dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
27
Net Citizen
join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY

1 recommendation

Net Citizen to vue666

Member

to vue666

Re: [Serious] Mass shooting at Batman

said by vue666:

If people are truly honest they are honest by nature and no need to have the authorities keep them honest...matter of fact your comment sounds a tad paranoid...

This is a problem with the Western perspective.

We attribute absolute values to individuals and classify them as such. We only see black and white, in other words.

The reality is that humans are not intrinsically good or evil.

Everyone on this planet is capable of depraved cruelty as well as compassion. Upbringing, societal and environmental factors can, but not always, play a part. People change over time as well.

Someone is always asking what kind of person would commit such a heinous crime.

The kind of person that would do this looks like you; looks like me. They are your friends, family and neighbours. In other words, everyone is a potential mass murderer when certain conditions are met.

Fortunately, for most of us, the ability to surpress primal urges is greater than the temptation, even if only out of fear for the consequences that may result.

The suspect in this case obviously felt he had nothing left to lose and thus, was not constrained by the self-imposed restrictions most productive citizens have in place for themselves.

As for the availability of firearms, I'm a firm believer that strict gun control is a good thing.

As some already pointed out, gun control will not prevent determined killers from acquiring weaponry from the underground economy or even using household tools to do the job if nothing else is available.

However, we are all creatures of habit and convenience. Gun control is effective at curbing the number of deaths that occur as a result of spontaneous violet crime - to say nothing of accidental deaths from the mishandling of firearms.

For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

said by Net Citizen:

For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.

Oh yeah? You wouldn't have any statistics to prove your point, would you? Maybe from one of the thirty or so states that have changed their policies to allow concealed carry over the past 20 years?

Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?

Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

Robert4

Premium Member

said by IamGimli:


Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

said by Robert4:

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.

And the NRA and all their lobbyists will be sure to come up with some excuse to continue to justify letting people like him have unfettered access to weapons. After all every weapon starts out in the hands of a legal law abiding entity whether it be person or corporation.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to Robert4

Premium Member

to Robert4
said by Robert4:

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.

and if he wasn't, he still would have obtained the same weapons.
Net Citizen
join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY

Net Citizen to IamGimli

Member

to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

said by Net Citizen:

For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.

Oh yeah? You wouldn't have any statistics to prove your point, would you? Maybe from one of the thirty or so states that have changed their policies to allow concealed carry over the past 20 years?

Lawful firearm owners are not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. CRIMINALS are the problem. Everything bad criminals do is already banned, yet it doesn't keep them from committing those acts. Do you really see a difference between getting killed by a firearm, a knife, a bomb or bare hands? Are you any more or any less dead?

Amazingly enough, the entire gist of my post flew right over your head.

I'll try this again:

No amount of restrictions will prevent career criminals and determined killers from acquiring weaponry.

However, making it difficult to own firearms to the extent that the majority of the population do not own any (as in the case of Canada and Western Europe), deaths that occur as a result of accidental weapon discharge and/or unexpected altercations between two or more parties (armed gangs excluded) are greatly reduced. Someone has already posted some comparison statistics between the United States and other nations with gun control.

As was noted, the suspect in Colorado was anything but a criminal until that fateful night during the new Batman film screenings.

Is it really a surprise to you that law abiding individuals can become criminals over time? Or that guns which were originally purchased can suddenly become an accessory for murder after a road rage incident?

Easy access to firearms enables even upstanding citizens to make terrible mistakes in the heat of passion - errors in judgment from which there is no going back.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by Net Citizen:

Easy access to firearms enables even upstanding citizens to make terrible mistakes in the heat of passion - errors in judgment from which there is no going back.

while i understand your point, if he didn't have guns, could he use a bat, or knives?...it's not like criminals only started to exist when guns arrived...they have been around long before guns ever existed.

i'm not saying we should have guns for sale at 7-11, but i don't think banning all guns is a logical answer...as IamGimli stated (and i have before as well) there are already laws in place here that would prevent "by law" what happened...handguns and automatic weapons are either restricted or prohibited (depending on what they are)...they are heavily regulated and getting them legally isn't easy (here).

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Net Citizen

Premium Member

to Net Citizen
said by Net Citizen:

For an example, two or more individuals are engaged in a heated road rage session. The difference between whether the incident escalates into a fist fight or something considerably more lethal could depend on whether or not one of the participants has a revolver in his glovebox.

And that consideration, that someone could be armed, deescalates so many road rage situations it's not even funny.

