-restricted in Canada (again you can drive around with them, shoot them out in the woods) These things can disable armored vehicles, shoot down planes. [ here is one for example for sale in Canada, just under $15'000  http://www.tacticalimports.ca/gm6-lynx-p-3.html ]

Yet the RCMP tried to ban a .22 caliber rifle that looked like an AK47.   Absolutely nothing to do with function or how dangerous it's percieved to be. It just looked like an AK.

Full-auto firearms simply aren't the gun of choice of criminals. Small concealable handguns are.     I could debate that fullauto rifles and such aren't as dangerous as the movies try and lead people to believe.  I've shot a number of them on full auto (AR15s, AK47s, MP5sand more) and honestly the first bullet or two may hit but the rest go all over, usually in the air. That's why the army all but stopped using full auto- the USmilitary even removed that function from their rifles for awhile.  Other people may arguably be struck by stray bullets but so too would they with heavier bullet-weight hunting rifles or shotguns. 

I'm getting off track though.  I don't want Canada to bring back full-auto firearms. I really don't care. Ammo is way too expensive, I wouldn't use it in a shooting competition, it would be horrible for a self-defense or home defense kind of thing. it's a novelty. My point is the RCMP use it as a reason to try and ban various styles of firearms yet evidence shows it's a strawman argument.

 

Quote:
The numbers are irrelevant.

The numbers are very relevant.  With firearm deaths, vehicle deaths, deaths from products.

Quote:
As it is, any death raises the question of whether it is worth having these machines available at all.

That's a good question.

6079_Smith_W

You must also think that there should be no restriction on transporting plutonium by air in Canada. There has never been an accident, after all.

And while you say you don't want to bring back full automatics, seems to me the bugbear for you is that the onus is on the government to prove that they have grounds to restrict a killing machine.

I don't see the onus as being there at all. I would reverse that, and ask why even have a machine that you can only use at a shooting range Sorry, but my support for gun ownership ends with their farm use, and hunting for food.

As for "why AK47s", aside from keeping that market out of Canada, I actually agree with you about perception. I am sure knowing as much as you do about guns you are aware of the psychological effect machine guns had on soldiers - from the first world war in which most fired into the air, to later wars, where one machine gun made the difference in getting people over their natural resistance to murder other people.

Of course I don't think all these gun enthusiasts are psychopaths, but I do see that kind of fascination in their interest, and feeling of entitlement to something which can only be used as a toy, though far more deadly.

As for the argument that the government and RCMP are the weird ones because they make supposedly arbitrary decisions. It actually has the opposite affect on me. That woman in faux military garb posing with the rifle? No irrational associations there, obviously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z5mW7e5VqY

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-public-safety-minister-...

 

 

Paladin1

The issue of nuclear weapons and plutonium actually comes up a lot.  Well if you want 30 round magazines for your AR15 why not a nuclear bomb? Why not a death star? The conversation usually goes off the rails pretty quick. But taking your question as genuine there are a number of rules, restrictions, licences and such that are required for transporting plutonium by air. I'd have to go through D19-2-1, Atomic Energy Control Act and Regulations for an accurate answer but I remember this question coming up on the Transporting Dangerous Goods course I took.

I do think the onus is on the government to prove it, yes.  

The reason you can only use it (hypothetical machinegun or full auto rifle) at a shooting range is due to government restrictions. When full auto weapons were legal in Canada there actually was no "shooting range only" restriction placed on them- and yet no homicides with them. No wild gun battles.   Lets be honest restricting someone like me or you to only shoot certain guns on restrictive shooting ranges doesn't save lives.  It's a feel good rule meant to appease gun control proponents.

 

From what I've read in a couple papers and books on the psychology of killing the main difference that helped (for lack of a better word) soldiers get over their natural resistance to murdering other human beings was the targets they were taught with and the training environment.  In WW1 & 2 targets were square targets on big square back grounds. It taught people marksmanship but not how to shoot people. As the military slowly started recognizing this targets went from square to human shaped. They also intoduced instant gratification where targets would drop or dip when they were hit opposed to just sitting there.

