Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Why you have no right to bear arms


Lockout Casualty

Recommended Posts

No-one is suggesting an outright ban on guns. What we are suggesting is some common sense restrictions. Cigarettes are subject to restrictions, as is driving.

Many of us feel that not allowing people to carry concealed, loaded weapons in public is one such common sense solution and it is an absolute fact that had this woman not done so, she would be alive today.

Straw men make easier targets. The writer of the article states himself he's not out to ban guns, but to regulate them so halfwits can't get a hold of them.

When will you realize that statistics show that a family member is more likely to die as a result of you exercising your 2nd amendment rights, than is a "criminal".

He's aware, I showed him the stats only to be told my statistical BS can only be believed in an upside down world and put on ignore. It is unfortunate that ideology prevails over statistical analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will you realize that statistics show that a family member is more likely to die as a result of you exercising your 2nd amendment rights, than is a "criminal".

The famous Kellerman study that created this false argument never goes away....

"For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research"

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you have it, guns are like martial arts. I'll be sure to note the next story where someone steals martial arts to sell on the black market. Or when a karate combo accidentally goes off on and kills someone minding their business. Or when a kid reaches into mom's purse and fatally martial arts her in the head. Or when a martial arts hits a passer by on the other side of the street. Or when a hunting martial art kills a lady walking her dog.

Idiot is too nice a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as for the stupidly outrageous martial arts statement, not only is it not a parallel argument (the parallel argument would be a martial artist kills an innocent person more often than they kill an attacker, which is not correct in the slightest) but the goal of martial arts is to not to kill, it's to disarm/disable without killing. Death is a very rare accident, not the most likely outcome, unlike guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you have it, guns are like martial arts. I'll be sure to note the next story where someone steals martial arts to sell on the black market. Or when a karate combo accidentally goes off on and kills someone minding their business. Or when a kid reaches into mom's purse and fatally martial arts her in the head. Or when a martial arts hits a passer by on the other side of the street. Or when a hunting martial art kills a lady walking her dog.

Idiot is too nice a word.

Someone can't grasp the concept of an analogy. All your examples are actions of the person yet the tool is still blamed. Personifying an inanimate object.

Incompetent is a perfect word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as for the stupidly outrageous martial arts statement, not only is it not a parallel argument (the parallel argument would be a martial artist kills an innocent person more often than they kill an attacker, which is not correct in the slightest) but the goal of martial arts is to not to kill, it's to disarm/disable without killing. Death is a very rare accident, not the most likely outcome, unlike guns.

Martial arts teaches to neutralize a threat. Obviously it's preferential to not kill but it doesn't always work out that way.

Of course guns are most likely going to kill someone. Other than sport, that would be the point. Using your force multiplication tools in the order of the least force necessary to stop the threat is the goal. And yes, certain situations that leads to a justified homicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really just sad you guys who cling to your guns. Just so much fear.

To be honest both sides are pretty sad. I'm not for or against guns. I hunt so I own a gun but my gun is taken apart and stored in a safe along with everything to do with the gun. I go to ranges and fire off rounds with friends following every rule + some and we always make sure to give anyone s**t who is fooling around in the slightest.

There are certain weapons that are simply not needed and shouldn't be allowed to be sold. That won't do much for criminals getting them illegally but it will make a dent. Most regulations on guns in Canada are already good enough however tweaks are never a bad idea in the name of efficiency and safety.

Fear and misinformation is on both sides of this argument. Bocivus is clearly an idiot who is just trying to make people angry and many people here bothering to engage with him just got sucked in. His attitude does not reflect the true nature of most legal gun owners. "most". I live in the country so guns are everywhere and I don't know a single person in my community who owns a gun simply for personal safety. IMO there should be a separate licence for such. I would love to see the pal joined with the various hunting licences or another option to have your pal with a course specific for owning as a means of home defense and it should be mandatory every year.

So given all that...why should I not be able to own a gun? Specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really just sad you guys who cling to your guns. Just so much fear.

The irony here is that they accuse us of being afraid....

I'm not scared of guns at all. The ones I fear for are the schoolchildren who are targeted by the crazies and 2 year-olds who have to grow up with the knowledge that they killed their own mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest both sides are pretty sad. I'm not for or against guns. I hunt so I own a gun but my gun is taken apart and stored in a safe along with everything to do with the gun. I go to ranges and fire off rounds with friends following every rule + some and we always make sure to give anyone s**t who is fooling around in the slightest.

There are certain weapons that are simply not needed and shouldn't be allowed to be sold. That won't do much for criminals getting them illegally but it will make a dent. Most regulations on guns in Canada are already good enough however tweaks are never a bad idea in the name of efficiency and safety.

Fear and misinformation is on both sides of this argument. Bocivus is clearly an idiot who is just trying to make people angry and many people here bothering to engage with him just got sucked in. His attitude does not reflect the true nature of most legal gun owners. "most". I live in the country so guns are everywhere and I don't know a single person in my community who owns a gun simply for personal safety. IMO there should be a separate licence for such. I would love to see the pal joined with the various hunting licences or another option to have your pal with a course specific for owning as a means of home defense and it should be mandatory every year.

So given all that...why should I not be able to own a gun? Specifically.

I struggle to think of a single case where someone advocated for that in this thread and others. I could be wrong, but the gun control side is that - gun control. Not absolute prohibition. Now I would argue someone like Bocivus should not have a gun as he doesn't demonstrate the cognitive abilities required. You, however, I would have no problem living next door to me with an arsenal.

I like the way it's done here in Canada, though I wouldn't be against tightening the rules a bit. From what I heard from my friends with licenses, there are guys who pretty much guarantee you pass. In any case, I look forward to getting my license some time before the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest both sides are pretty sad. I'm not for or against guns. I hunt so I own a gun but my gun is taken apart and stored in a safe along with everything to do with the gun. I go to ranges and fire off rounds with friends following every rule + some and we always make sure to give anyone s**t who is fooling around in the slightest.

