babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Should These People Have Guns?

124 replies [Last post]

Comments

NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I can certainly see what bait works best if one is interested in going trolling for fish.

And jas, I don't want to be accused of being an automatic weapons apologist, but I think the machete was the weapon of choice in the Rwandan genocide. Not to mention, it is hitting the news pages with alarming frequency in the new pages even here, in the wild west.

 

Sorry to thread drift, but only in Canada do people still believe in the long discredited 'Hotel Rwanda' Hollywood 'genocide' mythology, complete with murderous Hutus and machetes -  probably because Romeo Dallaire, one of the active military strategists and warmakers, in what was in reality a US regime change operation, along with Louise Arbour, another of the 'ugly Canadians' involved, have been elevated to some sort of human rights' saints instead of the unindicted western war-criminals they are.. If you're at all interested, there's lots of good stuff written disproving this awful nonsense. This will start you off...

Hotel Rwanda, Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa  -  by Keith Harmon Snow

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2007/11/hotel-rwandamht

"Lt Colonel Romeo Dallaire was no peacekeeper, he was an active military strategist - a warmaker..."


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Unlike my parents who thought it was okay to leave handguns and ammo around the house where me and my brothers found them, I kept my long gun collection under strict lock and key, and hidden away from view. I can't believe how careless folks were back in the day, but it was a different environment.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010
Mr.Tea
Offline
Joined: Jul 9 2011

Sven wrote:

I think culture is the root problem.  Then, when you mix that culture with semi-automatic rifles, you often get bad results.  Banning semi-automatic rifles probably isn't a bad idea (I'm ambivalent about that) but that is really just a superficial "solution" to the underlying problem of a basic lack of civility and respect for other people.

 

I don't see why anyone should have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100 round ammo clip but I also think that the focus on guns such as these are a red herring. Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun murders in the United States. It's primarily cheap handguns that are being used. When we have mass shootings like what happened at teh school in Newtown or the movie theatre in Aurora, it's very dramatic and it's through that lens that we tend to focus on the gun control debate. However, while Newtown was obviously a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families of the 26 people killed, the reality is that more than 26 people are killed by guns in America every single day. Just not in the same place at the same time and with the same 24/7 media coverage about them. And most are killed with cheap handguns. So, yeah, go ahead and ban assault weapons but it's not gonna put much of a dent in the murder rate until you start addressing the real underlying issues that breed the culture of violence in the first place


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

Mr.Tea wrote:

Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun murders in the United States. It's primarily cheap handguns that are being used.

That is true.  And no one is plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns.

Besides, I'm skeptical of bans.  Venezuela bans the private ownership of any type of gun (a private person cannot buy a gun or ammunition in Venezuela).  Yet, that country has nearly the highest murder rate on the globe (about 45 murders for every 100,000 people -- that's like the whole country is like the city of New Orleans or Detroit).

Mr.Tea wrote:

When we have mass shootings like what happened at teh school in Newtown or the movie theatre in Aurora, it's very dramatic and it's through that lens that we tend to focus on the gun control debate. However, while Newtown was obviously a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families of the 26 people killed, the reality is that more than 26 people are killed by guns in America every single day. Just not in the same place at the same time and with the same 24/7 media coverage about them. And most are killed with cheap handguns. So, yeah, go ahead and ban assault weapons but it's not gonna put much of a dent in the murder rate until you start addressing the real underlying issues that breed the culture of violence in the first place

This reminds me of Mark Twain's very short piece called The Danger of Lying in Bed.  It illustrates how a mass tragedy captures the public imagination (in Twain's case, train accidents) when if anyone were to look at the facts rationally, the mass events may just be extreme anomalies.  And, trying to solve an anomaly rather than a systemic problem is just stupid and a waste of time.  It may make people feeling like they are "doing something," but that's about it.

 


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Sven wrote:
And no one is plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns.

Why do I keep forgetting Sven is writing from the U.S., where guns, greed, and god reign supreme? Oh well. At least up here, the issue can be discussed in public without too much fear.

Ontario attorney general renews call for handgun ban

10 reasons we need a national handgun ban

Toronto Star editorial: Toronto shooting spree shows need for a handgun ban

Let's ban handguns in Canada

Toronto councillor urges Ottawa to ban handguns across Canada

Parents want handguns banned in Canada

McGuinty calls for handgun ban after Toronto shooting

Toronto residents support handgun ban: poll

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

 


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Sven said no one was plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns. That's the only thing I was responding to. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think a poll on banning handguns would score very high in Winnipeg, don't you?