I've seen, with my own eyes, raging dudes hop out of their vehicles on a Saturday night burst out a few words then randomly chill out and hop back in the car. In Toronto, guaranteed brawl (of which I've seen many)... in Miami? Get it out of your system and move on. First time I'd seen that, I'd asked my Miami colleague, "what just happened?" "Well, neither side knows if the other is armed so no one starts any shit."

Based on what I've personally seen, your example is a good reason against strict gun control.

Comparing Miami, which resides in the labelled "gunshine state" of USA, per capita they have less murders, less rapes, less robberies, less assaults despite having more people than Buffalo, NY, which has strict gun control.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

i'm not saying we should have guns for sale at 7-11, but i don't think banning all guns is a logical answer...as IamGimli stated (and i have before as well) there are already laws in place here that would prevent "by law" what happened...handguns and automatic weapons are either restricted or prohibited (depending on what they are)

In Colorado, despite their history of Columbine, the fellow was able to legally buy a semiautomatic assault rifle capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds a minute....

I agree, we should NOT ban all guns. It's impractical, and probably undesirable as well as this point in the US.

But having people have handguns and long guns is a bit different from semiautomatic assault rifles.

People are not allowed to buy surface-to-air missiles.

People are not allowed to have anti-tank weapons (bazookas).

Why should those be illegal, yet semiautomatic assault rifles be legal?

On this issue, the Republicans are whores, and too many Democrats are cowards.

Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

Robert4 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

said by Robert4:

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.

and if he wasn't, he still would have obtained the same weapons.

First off, how do you know with certainty? He might fall into the keeping people honest category (unlikely but possible). Secondly, it would have been much harder. This logic of "he would have gotten it anyways" leads us to not banning anything as someone will get it anyways. Once again I ask: should we ban crack? Heroin? Whore houses? RPG's? IED's?

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
i agree with your points...assault rifles are likely "fun to shoot", so allowing them in controlled and regulated environments is likely acceptable (i intend on trying some myself in a couple of weeks), but there has to be a better way to regulate the sale of them...the problem is, as is often the case, us on the "right" often want sensible options, but those on the "left" want to swing things so far the opposite direction, then accuse us of wanting things so far in the "right" direction, it gets ridiculous...i feel that most of us in here on the "right" agree proper regulation is important, and don't feel that everyone should be able to own whatever they want, despite the fact those on the "left" seem to insinuate that.

Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

Robert4 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

if he didn't have guns, could he use a bat, or knives?...it's not like criminals only started to exist when guns arrived...they have been around long before guns ever existed.

When was the last time one guy with one knife or bat killed 12 people and injured 58 in the span of minutes?

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to Robert4

Premium Member

to Robert4
said by Robert4:
First off, how do you know with certainty?
we don't, which is why an all out ban is useless...Guy Turcotte killed his kids...he was a doctor...he stabbed them...would it have been any different if they were shot??...why not a knife ban?
quote:
Once again I ask: should we ban crack? Heroin? Whore houses? RPG's? IED's?

i'm not sure why you ask??...those are already banned.
dirtyjeffer0

dirtyjeffer0 to Robert4

Premium Member

to Robert4
said by Robert4:

When was the last time one guy with one knife or bat killed 12 people and injured 58 in the span of minutes?

well, it certainly is much harder with a gun, and i understand that...but whether you kill 1, 2 or 12, does it really matter?

a quick google search pulled up this guy who bought a knife in a supermarket, then used it as a weapon, stabbing patrons in the foyer, until one patron brandished a firearm (he had a concealed carry permit) and told him to drop the weapon or he would shoot him...the suspect dropped the weapon and the situation was stopped immediately...either way, the situation was over, the only difference is the suspect was either going to be arrested, or was going to get shot (likely killed).

»www.abc4.com/content/new ··· 9dQ.cspx

then there was this story, of 2 men, at least one armed with a knife who were trying to gain entry into a single mother's home...little did they know she was armed with a handgun and a 12 gauge shotgun...when they broke the door down to gain entry, she shot one of them (the other took off).

»www.dailymail.co.uk/news ··· cer.html
dirtyjeffer0

dirtyjeffer0 to Robert4

Premium Member

to Robert4
said by Robert4:

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.

yet, for some reason, his mother wasn't surprised at all...there is more to this story than we currently know.

»www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/co ··· 95421687
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

....the problem is, as is often the case, us on the "right" often want sensible options....

Agreed.

The problem is, what is [right-wing] in Canada would be considered [moderate] in the US these days.

US right-wingers are kind of in a universe by themselves.

Our country must increasingly scare the shit out of you Canadians.

If you folks have not read the book or see the movie, you should:

The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, a work of science fiction or speculative fiction, written by Canadian author Margaret Atwood and published in 1985.

It is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian theocracy formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America. It was founded by a racist, homophobic, male chauvinist, nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country.

Beginning with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists) that kills the President and most of Congress, a movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launched a revolution and suspend the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.

----Adapted from Wikipedia

They declare war on Canada, too, BTW.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to Robert4

Member

to Robert4
said by Robert4:

Up until Thursday night, this guy was a lawful gun owner.

Up until Thursday night he was a lawful penis holder too. I guess all penis holders are just criminals in the making. Quick, get in line to get your penis cut off!
said by peterboro:

Cars have a function in society where as hand guns are just little toys for guys who haven't grown up yet.

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

Even when they're misused that also cause a lot fewer deaths annually than any of these other socially unnecessary items.

Just because you're afraid that someone's got a bigger "gun" than yours doesn't give you the right to take the other guy's "gun" away.
said by Net Citizen:

Amazingly enough, the entire gist of my post flew right over your head.

Amazingly enough you failed to answer the question you asked. The fact of the matter is that states where concealed carry is allowed have FEWER incidents on road rage that lead to assault or attempted murder than states where concealed carry is illegal.

If your premise was correct police officers would get in roadside shootouts every day because every time they stop someone there's someone pissed off and there's at least one gun present. If guns made people more violent and more irrational there'd be shootouts every day. Yet reality is the exact opposite, because the presence (even if just supposed) of guns actually keep people civil.
said by PX Eliezer704:

But having people have handguns and long guns is a bit different from semiautomatic assault rifles.

"semiautomatic assault rifles" is an oxymoron. Assault rifles are fully automatic by definition.

Also due to the rules of physics the faster you fire a firearm the less precise you can be with it and the lower the chance you can actually hit a target.
said by Robert4:

First off, how do you know with certainty?

Considering bomb making IS completely banned and illegal and that he didn't seem to have any issues assembling IEDs it's not much of a stretch to realize finding firearms, whether legally or not, wouldn't have been much of an issue either.
said by Robert4:

When was the last time one guy with one knife or bat killed 12 people and injured 58 in the span of minutes?

The 9/11 hijackers killed 3,000 people using box cutters.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people using nothing more than nitromethane (a racing fuel) and fertilizer, neither of which are banned to this day.
said by peterboro:

You already know the answer as I posted several threads ago that I have fired probably more different handguns than most, if not all, posting in here.

Residing in the US gave me access to firearms that are restricted here and yes having done so they are fun little toys but have no place in society other than cops and military use.

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.
said by ZZZZZZZ:

But my main problem with this story as was pointed out in another forum is ''how does someone buy 6000 rounds of ammo on the internet''? and not raise any red flags ,especially in the states

Where was Homeland Security in all this,too busy taking down sports sites?

Ridiculous,if this was a Canadian he'd have the RCMP or CSIS on his doorstep that day.

Hahaha, you're so clueless. I've purchased more than 10,000 rounds in one purchase, over the internet, many times before. I still have to get a visit from the RCMP or CSIS.

Do you want to know WHY I bought over 10,000 rounds in one shot? Because it was a good deal!

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
said by PX Eliezer704:

US right-wingers are kind of in a universe by themselves.

Just as US left-wingers are in a universe by themselves

In a 2011 Gallup poll, 27% Americans identified as Republicans while 27% identified as Democrats. Independent voters take up the majority.
said by PX Eliezer704:

Our country must increasingly scare the shit out of you Canadians.

Not so much those of us that live near the border and make regular trips throughout the Americas, and see that the United States isn't as certain loud Canadians want us to believe it is. Mind you, people in Fort Erie close to Buffalo are off to a bad start...
said by PX Eliezer704:

If you folks have not read the book or see the movie, you should:

Margaret Atwood

They declare war on Canada, too, BTW.

Margaret Atwood, a vocal Canadian leftist, wrote many anti-American novels. She exaggerates and focuses on certain aspects of American ideals to portray her version of Canadian left wing values to be the best way that people should be.

ZZZZZZZ
Premium Member
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE

ZZZZZZZ to IamGimli

Premium Member

to IamGimli
quote:
I've purchased more than 10,000 rounds in one purchase, over the internet, many times before. I still have to get a visit from the RCMP or CSIS.
Well that answers any Qs I had about you.