I agree that something like a belt fed machinegun would probably make it much easier for someone to shoot at other human beings but from what I've read and seen personally when someone shoots a rifle on full auto there is more of an inclination to "spray and pray". Which again was why the US military removed the option from their rifles for a while.  A tiny bit more on that subject you'll find that someone shooting a semi-auto will have poorer accuracy because there is a psychological thing where they know they can just pull the trigger again for another shot.  When teaching someone with a semi-automatic rifle instructors will often make them load one bullet at a time to get over this.

I definitly think there needs to be some forms of control, rules and regulations. Background checks, communication between doctors, mental health specialists and the Chief Firearms Office. Training, solid storage laws and harsh punishments for violent offenders.  More money put into catching illegal firearms at the border, maybe more powers for the police to catch illegal gun owners.

What I have a hard time wraping my head around is that with a very basic firearm licence you can buy the gun Marc Lepine used to murder the women in polytechnique (I believe used in a few more instances too) at Canadian Tire for $600 or so, drive out to a gravel pit on public land and shoot away. Yet the RCMP are trying to restrict and outright ban firearms that cost $3000 & $4000 which have never been used in a single homicide in Canada.  The RCMPs primary concern and guideline for restricting firearms isn't based on empirical evidence.

To each their own but I find people posing in faux military garb are absolutely ridiclous. Like the military poser-body guard from the Wildlife refuge down in the states. Many firearm owners can be their worst enemy because of the image they seem to enjoy putting off.

 

6079_Smith_W

You're the one who based your argument on the claim that because there have been no deaths there shouldn't be a ban. That was my point regarding plutonium.

Paladin1 wrote:

To each their own but I find people posing in faux military garb are absolutely ridiclous. Like the military poser-body guard from the Wildlife refuge down in the states. Many firearm owners can be their worst enemy because of the image they seem to enjoy putting off.

This is like arguments about there being nothing wrong with great wealth, the only problem is that more rich people don't share. Sure those yahoos aren't the only people with weapons, but there sure are lots of them buying those black guns that look like they came out of a video game.

If those laws only exist to keep those lunatics in check, good. These are deadly weapons.

And it was the advent of the machine gun that made the military realize that people had a natural aversion to murdering other people, and that the presence of just one of those machines made an incredible difference in soldiers no longer thinking about their personal responsibility for killing. After that, they included the target stuff, and started dehumanizing the enemy and turning people into automatons.

 

 

Paladin1

And just for more confusion

 

This is phrohibited and can land you in jail and a criminal record.

 

Anyone on this forum however can go pick one of these up, all you need is $2500 in your pocket. (From a Canadian firearm company no less)

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Again, that doesn't make me want to lift the ban on the street weapon.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, that doesn't make me want to lift the ban on the street weapon.

Did people actually use those in some kind of ninja gang-warfare or something?    I'm not saying lift the ban but still a little strange you can walk around with a flame thrower or katana but not a broom stick cut in two attached with a rope.

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

Lawn darts and clacker balls are also banned. I have a planting spear that isn't, though I could easily implale someone on it.

Seems to me the sensible conclusion here is banning flamethrowers. Is there a reason why we need even more examples to illustrate this same point?

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

*sigh*

Lawn darts and clacker balls are also banned. I have a planting spear that isn't, though I could easily implale someone on it.

Seems to me the sensible conclusion here is banning flamethrowers. Is there a reason why we need even more examples to illustrate this same point?

This is one of those crazy things it is not legally possible to buy a flame thrower in Canada and it is not legal to import one. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._604/page-1.html

They are legal in the US and this was accepted as a control for bees.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks Sean. Didn't even bother to check. Guess why?

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thanks Sean. Didn't even bother to check. Guess why?

 

I can imagine. This is one of those threads that could use a full-time fact-checker. I bet I could find more than I possibly have time to search for.

This is a warning not to accept statements from quite a lot of people without checking if they are true.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

This is one of those crazy things it is not legally possible to buy a flame thrower in Canada and it is not legal to import one. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._604/page-1.html

They are legal in the US and this was accepted as a control for bees.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thanks Sean. Didn't even bother to check. Guess why?

 

I can imagine. This is one of those threads that could use a full-time fact-checker. I bet I could find more than I possibly have time to search for.

This is a warning not to accept statements from quite a lot of people without checking if they are true.

 

 

Seraphim Armoury is a Canadian Firearms company who's owners also happen to be active duty police officers.

This was just posted to their facebook feed.  (picture from above is theirs)

Leave it to cops to find loopholes in the law eh?

Quote:

Seraphim Armoury

New Product: The Seraphim Armoury Fire Storm. 
A legal, commercial "flame thrower." It is NOT a firearm or a weapon. 
The FIRE STORM is specifically designed for personal use for the following; ground clearing or controlled agricultural burns, ice melting/clearing, incinerating weeds and other unwanted ground plants, “back burns” or “pre burns” for forestry use and forest fire containment/prevention, or for the use in film production and movie props.
*We've included some information to cut down on questions* 

Q: Is this legal in Canada?
A: Yes.

Q: How is this legal?
A: A personal flame thrower is not considered a firearm, and is not a prohibited item. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Criminal Code, Firearms Act or any prohibited list.

In the “Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1”Defines a prohibited weapon as: 
“1. Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
(a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or
(b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person”

The Fire Storm is not an anti-personnel device, neither is it a weapon. It specifically designed for personal use for the following; ground clearing or controlled agricultural burns, ice melting/clearing, incinerating weeds and other unwanted ground plants, “back burns” or “pre burns” for forestry use and forest fire containment/prevention, or for the use in film production and movie props.

As well according to the Canadian Controlled Goods Program:
• The Schedule limits controls on weapons or armament to the following items:
◦ Firearms having a calibre equal to or greater than 12.7 mm that are prohibited or restricted firearms as defined by Section 84(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code.
◦ Howitzers.
◦ Mortars.
◦ Anti-tank weapons.
◦ Projectile launchers.
◦ Flame throwers.
◦ Recoilless rifles.

Being that the Fire Storm is not a weapon nor a military armament, it does not meet the above criteria. (see below)

In the Controlled Good List (Sec. 35)
2-2.
Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of 20 mm or more, other weapons or armament with a calibre greater than 12.7 mm (calibre 0.50 inches), projectors and accessories, as follows:
a.
Guns, howitzers, cannon, mortars, anti-tank weapons, projectile launchers, military flame throwers, rifles, recoilless rifles, smooth-bore weapons and signature reduction devices therefor, first manufactured after 1945, and the following components:
1.
Frames or receivers;
2.
Barrels; or
3.
Breech closing mechanisms.
Once again the Fire Storm is not a military flame thrower nor is it designed to be used for anything other than the above listed items. Therefore the Fire Storm does not meet the above criteria again

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You must also think that there should be no restriction on transporting plutonium by air in Canada. There has never been an accident, after all.

Conversely, do you support the banning of various breeds of dog, based on their ability to kill or maim?

I find it funny when people believe that a gun can just decide to kill someone of its own accord, and funny when people seem to think a Presa Canario cannot.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

I find it funny when people believe that a gun can just decide to kill someone of its own accord, and funny when people seem to think a Presa Canario cannot.

Wow those dogs sound violent.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is a warning not to accept statements from quite a lot of people without checking if they are true.

I know. What I mean is, I appreciate that you did so, but since the point was completely irrelevant, I saw no reason to. Had it not been the second time in a row we had been around the mulberry bush I might have.

6079_Smith_W

Welcome back Magoo. Another tangent, but I'll bite.

I actually have no problem with the Pit bull ban, nor anthing that looks like them.

(and I heard the radio show on that today, and thought of this thread)

Whether they can't be identified by DNA testing is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is likely to get one for its looks, and how they are likely to care for and train it.

And in the case of pit bulls there actually is data showing they are are responsible for a significant percentage of attacks.

http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/

Doesn't mean I feel those same numbers are necessary when it comes to banning a killing machine. But it is a machine, not a living thing.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, Snopes has their own take on the KFC/pitbull story, though that's even less relevant to the thread.