Bacchus
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

I remember being 6 or 7 and discovering a loaded handgun in my dad's dresser drawer. I remember handling it then  putting it back so I didnt get caught and spanked. I never did it again which is odd considering I loved playing cops and robbers and military models etc.

 

My mom had it taken away when my dad died and there was never guns in the house again


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Well considering we all know the state of the law WRT handguns in Canada, he was probably talking about the U.S., no? No need to lard on the stereotypes.

 


Mr.Tea
Offline
Joined: Jul 9 2011

Sven wrote:

This reminds me of Mark Twain's very short piece called The Danger of Lying in Bed.  It illustrates how a mass tragedy captures the public imagination (in Twain's case, train accidents) when if anyone were to look at the facts rationally, the mass events may just be extreme anomalies.  And, trying to solve an anomaly rather than a systemic problem is just stupid and a waste of time.  It may make people feeling like they are "doing something," but that's about it.

Yes. I have a friend, for example, who is deathly afraid of flying. Just can't do it. He's based in Toronto and frequently has to travel to Montreal on business and he opts to drive there instead of fly, significantly adding to his travel time but also his peace of mind. Of course, one is far more likely to be killed in a car crash than in a plane crash. But plane crashes are very dramatic because so many people are killed at once and it gets intensive news coverage whereas car accident deaths are seen as pretty much routine and rarely get much coverage except a brief story on the local news. Of course, way more people are killed in cars than planes and way more people are killed by handguns than assault rifles, it's just that neither produces mass deaths all at the same time in the same place so we barely notice it.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

What town was that in MB, Smith?  I grew up in Roseau, about 10km from the US-Canadian border.


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

It makes sense to ban handguns before banning assault rifles if we are using a stat based approach.

 

The problem with debates like this is that it gets derailed by people throwing out wild suggestions .

Why don't we just use grenades for hunting?

Lets just issue handguns to kids in grade 1!

Why not just let everyone have a tank?

It attempts to make posters object to and defend against silly suggestions that would never work and only exists in the realm of internet arguing.

 

The rules governing what is restricted and non-restricted in Canada in terms of firearms can very arbitrary and down right confusing.

Our rules are based on perception.

 

Under the Canadian law, this is a restricted firearm.

It requires a host of requirements including belonging to a registered gun club that supports a range set up to fire the weapons specific round.  You must have a special permit to transport it to and from the range. It must be registered with the government.

 

 

 

 

This rifle is non-restricted. You can stop on the side of the highway walk out into crown land and fire off bullets. You don't need to register this weapon. You don't need a special permit for it. It's the same classification as a single shot shot gun.

 

They both shoot the same size of bullet. They both have the capacity to be loaded with magazines that hold 30 bullets.

So what's the difference?

 

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Sven wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

What town was that in MB, Smith?  I grew up in Roseau, about 10km from the US-Canadian border.

Other side of the valley - Manitou - in the Pembina Valley.

 

 


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Law abiding citizen at it again!!!

Do ya get anymore law abiding than a cop??? One would think not!

Would you consider a cop as a law abiding gun owner???? One should HOPE SO!

Well there is an x-cop out hunting down policemen in L.A.!!! Already killed one and wounded some.

I tell ya these mass shootings are being carried out ""mostly"" by these so called law abiding gun owners who have NO PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD!!!!

Convicted x-criminals are not doing most of these mass shootings!!

The people involved in these mass shootings  are one of you!! YES ONE OF YOU THE SO CALLED LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS!!!!!

THAT IS A FACT!!!


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Hey Sandy, welcome back. We've just been having a bonding moment (or five)  about all our guns. Hope you're cool with that.

 

 


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hey Sandy, welcome back. We've just been having a bonding moment (or five)  about all our guns. Hope you're cool with that.

 

 


Depends on what kind of guns? Are you into assualt rifles?

Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Sandy Dillon wrote:


Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?

We have a 2nd amendment? What is it?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Oh bty I was wrong about that law abiding gun owning cop he has killed 3 so far not just one!

Aw those law abiding gun owners. They need guns for protection from other law abiding gun owners eh?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Boom Boom wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:


Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?

We have a 2nd amendment? What is it?



I did not say we here in Canada had the 2nd amendment I was referring to the U.S.A.! You do realize the American NRA is also into our gun control laws too? They don't want our gun control laws to reflect that it just might work because they are afraid it would spill over onto their territory!! I would not be surprised to find out the NRA  pumped money into some of these pro gun clubs up here also! Would that surprise you?