BigSensFan
Premium Member
join:2003-07-16
Belle River, ON

1 recommendation

BigSensFan

Premium Member

said by ZZZZZZZ:

quote:
I've purchased more than 10,000 rounds in one purchase, over the internet, many times before. I still have to get a visit from the RCMP or CSIS.
Well that answers any Qs I had about you.

same here..it shows to me that he is very wise when spending his money on things he wants.... to paint it any other way is asinine
Warez_Zealot
join:2006-04-19
Vancouver

Warez_Zealot to IamGimli

Member

to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

Hahaha, you're so clueless. I've purchased more than 10,000 rounds in one purchase, over the internet, many times before. I still have to get a visit from the RCMP or CSIS.

Do you want to know WHY I bought over 10,000 rounds in one shot? Because it was a good deal!

I'm just making sure, but you have *yet* to receive a visit from the RCMP/CSIS? Or you must get a visit/approval from them first? (buying in bulk like that)
Net Citizen
join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY

Net Citizen to IamGimli

Member

to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

said by Net Citizen:

Amazingly enough, the entire gist of my post flew right over your head.

Amazingly enough you failed to answer the question you asked. The fact of the matter is that states where concealed carry is allowed have FEWER incidents on road rage that lead to assault or attempted murder than states where concealed carry is illegal.

If your premise was correct police officers would get in roadside shootouts every day because every time they stop someone there's someone pissed off and there's at least one gun present. If guns made people more violent and more irrational there'd be shootouts every day. Yet reality is the exact opposite, because the presence (even if just supposed) of guns actually keep people civil.

You're not comprehending.

I did not say that guns "made people more violent". Violent breakouts occur irrespective of whether guns are present.

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

Furthermore, the number of deaths resulting from just the misuse of guns let alone deliberate attempts to take someone's life outweigh whatever supposed "balance" is achieve by having everyone own a firearm. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to assume that regular urban citizens not carrying weapons at all would actually produce the best outcome.

However, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just trolling given that you're a hardcore gun advocate who brags about ordering over 10k of ammunition in a thread linked to a story where 14 people lost their lives and 58 more injured.

That, more than anything, I find absolutely disgusting, insensitive and tasteless, to say the least.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to Warez_Zealot

Member

to Warez_Zealot
said by Warez_Zealot:

I'm just making sure, but you have *yet* to receive a visit from the RCMP/CSIS? Or you must get a visit/approval from them first? (buying in bulk like that)

The RCMP and CSIS couldn't care less who buys ammunition or in what quantity, as long as they hold a firearm license. Bulk buying is alive and well in the firearms community, especially on military surplus (ZOMG military!!!).
said by Net Citizen:

You're not comprehending.

I'm comprehending just fine. I'm saying you're full of shit because the actual statistical data shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Again, if you can show us a study or stats to prove your point, do so.

You may want to tell your rocket scientist to stop assuming shit he has no clue about. It'd be nice of you to do the same.

Oh and I didn't brag about anything. I corrected a lie propagated by some other gun grabber like you who, like you, only has lies to justify his hoplophobia.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Net Citizen

Premium Member

to Net Citizen
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.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by urbanriot:

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.

agreed...i work with several people who have their PAL license (and work at the range i am visiting in a couple of weeks)...none of them are "gun nuts" and wild west lunatics who would shoot up the place if someone didn't turn their blinker on in front of them.
Net Citizen
join:2009-01-22
Schenectady, NY

1 recommendation

Net Citizen to IamGimli

Member

to IamGimli
quote:
I'm comprehending just fine. I'm saying you're full of shit because the actual statistical data shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Again, if you can show us a study or stats to prove your point, do so.

You may want to tell your rocket scientist to stop assuming shit he has no clue about. It'd be nice of you to do the same.

Oh and I didn't brag about anything. I corrected a lie propagated by some other gun grabber like you who, like you, only has lies to justify his hoplophobia.

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

As for statistical data, »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li ··· 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.

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.

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.

Let us know how that works out for you.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

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/Li ··· 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/firear ··· /region/

Country         Firearm ownership rate    Gun-related death rate
                    (per 100 person)             (per 100,000 person)
South Africa              12.7                                74.57
Columbia                   5.9                                51.77
El Salvador                5.8                                50.36
Jamaica                    8.1                                47.44
Honduras                   6.2                                46.70
Swaziland                  6.4                                37.16
Brazil                     8.0                                14.15
Estonia                    9.2                                12.74
Panama                    21.7                                12.92
Mexico                    15.0                                12.07
 
United States             88.8                                10.27
Canada                    23.8                                 4.78
 
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

Net Citizen to urbanriot

Member

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

Net Citizen to IamGimli

Member

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/So ··· 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 (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to IamGimli

Member

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.