dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4739
share rss forum feed


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:2
reply to jaberi

Re: [Serious] Mass shooting at Batman

Aurora shooting suspect was rejected from gun club...

»www.ctvnews.ca/world/aurora-shoo ··· 1.888711

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Net Citizen
said by Net Citizen:

So you are trolling - which explains why you repeatedly indulge in strawman masturbation on these forums.

Yet you're the one who can't back up his claims.

said by Net Citizen:

As for statistical data, »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ··· ath_rate shows something interesting. Note that the top 10 with the highest rates have a combination of weak or non-existant gun control whilst firearm proliferation is generally high.

Well, let's have a look at your top ten:
South Africa, Columbia, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Estonia, Panama and Mexico all have firearm legislation that are very close to Canadian legislation. They all prohibit the civilian possession of automatic firearms, they all allow possession of semi-automatic firearms and handguns only for licensed individuals and most of them require registration and tracking of firearms. That's reality, not your truthiness.

As you go down the list you'll see that the REAL numbers show that as the rate of civilian firearm ownership rises, the rate of firearm-related death DROPS. Again that's reality, not your lies.

What these countries DO have is a problem with CRIMINALS, not with lawful gun owners.

Firearm ownership rate stats and regulations information taken from: »www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/regio ··· /region/


said by Net Citizen:

But by all means, don't let the facts dissuade you from experiencing this first-hand as a Canadian citizen who has only known the relative safety found north of the border.

You mean the "facts" that you pulled out of your ass and have nothing to do with reality?

said by Net Citizen:

Of all the places to recommend where you can relocate and carry out your study of gun control (which more than just a few here would only be too happy to encourage you to embark on), I highly suggest Chicago, east Los Angeles and Detroit - where everyone carries their own piece.

Interesting you should mention these cities as Chicago and Detroit have all-out handgun bans in place and Los Angeles is located in the US state with the most restrictive gun laws yet they all have very high rates of firearm-related violence. Coincidence? I think not.

said by Net Citizen:

Let us know how that works out for you.

How about you move to those places, since they seem to have already implemented your utopic lie of a plan?

Net Citizen

join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

said by Net Citizen:

Rather, I'm stating that ease of access to firearms can transform heated altercations into something that may conclude with someone's death.

And I countered with personal experiences where the consideration that the situation could escalate into something more serious dissuades people from engaging in heated altercations.

Fear of mutually assured destruction sounds like an ideal deterrent were it not for the fact that the reactions it draws aren't really consistent across the board.

The optimum scenario would suggest that participants in a heated incident are in the right frame of mind to consider the consequences of utilizing guns. Unfortunately, not everyone is always in the right frame of mind.

Rage is largely defined by a temporary onset of insanity; not a good mix when factoring in an accessible firearm. When just the squeeze of a trigger is enough to give someone the power of life and death, it only takes a fleeting second for an irrational mind to do just that. That's a significant difference when compared to a knife, a baseball bat or a fist being utilized as a weapon.

One could bring a baseball bat and knock someone out with it but to finish off a person with such a crude instrument requires a bit of forethought. Most individuals by then come to their senses and realize they've already made their point and to escalate it any further beyond assault would unleash the kind of backlash no one in their right mind would want. When a firearm is used in the heat of passion, it is already too little too late by the time the shooter realizes what they've done.

There have been a few cases where an argument took place and ended with one person walking away - only to have him return from his car with a loaded revolver to "conclude" session. What prompted this altercation in the first place? It's usually over something as silly as one guy taking another's parking space.

Net Citizen

join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Yet you're the one who can't back up his claims.

Speak for yourself.

Well, let's have a look at your top ten:
South Africa, Columbia, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Estonia, Panama and Mexico all have firearm legislation that are very close to Canadian legislation. They all prohibit the civilian possession of automatic firearms, they all allow possession of semi-automatic firearms and handguns only for licensed individuals and most of them require registration and tracking of firearms. That's reality, not your truthiness.

Going by the citied gunpolicy.org site, the above regions held similar regulations to Canada's up until 1976. Automatic weapons and most definitely assault rifles are prohibited in Canada with very few exceptions.

The Candian and American sample is especially telling with ownership rates in the US being about four times the amount while its death rate is twice that of Canada's. That appears to run contrary to your premise.

So the reality appears to be that the aforementioned countries lack the same comprehensive steps and enforcement enacted by the Canadian government with severe penalties for offenders to match. Gun laws are only as effective as the willingness by the government to enforce them. These are all paper tigers.

Interesting you should mention these cities as Chicago and Detroit have all-out handgun bans in place and Los Angeles is located in the US state with the most restrictive gun laws yet they all have very high rates of firearm-related violence. Coincidence? I think not.

Detroit's gun laws are a lengthy process but they are not strict provided that you successfully pass a background check. Concealed carry requires a firearms class.

Los Angeles allows concealed carry permits state wide. Automatic and assault rifles with magazine capacities no more than 10 rounds are allowed. In fact this is the irony that's pervasive in most US states where hand guns have more restrictions than assault weapons.

Chicago's handgun ban was doomed from the start. They recently revised its ban on handguns 2010, even going so far as to allow criminals to obtain them after a five year period: »www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ··· wnership

Most of the restrictions in various states tend to be classified under calibre size. Getting around this is fairly easy, simply sell a modified calibre gun that is slightly smaller while retaining the a chamber that holds the same amount of ammunition. It's a joke - which is why gun deaths remain relatively high.

Just as with the South American regions, US states seem to have gun laws that may look good on paper but in fact are riddled with loopholes courtesy of the NRA lobbyists.

How about you move to those places, since they seem to have already implemented your utopic lie of a plan?

You seem rather butthurt over my supposed desire to take away your gun(s).

Once upon a time it was necessary for settlers to carry a firearm during the American expansion in the west where hostile bands of natives, rogue citizens and bandits were clear and present dangers. The Federal government had yet to fully establish proper zones of control which left local militias and town officials to maintain order.

We no longer live in the Deadwood era. In an urban environment with a competent police force, it's no longer necessary to carry a firearm; for any reason.

If you live in a rural district and depend on a rifle for your livelihood, that's a completely different matter. Many families who live off the land and have the necessary experience, knowledge and proper respect for their weapons often view city dwellers who are not compelled to observe the same standard as the very people who shouldn't be owning guns in the first place.

This doesn't necessarily mean I believe those who have a fascination with firearms shouldn't be accommodated however. Firing ranges and gun fairs are where you should be going if you want to squeeze off a few rounds. My opinion only differs in the contemporary view is that whatever guns you own should remain in at these facilities under lock and key with those most qualified to care for them under 24/7 security. The firearms themselves never leave the firing range unless you're transporting the weapon to another facility or are moving out of province.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Guns have just as much use in society as dirt bikes, pools, bungee cords, alcohol, bicycles, etc.

Not get out much I see or just holed up in the range like a big man firing your little toys? Last time I checked some of these have practical applications that over a billion people use daily where as your little toy handguns have none other than to kill people.

said by IamGimli:

If you're scared of guns or of what you would do with guns then by all means you should stay from them. That gives you no right to decide for me though.

No, I'm scared of you and everyone else who may have a gun going loco or having it stolen like happened here in Peterborough and getting into the hands of criminals. But I guess you figure your right to play with your little toys supersedes our rights to not be shot by one.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Net Citizen
said by Net Citizen:

Going by the citied gunpolicy.org site, the above regions held similar regulations to Canada's up until 1976. Automatic weapons and most definitely assault rifles are prohibited in Canada with very few exceptions.

WTF are you talking about 1976 for? Those countries I listed have exactly the same restrictions as Canada for automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

said by Net Citizen:

The Candian and American sample is especially telling with ownership rates in the US being about four times the amount while its death rate is twice that of Canada's. That appears to run contrary to your premise.

Yes, that's called a statistical anomaly and indicates other factors at play in that specific instance. It also demonstrate that using that one example as proof that more guns = more violence is a logical fallacy, especially considering that the statistical rule carries on within the US.

said by Net Citizen:

So the reality appears to be that the aforementioned countries lack the same comprehensive steps and enforcement enacted by the Canadian government with severe penalties for offenders to match. Gun laws are only as effective as the willingness by the government to enforce them. These are all paper tigers.

Whatever you think "appears" has been proven to be inconsistent with reality at best, a bold face lie at worst. Since you can't back up your gut feeling with actual data your argument is null and void.

said by Net Citizen:

Detroit's gun laws are a lengthy process but they are not strict provided that you successfully pass a background check. Concealed carry requires a firearms class.

...and they still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the US. Magnitudes higher than places where concealed carry is not only authorized but promoted.

said by Net Citizen:

Los Angeles allows concealed carry permits state wide.

Los Angeles is a city. It has no legislative powers state-wide.

said by Net Citizen:

Automatic and assault rifles with magazine capacities no more than 10 rounds are allowed. In fact this is the irony that's pervasive in most US states where hand guns have more restrictions than assault weapons.

Yet California is still the US State with the most restrictive and controlled firearm laws, and it still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the country.

said by Net Citizen:

Chicago's handgun ban was doomed from the start.

Just like every other handgun ban. Nice of you to admit it.

said by Net Citizen:

They recently revised its ban on handguns 2010, even going so far as to allow criminals to obtain them after a five year period: »www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ··· wnership

They "revised" it because the US Supreme Court ruled such bans to be un-constitutional, not because they felt like it. It still doesn't erase decades of a gun ban that resulted in higher violent and gun crime rate than pretty much every other city of similar size in the world.

said by Net Citizen:

Most of the restrictions in various states tend to be classified under calibre size. Getting around this is fairly easy, simply sell a modified calibre gun that is slightly smaller while retaining the a chamber that holds the same amount of ammunition. It's a joke - which is why gun deaths remain relatively high.

The only joke here is you and your knowledge of firearms. To the extent that it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

Here's a hint. The chamber of a firearm can only ever contain one cartridge, no matter what caliber it's designed or modified to shoot.

Just another proof that whatever opinion you may have of firearms belongs in a septic tank, not in the public domain.

said by Net Citizen:

Just as with the South American regions, US states seem to have gun laws that may look good on paper but in fact are riddled with loopholes courtesy of the NRA lobbyists.

Yet more un-subtantiated hyperbolic BS.

said by Net Citizen:

You seem rather butthurt over my supposed desire to take away your gun(s).

Yes, I do get frustrated when people who so obviously have no clue about a topic profess to have any authority to decide how those who do have a clue should behave and what laws they should follow.

None of it has anything to do with my butt though, although I do find it interesting that you should associate firearms with butts.

said by Net Citizen:

Once upon a time it was necessary for settlers to carry a firearm during the American expansion in the west where hostile bands of natives, rogue citizens and bandits were clear and present dangers. The Federal government had yet to fully establish proper zones of control which left local militias and town officials to maintain order.

We no longer live in the Deadwood era. In an urban environment with a competent police force, it's no longer necessary to carry a firearm; for any reason.

Oh yeah? How far away are the police when you're victim of a home invasion? Who tells them you need help? How effective were the police in protecting the people in that theatre?

When seconds count, cops are only minutes away.

said by Net Citizen:

If you live in a rural district and depend on a rifle for your livelihood, that's a completely different matter. Many families who live off the land and have the necessary experience, knowledge and proper respect for their weapons often view city dwellers who are not compelled to observe the same standard as the very people who shouldn't be owning guns in the first place.

Since when are "city dwellers" "not compelled to observe the same standards" as rural residents? You really get off on lying to bolster your ignorant beliefs, don't you?

As a matter of fact rural residents have exemptions specifically designed for them in the storage regulations which allows them to have loaded firearms out in the open for predator control.

said by Net Citizen:

This doesn't necessarily mean I believe those who have a fascination with firearms shouldn't be accommodated however.

Why would a firearm owner need to have a "fascination" with firearms to want to own them? Do you have a fascination with cars? Do you have a fascination with knives? Do you have a fascination with toilets?

Just because you're not interested in firearms doesn't mean those who are have to be fascinated with them to be interested in them. You seem to imply that being interested in firearms is some sort of mental deficiency. I would argue that it's hoplophobes like you who are mentally abnormal, just like any other phobic person.

said by Net Citizen:

Firing ranges and gun fairs are where you should be going if you want to squeeze off a few rounds. My opinion only differs in the contemporary view is that whatever guns you own should remain in at these facilities under lock and key with those most qualified to care for them under 24/7 security. The firearms themselves never leave the firing range unless you're transporting the weapon to another facility or are moving out of province.