There are certain weapons that are simply not needed and shouldn't be allowed to be sold. That won't do much for criminals getting them illegally but it will make a dent. Most regulations on guns in Canada are already good enough however tweaks are never a bad idea in the name of efficiency and safety.

Fear and misinformation is on both sides of this argument. Bocivus is clearly an idiot who is just trying to make people angry and many people here bothering to engage with him just got sucked in. His attitude does not reflect the true nature of most legal gun owners. "most". I live in the country so guns are everywhere and I don't know a single person in my community who owns a gun simply for personal safety. IMO there should be a separate licence for such. I would love to see the pal joined with the various hunting licences or another option to have your pal with a course specific for owning as a means of home defense and it should be mandatory every year.

So given all that...why should I not be able to own a gun? Specifically.

I have to confess that I haven't read every post in this thread, but if I may be so bold as to speak for the majority, no-one is saying that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. We're saying that there should be restrictions on ownership.

For instance, many of us feel that large capacity ammo clips are unnecessary, as are the weapons that fire them. We feel that everyone should be subject to background checks and loopholes such as purchasing firearms at "gun shows" should be closed.

We feel that there should be an age limit. We have one for driving and smoking, so I fail to see why using a potentially deadly weapon should be any different.

We think that people should not be able to keep loaded weapons in their homes, where children might be able to get at them.

Finally, we feel that gun ownership should not be a "right". It should be a privilege.

One that is earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martial arts teaches to neutralize a threat. Obviously it's preferential to not kill but it doesn't always work out that way.

Of course guns are most likely going to kill someone. Other than sport, that would be the point. Using your force multiplication tools in the order of the least force necessary to stop the threat is the goal. And yes, certain situations that leads to a justified homicide.

The guns don't kill people people kill people argument is incredibly stupid. Please stop making us gun owners look so incredibly stupid. Gun availability and gun violence are directly correlated. There are so many non bias studies to prove this I always laugh when people bring up the ones that are bias because it's completely unnecessary.

Guns kill people because idiots have them but make no mistake it's the guns that kill people. Any person who basically uses the "stand your ground" law when they could easily just get out of a house/situation is an idiot and should not be able to own a firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to think of a single case where someone advocated for that in this thread and others. I could be wrong, but the gun control side is that - gun control. Not absolute prohibition. Now I would argue someone like Bocivus should not have a gun as he doesn't demonstrate the cognitive abilities required. You, however, I would have no problem living next door to me with an arsenal.

I like the way it's done here in Canada, though I wouldn't be against tightening the rules a bit. From what I heard from my friends with licenses, there are guys who pretty much guarantee you pass. In any case, I look forward to getting my license some time before the summer.

Honestly there are some that should be tightened and some that should be loosened up a bit on.

Also almost everyone guarantees you a pass but that's because there's really not much too it. Gun safety is not rocket science. (hell it's not even grade 8 math if I'm being honest) hunting licences are quite a bit more difficult than a PAL is but that's because there's actually something to learn. Anyone with a lick of common sense and respect can get a PAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guns don't kill people people kill people argument is incredibly stupid. Please stop making us gun owners look so incredibly stupid. Gun availability and gun violence are directly correlated. There are so many non bias studies to prove this I always laugh when people bring up the ones that are bias because it's completely unnecessary.

Guns kill people because idiots have them but make no mistake it's the guns that kill people. Any person who basically uses the "stand your ground" law when they could easily just get out of a house/situation is an idiot and should not be able to own a firearm.

I actually thought it was the law in Canada that if you're able to get out of the house, you do that instead of shooting the intruder. I even recalled a case from some years ago. Then I googled it and now I'm not sure, apparently it's a gray area and is viewed on a case by case basis, with judges practicing leniency in cases of self-defensive shootings.

Personally I feel that no possession is worth a life, even if it's a meth head breaking in to afford his disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to confess that I haven't read every post in this thread, but if I may be so bold as to speak for the majority, no-one is saying that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. We're saying that there should be restrictions on ownership.

For instance, many of us feel that large capacity ammo clips are unnecessary, as are the weapons that fire them. We feel that everyone should be subject to background checks and loopholes such as purchasing firearms at "gun shows" should be closed.

We feel that there should be an age limit. We have one for driving and smoking, so I fail to see why using a potentially deadly weapon should be any different.

We think that people should not be able to keep loaded weapons in their homes, where children might be able to get at them.

Finally, we feel that gun ownership should not be a "right". It should be a privilege.

One that is earned.

I guess my question at the end was directed towards inane's comment more than the rest of my post was.

I will say this quickly though just to address my thoughts.

Large clips don't really matter however I agree that many guns that are legal to own are unnecessary and should be made illegal. Also purchasing at a gun show is totally fine. To restrict that would be to restrict just for the sake of restricting. There is really no difference to buying there or a sports store. To buy a handgun privately do you know the red tape one has to go through? There is the possibility for it to take months just to get the permit to transfer it from point A to point B.

There are age restrictions on firearms already and to be honest those are some of the best laws they have. A minors licence can be had when the individual turns 12. Ownership of a firearm however is restricted to having a PAL which you need to be 18 for and have to also have your CFSC.

I agree completely other than the kid part because that's irrelevant. Anybody who keeps a loaded weapon in their home and thinks that is OK should have their licences and firearms taken away from them.

Gun ownership already is a privilege in Canada. It can be taken away. Having said that the privilege to own certain guns should just not be allowed. Certain calibers should also have further restrictions and qualifications to own. Owners of multiple guns should have to show how they store and care their firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...