But in terms of potential for injury, it's always seemed to me that nobody can reasonably argue that a dachshund can inflict as much damage on a human as (say) a Staffordshire Terrier.  Sure, any dog, no matter how small, can nip or bite, but some breeds just seem to pack a whole lot more "stopping power" than others.  But "dog nuts" seem to want to believe that "killing dogs" are nothing more than innocent companions who've been wrongly used by their owners.  Their fighting dog is a big poopsie-whoopsie who could NEVER do such a thing.

Quote:
What is relevant is who is likely to get one for its looks, and how they are likely to care for and train it.

I think that what's relevant is that some dog breeds have the intentionally-bred ability to do serious damage to other living things, and others (e.g. Pomeranians) don't.

Here's a recent tragedy (TRAGEDY WARNING) concerning a young woman with some pit bulls, and her brother.  FWIW, I personally doubt that she was a "bad owner".  But pit bulls are like a gun that can fire itself.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Welcome back Magoo. Another tangent, but I'll bite.

I actually have no problem with the Pit bull ban, nor anthing that looks like them.

(and I heard the radio show on that today, and thought of this thread)

Whether they can't be identified by DNA testing is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is likely to get one for its looks, and how they are likely to care for and train it.

And in the case of pit bulls there actually is data showing they are are responsible for a significant percentage of attacks.

http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/

Doesn't mean I feel those same numbers are necessary when it comes to banning a killing machine. But it is a machine, not a living thing.

Then why not ban the type of training and behaviour that treats dogs to be like this. In the end if those people cannot get that dog they will just get another and abuse it until it behaves the same way. I do not think a dog is comparable to an object as the dog is not naturally wanting to kill while the guns we are debating have no want to live at all but are designed to do nothing else but kill.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Then why not ban the type of training and behaviour that treats dogs to be like this.

All dogs can be like this.  Because they're their own animal, with their own brain.

Certainly, one can train a dog to be like this, but unfortunately, we can't seem to train them to NEVER be like this.  And that's when it comes down to "stopping power".  Some dogs, like a Presa Canario, have a lot of it, and when they attack they can do significant damage to humans.  Other dogs, like the adorable Pekingese, simply can't.  No matter how mean-spirited they are.  No matter how much they might think they're killing you when they nip your hand.

Again, I don't personally believe that the young woman in the article I posted above mistreated her dogs, or taught them to go for the jugular.  The tragegy happened because when those particular dogs went for the jugular, they were successful.

Quote:
as the dog is not naturally wanting to kill

Seriously??

This young woman left her dogs ALONE with her brother and they killed him.  If those dogs didn't want to kill him then what do you propose actually happened?  Specifically, how did he somehow end up killed, despite those dogs not having any interest in that sort of thing?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Then why not ban the type of training and behaviour that treats dogs to be like this.

All dogs can be like this.  Because they're their own animal, with their own brain.

Certainly, one can train a dog to be like this, but unfortunately, we can't seem to train them to NEVER be like this.  And that's when it comes down to "stopping power".  Some dogs, like a Presa Canario, have a lot of it, and when they attack they can do significant damage to humans.  Other dogs, like the adorable Pekingese, simply can't.  No matter how mean-spirited they are.  No matter how much they might think they're killing you when they nip your hand.

Again, I don't personally believe that the young woman in the article I posted above mistreated her dogs, or taught them to go for the jugular.  The tragegy happened because when those particular dogs went for the jugular, they were successful.

Quote:
as the dog is not naturally wanting to kill

Seriously??

This young woman left her dogs ALONE with her brother and they killed him.  If those dogs didn't want to kill him then what do you propose actually happened?  Specifically, how did he somehow end up killed, despite those dogs not having any interest in that sort of thing?

My point is that I understood this is trained in rather than bred in -- the nature nuture debate.

If it is trained in then the people that want to do that will just do that to a new breed.

Personally I am not fond of the look but I know a person who resued and trained a couple of these dogs and got to know them and they are less aggressive than many other dogs I have known and been worried about. I took care of them in December when they were away and they were with me 24-7 for two weeks. A short time but if they were truly  aggressive I should have seen something.

But I do not argue that anecdotes should resolve an issue -- rather an investigation into why is important.

I recognize that they are powerful dogs -- and that is part of the point but we do not ban animals based on them being powerful rather we regulate how you deal with them. I think all pet "owners" ought to have mandatory licenses and training anyway (so perhaps I am treating them like guns in some respect). And some people should not qualify to have pets like this. I am opposed to the training of guard dogs as well which is also controversial. But putting down dogs becuase of how they look does not seem right to me. I think it might even be appropriate if the registration of any larger dog include an expert observing their temprament.

This will not avoid all injuries from dogs but this approach would do more than a breed specific execution project like what we have in Ontario.

I have to admit it took me a while to come to all these conclusions.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
My point is that I understood this is trained in rather than bred in -- the nature nuture debate.

I don't think the problem is what we humans have "bred" into any animal.  I think the problem is what nature has bred into every animal.  That, combined with the fact that some animals can simply do more harm, when they choose to, than others.

Quote:
A short time but if they were truly  aggressive I should have seen something.

And if you'd watched over their guns for two weeks, and those guns harmed no-one, would you agree that those guns were similarly harmless?  What would you have needed to see those guns do to make you say "these things just need to be banned!!"

Quote:
I recognize that they are powerful dogs -- and that is part of the point but we do not ban animals based on them being powerful rather we regulate how you deal with them.

Can't we do the same with guns?   Regulate how individuals deal with them?  This is pretty much why I'm talking about "killing dogs".

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
My point is that I understood this is trained in rather than bred in -- the nature nuture debate.

I don't think the problem is what we humans have "bred" into any animal.  I think the problem is what nature has bred into every animal.  That, combined with the fact that some animals can simply do more harm, when they choose to, than others.

Quote:
A short time but if they were truly  aggressive I should have seen something.

And if you'd watched over their guns for two weeks, and those guns harmed no-one, would you agree that those guns were similarly harmless?  What would you have needed to see those guns do to make you say "these things just need to be banned!!"

Quote:
I recognize that they are powerful dogs -- and that is part of the point but we do not ban animals based on them being powerful rather we regulate how you deal with them.

Can't we do the same with guns?   Regulate how individuals deal with them?  This is pretty much why I'm talking about "killing dogs".

I guess I like the distinction between living things and inanimate object but that's just me.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I guess I like the distinction between living things and inanimate object but that's just me.

You're not alone, brother!  I do too.

That's why I think that "killing dogs" are a breed apart from "killing guns".

One needs a human's agency to kill, and one can just kill because 10.000 years of evolution taught it to.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I guess I like the distinction between living things and inanimate object but that's just me.

You're not alone, brother!  I do too.

That's why I think that "killing dogs" are a breed apart from "killing guns".

One needs a human's agency to kill, and one can just kill because 10.000 years of evolution taught it to.

Hah --  these breeds are not even that old.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Did evolution of dog breeds begin with human intervention?  Or at what point did any dog evolve to kill what they might eat?

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

 and they are less aggressive than many other dogs I have known and been worried about. I took care of them in December when they were away and they were with me 24-7 for two weeks. A short time but if they were truly  aggressive I should have seen something.

In all the dog attack stories I've read the owners have pretty much paraphrased this. They were surprised, they were never concerned the dog would attack someone, they never seen any signs and if the dog was agressive they would have known.  

Except someone ends up mauled or killed.

 

6079_Smith_W

Okay, I'll go along with the drift:

Certain breeds  do have certain tendencies, with obvious exceptions.

But most of this does come down to owners either not paying attention to dogs behaving like dogs, or consciously training them to do something.

And dogs can snap. When I was a kid I remember an owner who got turned on by his doberman which had given no overt sign beforehand. The reason: the fellow who bred him was a known sadist, who also beat his cattle.

Paladin1

I've found that agressive-breed (not sure if that's the right term?) dog owners are just like agressive firearm owners when it comes to anyone suggesting they might be wrong or critisizing them.

 

I've had a couple people on my FB just launch on me when I'd politely question them for stating they would leave a 1 year old unattended with their 100 pound pitbull or whatever. 