You know like L.U.F.A.?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Like I said law abiding gun owners need guns for protection from law abiding gun owners!!!


http://www.vpc.org/press/1211ccw.htm

Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Persons Legally Allowed to Carry Concealed Handguns Hit 484--VPC Concealed Carry Killers October Update

 

http://www.vpc.org/press/1302gundeath.htm
States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death.


Bacchus
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Bacchus wrote:

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?

In Vermont they need guns for protection against law abiding gun owners too.

I meant all states!


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Bacchus wrote:

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?



Hey Bacchus how do you explain Massachusetts,Hawaii,New Jersey,New York and Connecticut?Wink

 

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Massachusetts--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.14 per 100,000.

Hawaii--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

New Jersey--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.72 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.90 per 100,000.

Connecticut--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.92 per 100,000.


Hey Bacchus how do you explain Louisiana,Wyoming,Alabama,Montana and Mississippi?Wink

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.03 per 100,000.

Wyoming--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 62.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.64 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.63 per 100,000.

Montana--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.03 per 100,000.

Mississippi--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.50 per 100,000.

In Canada gun owners are in the minority going by these stats from the U.S.A. I'd say that is also the case in the U.S.A. Oh yes there are more guns in the states but some of the owners own 50 or more of these guns! So much for your idea more guns mean less crime. Yes there might be more guns BUT THE FACT is these guns are not spread evenly througtout THE WHOLE POPULATION IT does mean the minority of people own the majority of the guns.

Got any other arguements you'd like to bring forward?Smile


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

People love to talk about Vermonts lax gun laws and they will say Vermont has a high rate of gun ownership. I don't know how they can prove this high ownership rate when in fact the gun laws are SO laxed they do not keep a record of who owns the guns. Even the gun shops in Vermont are only required to keep sales of gun records for 6 months. SO every 6 months the data is gone. NO RECORD of how many guns have even been sold.

So how do you actually know how many people in Vermont own guns. Is it spread through the majority of the population or as in other states do the minority of people own the majority of the firearms. Many firearms sold in Vermont end up in neighbouring states. I guess some get tracked back to Vermont BEFORE the 6 months are up. THE 6 MONTHS the gun shops are required to keep the sales data!

And ""IF"" the majority of Vermonters were in fact gun owners one would think this survey would have been the OTHERWAY around! Don't ya think?

http://necpgv.blogspot.ca/2008/03/vermonters-want-stronger-gun-laws.html

Vermonters want stronger gun laws

WCAX, channel 3, in Burlington, Vermont recently conducted a phone survey of randomly called, likely voters. They asked one simple question: Would you favor or oppose the state passing new legislation to restrict sale or ownership of guns?
 The answer was a resounding “yes!” By a more than 3 to 2 margin (57 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed, 8 percent not sure) Vermonters expressed their desire for stronger gun laws.


And that Bacchus is how I explain Vermont!Wink 


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I think we have to treat with suspicion calls for disarming the population, because on certain levels it appears to correspond with such preferences that are to be found among the various corporate security services.


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

The minority in the U.S.A. owns ALL the guns. Just as I assumed here earlier.Check above posts.

So if one guy (for instance) in a small town U.S.A. owns an arsenal of guns THAT to a gun owner is the reason crime in that town is down???

WOW!!! Never has so much anti-gun control bs been spread by so few!!!!Smile

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I don't actually have much of an issue with gun control, because on a personal level I find it almost entirely irrelevant, except that I understand the presence of gun control measures may help to allieviate some anxiety out there, which may or may not assist people who have every reason to be far more concerned about gun violence than I to sleep a little better.  If gun control is able to produce this effect alone, then it seems a little unfair for those of us who harbour less concern about such violence being directed at our person to offer our objections against what others deem to be a matter of self defence.  As far as any concerns I have expressed regarding the corporate/police state disarming of the population or the control and registry of weapons, acquiring an arsenal for the purpose of an eventual revolt seems to have historically been achieved through clandestine means.  Take the rebels Libya and Syria for instance.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Switzerland Guns: Living With Firearms the Swiss Way

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912


Bacchus
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2003

So you explain Vermont by saying there is no gun data and therefore it doesnt factor or skew your stated results?

 

Plus you should look at individual cities gun rates like  Boston, Philly New york etc. Especially since the highest crime rates in that country are in New Jersey.   And gun deaths per 100k are somewhat meanlingless when you are comparing population numbers


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments