Liberals feel that if you kept money in your pockets you’d probably spend it on beer and popcorn… NO WAY! I have to get some new tires for my Firebird! It has been sitting on blocks in the front yard for years now. I need the room to remove the engine from me pickmeup truck. Hang on a moment. The wife is bitching at me again. “Shut up, ya damn whore!”, “Can’t you see I’m on the damn internet”. “And what the hell do you have shoes on in the kitchen?! You know you should be barefoot in there!”. <SLAP!> “Bitch”. “Get me a Beer, Dammit!”
Now that that is straightened out:
We must thank our Liberal overlords for protecting us from ourselves. Please take my money from me so I won’t be tempted to spend it on frivolous things anymore. OH, I’m so grateful that we have such people running this country <sniffle>. We all bow to their grand wisdom! Oh, thank you, thank you.
I suggest that we elect them with a vast majority this time so they can continue to help us see the light.
So just incase somebody might do something bad in the future we should take their stuff away now.
Ah majority rules huh? You sure you want to argue that line? The burden is on the government to argue that handguns must be banned. All you’ve managed is to do is call them evil (odd for an inanimate object) and useless. You submit that for the greater good we should remove handguns from legitimate owners. A move destined to do what exactly? Prevent smuggling? Stop gang violence?
And what is this greater good you will accomplish by taking people’s property? What is it exactly? Do we expect a 10% reduction on handgun death (not counting suicide)?
StatCan says that in 2003 109 homicides were from handguns, roughly on par with data from the last 10 years. 109 people. That’s it. The report also says that of 2/3 of all offenders had criminal records. Let’s grossly assume that a) handgun violence has the same profile and b) that the remaining 1/3 that lacked a criminal record also used legitimate handguns. That’s only 36 people a year. Likely less since we’ve lumped all homicides together here.
Tell that to the 26 people who have died. That it doesn’t matter because some people wanted a handgun for, as of yet, unknown reasons except that they enjoy them.
On one side we have possibly 36 people a year dead from legitimate handguns. On the other we have about 500,000 legal handguns. Shall you do the math or shall I?
No, I actually only care about the first 25, the rest are just statistics…
I couldn’t care less how many guns there are. People are still dieing because of them, not to mention just plain ol’ getting shot. And for what reason? Because people enjoy them?
Sam Stone at least gave a reason, even if its one I don’t agree with.
I wonder how many people get killed by cars when they are being used for pleasure vs. business. Should be ban cars unless they are being used for a valid specific reason? Uh, that reason would be something you would determine, I assume, because you don’t have much use for other people’s definition of valid.
Cars provide a quite valid service. One I think even you could agree with, assuming you don’t just return to taking potshots where none are needed. Guns do not. Or at least, I can’t think of any (again except for what Sam Stone said). Please enlighten me to the valid service handguns provide. Thanks again for your ever so helpful and informative posts.
So aside from the icky feelings guns give you, you have no argument.
Here’s something. Let’s say it costs $100 a gun initially to get into this program. That’s $50 million. Now add a department of 40 people at $150,000 loaded labour rate over 10 years. You will have spent $110 million to potentially save 360 people. That’s $300 thousand a person.
Now say the program only reduces deaths by 25% (which for a government program is impressive), you will have prevented 9 deaths a year. Over 10 years, 90 people at $1.2 million per person. In short, even if you cling to the need to take other people’s property to address an imaginary problem, the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Guns do give me an icky feeling. I won’t deny that. Nor will I deny that is the only reason I am somewhat for this plan. However, I am still waiting for someone to tell me the purpose guns provide, except pleasure. It is a well established fact that the government often intrudes on peoples lives in regards to how they can go about receiving pleasure. I see nothing different with this plan to essentially make handguns illegal then how they make prostitutin illegal, or drugs. If its all about pleasure, which again is the only reason that has been outlined that I agree with in this thread, then there is absolutely nothing unusual about this plan.
Will it be a boondoogle? Most probably, in fact I would be surprised if it turned out otherwise. Will it be at all effective in actually reducing the number of gun deaths in this country? Well maybe at a cost of 1.2 million per. Is it anything other then pandering to the voters in the GTA who heard non-stop this summer about gun violence? Yes.
The Liberal plan, to me, seems much like the Conservative plan on SSM. Put this out there early, hope the people you alienate forget about it, the people who really care about this issue weren’t voting for you anyway, and maybe you could solidify your base.
I too confess befuddlement over the argument that handguns are symbols of freedom, etc. etc. They aren’t symbols of anything as far as I’m concerned. In fact, Sam Stone’s post declaring them as such is the first time I’ve ever heard such an argument put forth in this country. Nor do I buy the argument that a handgun ban will result in more assaults and break-ins; storage and carry laws are so strict here that I can’t see handguns being much use in emergency situations. And I’m not a libertarian so the handwaving about freedom doesn’t faze me. But I do agree that the effect a handgun ban will have on crime will be miniscule. Legally owned handguns simply aren’t much of a pool for criminals to draw from in this country.If they were, I might feel otherwise. But they aren’t, so I don’t. Banning handguns is a solution to a problem we do not have.
I wasn’t trying to take a potshot at you. I was asking you why using a car for pleasure is required. More people probably get killed by people driving cars for pleasure than are killed by legal handguns (which are kept by people because they find them a pleasure to collect and use, not for any real useful purpose. I’d much prefer a shotgun for self defense than a handgun). Note: I don’t own firearms, but I could care less whether the neighbours have one legally. I’d like the option of getting one if required, though.
The comparison to cars and guns is silly. Cars provide a valid service, even when not being driven for business. Cars allow you to visit relatives, keeping family ties strong, and passing down your culture and wisdom from generation to generation. Cars allow you to drive your kid to hockey practice at some god awful time in the morning, helping teach your children how to play well with others amongst other benefits. Cars allow you to visit musuems, art galleries and other cultural events giving you a well rounded view of the world (that hockey isn’t the only thing in the world, and those weirdos ‘over there’ make some cool stuff). I could go on and on.
Allow you to get together with other like minded individuals at your club. Allows you to compete against each other using devices that are part of your heritage and pass wisdom of their use down from generation to generation, etc, etc.
Any of the uses you have listed that a car allows you to do can be done by taking a bus, moving closer to such locations, or not doing at all. Why should I have my life jeapordized by you because you want to take your kids to a museum, or hockey practice? Really, I’m not trying to take a potshot at anyone. The argument has been made that gun owners use their guns safely and responsibly. Only a very, very few actually jeapordize others with their use. I’m making the point that people use cars far more indescriminately and thus people are far more at risk because of it. Yet, because you think that there is a valid reason for their use you think my argument is ridiculous.
Dude, Sam Stone doesn’t owe you an explanation for why he should be allowed to own a gun. YOU owe us a explanation for why they need to be banned.
Look, let’s be quite honest here:
The number of people murdered in Canada by handguns that are legally owned, or were EVER legally owned in this country, is not 36 a year. It’s probably not even 10. Virtually every firearm homicide involving a handgun involves an illegal handgun, probably smuggled from the United States. As a risk to life and limb, legally owned handguns simply are not a statistically visible problem. The number of people killed by legally owned handguns is probably less than are killed by those silly ATVs, which don’t serve any useful purpose I can discern. They are far less than are killed in backyard swimming pools, and having owned one I can tell you nobody needs one. And why are motorcycles legal? Nobody needs a motorcycle; just buy a car.
Banning things doesn’t work. I mean, how frickin’ stupid can people be? Learn from history. Banning drugs hasn’t worked. It has never worked, and it is never going to work. If they fight the war on drugs for ten thousand years it still won’t work. Banning liquor didn’t work. Banning porn didn’t work. Banning guns will not work. It is a complete, utter and total waste of money and time that will have essentially no effect on gun violence in this country.
Martin’s plan to ban handguns is a 5 point strategy which includes:
* Toughening penalties by re-introducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes.
* Encouraging community-based action by intensifying prevention efforts. This would include a $50-million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund to focus on youth at risk and continued investment in skills development programs to engage young people in the workforce.