You mean protected by reliable people like police officers?
»www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/30/hund ··· ted-for/
»news.sympatico.ctv.ca/local/mb/m ··· 7c27162f

In locations whose main purpose is the commerce of firearms?
»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ··· 213.html
»www.slve.ca/gun-market-news/saan ··· r-store/
»www.canada.com/calgaryherald/sto ··· 6ea5d3f5

Or do you mean something like a military armoury?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lort ··· s_Lortie

Again, the fact of the matter is that lawful firearm owners and their firearms, wherever they're stored, are not the problem. The criminals that would steal those firearms and use them to commit yet more crimes are the problem.

As long as the hoplophobes focus on firearms, criminals thrive. What would you do to fix a thermite problem, ban wood?
Expand your moderator at work

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to peterboro

Re: [Serious] Mass shooting at Batman

said by peterboro:

Not get out much I see or just holed up in the range like a big man firing your little toys? Last time I checked some of these have practical applications that over a billion people use daily where as your little toy handguns have none other than to kill people.

My firearms must all be defective then because they've never killed anyone. And most of them have fired many thousand rounds.

None of these things are necessary. They are all a source of entertainment for their owner and, again, they kill many times more people annually than firearms.

said by peterboro:

No, I'm scared of you and everyone else who may have a gun going loco or having it stolen like happened here in Peterborough and getting into the hands of criminals. But I guess you figure your right to play with your little toys supersedes our rights to not be shot by one.

Are you scared of having your car stolen and used in a crime? Are you scared of getting depressed and deciding to steer into an incoming vehicle one day to end it all? Are you scared of your spouse grabbing a knife and ending your misery for you (which happens a lot more often than firearms being involved in domestic assaults, BTW)? Are you scared of police officers "going loco"? Do you think they're magically protected from that? As a matter of fact police officers have a much higher rate of mental illness than other firearm owners due to the nature of their job.

You have an un-healthy phobia of inanimate objects. You may want to have that checked out instead of assuming everybody else around you is crazy.

said by peterboro:

Toys have no practical uses other than to amuse oneself and unless you are law enforcement or military then that's the case.

That definitely rules firearms out as toys then, no matter what your phobic mind tells you.
Expand your moderator at work

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to IamGimli

Re: [Serious] Mass shooting at Batman

Doh! Wrong button...

Net Citizen

join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

WTF are you talking about 1976 for? Those countries I listed have exactly the same restrictions as Canada for automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

You stated that the aforementioned countries had gun laws equivalent to Canada's. That was only true up until 1978 when assault rifles and automatic weapons were no longer permissible in accordance with Canadian law.

Yes, that's called a statistical anomaly and indicates other factors at play in that specific instance. It also demonstrate that using that one example as proof that more guns = more violence is a logical fallacy, especially considering that the statistical rule carries on within the US.

Because it no longer jives with your position you now deem it as a statistical anomaly.

My favourite logical fallacy in this thread thus far comes courtesy of you by way of comparing weapons designed to kill your fellow man with vehicles and other utilitarian objects.

LMAO

said by Net Citizen:

Whatever you think "appears" has been proven to be inconsistent with reality at best, a bold face lie at worst. Since you can't back up your gut feeling with actual data your argument is null and void.

Is this based on the same gut feeling you had whilst stating that gun related deaths are all attributed to career criminals?

said by Net Citizen:

Detroit's gun laws are a lengthy process but they are not strict provided that you successfully pass a background check. Concealed carry requires a firearms class.

quote:
…and they still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the US. Magnitudes higher than places where concealed carry is not only authorized but promoted.
I'll repeat it again; gun ownership is not strict. You can obtain approval in as little as 3 days. In other words, it's not that difficult to legally gain possession of a firearm.

said by Net Citizen:

Los Angeles is a city. It has no legislative powers state-wide.

The concealed carry permit is valid state-wide.

quote:
Yet California is still the US State with the most restrictive and controlled firearm laws, and it still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the country.
Would it be a stretch to say that automatic weapons and assault rifles are just as deadly as hand guns if not more so? What good is it to impose restrictions on pistols and revolvers while not imposing the same comprehensive legislation on other types of firearms?

said by Net Citizen:

Chicago's handgun ban was doomed from the start.

quote:
Just like every other handgun ban. Nice of you to admit it.
It certainly nullifies your previous assertion that all out bans on hand-guns are in effect in Chicago.

said by Net Citizen:

Just as with the South American regions, US states seem to have gun laws that may look good on paper but in fact are riddled with loopholes courtesy of the NRA lobbyists. Yet more un-subtantiated hyperbolic BS.

So you refute the NRA's influence on gun legislation?

said by Net Citizen:

Once upon a time it was necessary for settlers to carry a firearm during the American expansion in the west where hostile bands of natives, rogue citizens and bandits were clear and present dangers. The Federal government had yet to fully establish proper zones of control which left local militias and town officials to maintain order.

We no longer live in the Deadwood era. In an urban environment with a competent police force, it's no longer necessary to carry a firearm; for any reason.

quote:
Oh yeah? How far away are the police when you're victim of a home invasion? Who tells them you need help? How effective were the police in protecting the people in that theatre?

When seconds count, cops are only minutes away.

And you have the gull to call everyone else paranoid? Do you sleep a revolver under your pillow?

The best way to deal with a home invasion is to NOT provoke armed trespassers in the first place but to call the police after they have left and leave it to the proper authorities who are in the business of public safety to track down the criminals. Install a webcam security system to capture critical evidence - that will go a long way towards resolving the case that much quicker. Every cop will tell you that resistance in an armed robbery substantially increases the possibility of death or injury, possibly yours.

While perfection is not among the expectations the public generally have with respect to the police force, most of us are confident that the vast majority of officers are professionals who will respond when called and who will relentlessly pursue violet criminals.

Nice of you to disparage the efforts of the Colorado police, by the way.

said by Net Citizen:

If you live in a rural district and depend on a rifle for your livelihood, that's a completely different matter. Many families who live off the land and have the necessary experience, knowledge and proper respect for their weapons often view city dwellers who are not compelled to observe the same standard as the very people who shouldn't be owning guns in the first place.

quote:
Since when are "city dwellers" "not compelled to observe the same standards" as rural residents? You really get off on lying to bolster your ignorant beliefs, don't you?

As a matter of fact rural residents have exemptions specifically designed for them in the storage regulations which allows them to have loaded firearms out in the open for predator control.

Does your profession require the use of firearms? Do you make a living as a hunter? If not, then you're not in the same league; not even close.

A wannabe armchair John Rambo who squeezes off rounds for recreational purposes would rather allocate effort to block anything that inhibits his fun than accommodate the needs of public safety.

said by Net Citizen:

This doesn't necessarily mean I believe those who have a fascination with firearms shouldn't be accommodated however.

Why would a firearm owner need to have a "fascination" with firearms to want to own them? Do you have a fascination with cars? Do you have a fascination with knives? Do you have a fascination with toilets?

Just because you're not interested in firearms doesn't mean those who are have to be fascinated with them to be interested in them. You seem to imply that being interested in firearms is some sort of mental deficiency. I would argue that it's hoplophobes like you who are mentally abnormal, just like any other phobic person.

Yes, only pro-gun advocates are in their right frame of mind and anyone else who runs counter to that agenda are mentally abnormal. What a buffoon you are.

said by Net Citizen:

Firing ranges and gun fairs are where you should be going if you want to squeeze off a few rounds. My opinion only differs in the contemporary view is that whatever guns you own should remain in at these facilities under lock and key with those most qualified to care for them under 24/7 security. The firearms themselves never leave the firing range unless you're transporting the weapon to another facility or are moving out of province.

Do you distrust the police completely? Perhaps you should run for the hills and become a survivalist instead.

I honestly do not care whom you would prefer to manage the gun range of your choice; municipal cops or a privatized security force - take your pick. So long as the firearms and ammunition are securely stored and never leave the gun range, I don't see a problem. A heavily guarded facility stands a better chance of keeping firearms under lock and key away from the bad guys than a residential home.


fourboxers
Plate Spinner
join:2003-05-04
Toronto, ON
reply to jaberi
Once again another thread goes far afield from whence it started.

My sympathies to the families involved.

Consider this closed.