Every dog attack could apparently be blamed on a bad owner. There's no bad dogs only bad people. A 19 year old college girl who had her face bit off by her dog was either abusive or had secretly been training her dog to fight.    It's interesting how personal they would get too in their tirade. I thought I knew you better than that. I thought I was a better friend I guess I'm wrong. Maybe you're defensive because you abuse animals.  why are you even on my friends list.  People I know offline.

 

 

I'm a dog lover myself and I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of making certian breeds of dogs illegal and destroying ones that are alive.  On the other hand I see evidence that specific breeds of dogs are responsible for a disproportionate number of violent attacksTo me that means those specific breeds should be addressed first.

Paladin1

Chicago is among the USAs strictest cities for gun control (possibly the top?) yet in the 11 days of 2016  they have had 100 shootings including 22 deaths.

Among them;

1 15 year old

2 16 year olds. 

3 17 year olds.

 

In 2015 they had 486 deaths and 427 in 2014.   If they continue at the rate they are going now they'll have closer to 800 deaths in 2016.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Chicago is among the USAs strictest cities for gun control (possibly the top?) yet in the 11 days of 2016  they have had 100 shootings including 22 deaths.

Among them;

1 15 year old

2 16 year olds. 

3 17 year olds.

 

In 2015 they had 486 deaths and 427 in 2014.   If they continue at the rate they are going now they'll have closer to 800 deaths in 2016.

Your statements of the ages is an attempt to appeal to emotion, a good tactic when the logic is bankrupt.

You are trying to connect the realtive number of shootings and gun control and the connection does not exist.

There is no scientific basis for the statement -- no control. To say that gun control reduces gun violence does not mean that one city with greater gun control will have less gun violence than another city without -- becuase you are comparing different cities.

As well, national gun control is different than local gun control. Driving further to get a gun easily is only a matter of inconvenience.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Driving further to get a gun easily is only a matter of inconvenience.

In direct contravention of a ban???

Maybe Chicago needs to also ban driving to another city for a gun.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Driving further to get a gun easily is only a matter of inconvenience.

In direct contravention of a ban???

Maybe Chicago needs to also ban driving to another city for a gun.

It is the open ease of access that is the problem needing a solution not a new proclamation.

Gun control in a place where people routinely drive distances is not a local matter.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Your statements of the ages is an attempt to appeal to emotion

You bet it is. While anyone getting murdered is sad there's something about kids being hurt that makes it worse. I can't read about Sandy Hook without getting choked up and teary eyed.  Kids dying from violence is horrible and preventable. Something needs to be done to change the USAs firearm culture and culture of violence.

Quote:

You are trying to connect the realtive number of shootings and gun control and the connection does not exist.

It does to me.  A city with the strictest gun control is also among the most deadly in terms of gun violence.  States with the least amount of "strict gun control" also happen to be the states with the least amount of firearm violence.

But honestly here, if Chicago was the number 1 murder capital of the USA and had the least amount of gun control people, I'd respectfully say such as yourself I believe, would be saying that's a clear indicator that lack of gun control leads to more shooting deaths.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Your statements of the ages is an attempt to appeal to emotion

You bet it is. While anyone getting murdered is sad there's something about kids being hurt that makes it worse. I can't read about Sandy Hook without getting choked up and teary eyed.  Kids dying from violence is horrible and preventable. Something needs to be done to change the USAs firearm culture and culture of violence.

Quote:

You are trying to connect the realtive number of shootings and gun control and the connection does not exist.

It does to me.  A city with the strictest gun control is also among the most deadly in terms of gun violence.  States with the least amount of "strict gun control" also happen to be the states with the least amount of firearm violence.

But honestly here, if Chicago was the number 1 murder capital of the USA and had the least amount of gun control people, I'd respectfully say such as yourself I believe, would be saying that's a clear indicator that lack of gun control leads to more shooting deaths.

 

So let's use the same logic okay?

The rate of deaths for those on chemo is higher than those not on chemo. So chemo must cause more deaths therefore nobody should take chemo.

Sean in Ottawa

Pages