* Investing in law enforcement, including $225 million over five years for an RCMP Advanced Community Safety and Rapid Enforcement Team, $10 million a year for 10 years to increase the number of graduating RCMP officers, $50 million over five years for a Rural Community Safety Plan to provide resources for crime prevention initiatives in communities with less that 100,000 residents, and investments to stem the illegal smuggling of firearms into Canada.
So it is not just about removing guns from legal collectors. Believe them or not.
Also, I don’t think one should limit the effect of handguns to just how many deaths they cause. Look at these poor folks being terrorised at Jane and Finch. Thugs with guns moving into a community affects the whole community, not just those being killed. I have been listening on CBC today about the case with Tookie Williams. Experts talking about how the Crips, and gangs in general absolutely destroy a community. The area gets covered in graffitti, businesses and anybody who can afford to leaves, place goes to hell.
Sorry for being away for a few days, but I see this thread has now descended into a pro-gun/anti-gun argument.
Since I actually live in the U.S. for the moment, it’s kind of neat to watch the whole debate here as an outsider. And since I literally do not have a dog in the fight, I get to look at the debate with a completely fresh look.
The second amendment was written there were no such things as police forces. The guns that were used were very primitive, there had barely been any improvement in technology in 100 years, and in combat really only worked well en masse. That amendment is also the most poorly worded thing I’ve ever read.
You ask me ( and you’re not, but I’m writing here) and the second amendment only allows village elders/cities/states to set up police forces authorized to have guns.
Let me see if I have your argument straight: Anything can be banned, unless you can show that that thing has a ‘valid purpose’. Is that correct?
Just trying to cut to the chase here. So far, the only thing you’ve offered to justify banning handguns is that there is ‘no valid reason to have them’. That, and that some number of people between 0 and 36 are killed by legally registered handguns each year.
Of course, to claim that there is ‘no valid use’ for a handgun, you have to eliminate recreation as a ‘valid use’, since there are dozens of legal handgun ranges in Canada, and they are full of people enjoying their handguns while not killing anybody. You would also have to ignore the handgun magazines that you can find on every newsstand, purchased by people who apparently enjoy handguns without killing anyone. And of course, you can shoot handguns in the Olympics, so handgun shooting is an actual sanctioned sporting event. To say nothing of the IPSC shooting competitions and other sanctioned recreational handgun shooting events all over North America.
So… The criterion is apparently that a thing must A) not kill or injure anyone, and B) have a legitimate, non-recreational reason for existing. If it doesn’t meet those two criterion, then it can be banned at the whim of the government. Is that about it?
In that case, you might consider that Alpine Skiing has a mortality rate of 0.2 to 0.7 deaths per million skiier visits to a resort. In British Columbia, 32 skiiers died in skiing accidents between 1993 and 1998 (cite).
This is probably more deaths than occured from legally registered handguns over the same period.
Then there are swimming pools and recreational boating accidents. Backyard pools are one of the biggest killers of children. In 2000, there were 472 deaths due to drowning in Canada. Over 10 times the number killed by handguns. And 68% of them were from recreational accidents. No one needs a private boat. You don’t get exercise, you create pollution, despoil nature, and 472 people a year die in the water! How can you live with yourself, allowing that kind of carnage to continue without lobbying your government for a ban?
Not only that, but 33 of them died in private swimming pools. Got that? Almost as many people died in backyard pools as were killed by handguns! And most of them were children. I take it you support a ban on swimming pools?
Then there’s the big kller - heart disease. ONE THIRD of all deaths are related to heart disease. Millions of people a year. And no one needs to eat potato chips and chocolate bars. Just think how many people we could save each year if we just banned all fatty foods? I have yet to hear a valid reason for eating potato chips. I’m guessing that if we banned junk food, and made people go in for mandatory checkups every couple of years (and fined them for being over their BMI by a certain amount), we could probably save thousands of lives per year in Canada. It’s time the potato chip lobby stopped dealing their death-snacks. Think of the children. How many people are you willing to let die just so you have have a bag of Fritos?