Ryan Strome Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: I find it funny that you still haven't produced the video/source. But hey, that's par for the course. 52 minutes ago, Toews said: How could he? The source is probably a place where the sun don't shine. You know, the place where Obama accused Hillary of election tampering. Let's forget about what he said nearly 10 years ago let's look at when he was PM. Sorry Destroyer your messiah disagrees with you. Edited May 12, 2020 by Ryan Strome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) One thing I will say is that I think one of the problems with this topic is that people are so fixated on the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The problem with this statement is it draws no conclusion. It's not a statement that states whether or not we should have gun laws. To elaborate on this, let's say we change the phrase to "Cars don't kill people, people kill people." Just as true of a statement, but because cars are so important to society, people are just going to laugh. So maybe we shouldn't ban cars. Let's go the other direction. "Nuclear weapon don't kill people, people kill people." Also true, yet completely different feelings suddenly. People are generally against nuclear weapons so automatically people are going to say "Yeah ban nukes!" So let's think about that: the same statement, the EXACT same statement, but because the object changes, the statement feels different. This means that the statement has NOTHING to do with whether or not guns should be banned. It proves no point as it doesn't draw to one to begin with other than the "implied rhetorical" that evidently isn't rhetorical at all (otherwise this debate wouldn't exist in the first place). So please, to anyone using that statement as an argument. Please stop. You're doing nothing for the argument with it. It doesn't prove that guns shouldn't be banned nor does it prove guns should be banned. It's just fluff. Edited May 12, 2020 by The Lock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Let's forget about what he said nearly 10 years ago let's look at when he was PM. Sorry Destroyer your messiah disagrees with you. He isn't my messiah. Sorry. Just as I predicted, its political answer from after the CONS dismantled the registry, at the objection of police chiefs across the country. My point was that if the moron inspired gun arguments from down south hadn't infected the conservatives here, we would still have the registry. Bringing the gun registry back is an even bigger hot potato than banning a few guns that the majority of Canadians are for banning. Nice to see you actually provide a source for your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 15 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: He isn't my messiah. Sorry. Just as I predicted, its political answer from after the CONS dismantled the registry, at the objection of police chiefs across the country. My point was that if the moron inspired gun arguments from down south hadn't infected the conservatives here, we would still have the registry. Bringing the gun registry back is an even bigger hot potato than banning a few guns that the majority of Canadians are for banning. Nice to see you actually provide a source for your claim. I think it's funny you say that I don't provide sources when I always do. It's that you only trust CNN and belittle every other source. Everything politics for you, you're in the minority, if the sources you quote and you act as if you and your sources are so superior. I find it funny, a page or two back you laughed at another member saying a specific firearm wasn't banned he then shows you from the government website it is and don't even apologize, admit he is right or even edit your stupid lol. I think when people see that it shows a discussion with you is pointless. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, The Lock said: One thing I will say is that I think one of the problems with this topic is that people are so fixated on the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The problem with this statement is it draws no conclusion. It's not a statement that states whether or not we should have gun laws. To elaborate on this, let's say we change the phrase to "Cars don't kill people, people kill people." Just as true of a statement, but because cars are so important to society, people are just going to laugh. So maybe we shouldn't ban cars. Let's go the other direction. "Nuclear weapon don't kill people, people kill people." Also true, yet completely different feelings suddenly. People are generally against nuclear weapons so automatically people are going to say "Yeah ban nukes!" So let's think about that: the same statement, the EXACT same statement, but because the object changes, the statement feels different. This means that the statement has NOTHING to do with whether or not guns should be banned. It proves no point as it doesn't draw to one to begin with other than the "implied rhetorical" that evidently isn't rhetorical at all (otherwise this debate wouldn't exist in the first place). So please, to anyone using that statement as an argument. Please stop. You're doing nothing for the argument with it. It doesn't prove that guns shouldn't be banned nor does it prove guns should be banned. It's just fluff. It does draw conclusions when you take a step back. They do go hand and hand though which is what people forget. You have to take into account context which really matters in what you're talking about. Look at Cars. People who do alcohol/drugs and decide to drive are driving impaired, these people get into car accidents, these car accidents kill people. These people are impaired/drunk drivers. Therefore drunk/impaired drivers kill people. Solution? Target drunk/impaired drivers and not people driving safely and responsible. Less drunk/impaired drivers then less car accidents, less car accidents then less people dying. Would we target people driving safely and responsible for drunk driving? No, because context matters. Majority of gun violence is committed with illegal guns. People smuggle these guns, people buy these illegal guns, people use these illegal guns to commit crime/acts of violence and crimes/acts of violence with guns tend to lead to people dying. These people are criminals. Therefore criminals are responsible for majority of gun violence either directly or indirectly. Solution? Target the criminals then less guns cross the border, then less guns get into criminals hands, then less guns are used in acts of violence. Target the people buying guns legally and..... how does that solve the issue? The answer, it doesn't or hardly scratches the surface to justify when there is a much more glaring issue standing at our feet. So yeah the same sort of statement can be used differently in situations because of the different set of context. You can draws similarities with certain situations when it makes sense. You can also ask for an elaboration when someone says people kill people and I am sure they'd give you it like I just did. All in all it is okay to say people kill people when it makes sense and it does with gun violence, as it does with various things. The question you should of asked is why do people kill people with ???, you're gonna get a different answer every topic. The way to stop this sort of violence should be the talking point. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said: It does draw conclusions when you take a step back. They do go hand and hand though which is what people forget. You have to take into account context which really matters in what you're talking about. Look at Cars. People who do alcohol/drugs and decide to drive are driving impaired, these people get into car accidents, these car accidents kill people. These people are impaired/drunk drivers. Therefore drunk/impaired drivers kill people. Solution? Target drunk/impaired drivers and not people driving safely and responsible. Less drunk/impaired drivers then less car accidents, less car accidents then less people dying. Would we target people driving safely and responsible for drunk driving? No, because context matters. Majority of gun violence is committed with illegal guns. People smuggle these guns, people buy these illegal guns, people use these illegal guns to commit crime/acts of violence and crimes/acts of violence with guns tend to lead to people dying. These people are criminals. Therefore criminals are responsible for majority of gun violence either directly or indirectly. Solution? Target the criminals then less guns cross the border, then less guns get into criminals hands, then less guns are used in acts of violence. Target the people buying guns legally and..... how does that solve the issue? The answer, it doesn't or hardly scratches the surface to justify when there is a much more glaring issue standing at our feet. So yeah the same sort of statement can be used differently in situations because of the different set of context. You can draws similarities with certain situations when it makes sense. You can also ask for an elaboration when someone says people kill people and I am sure they'd give you it like I just did. All in all it is okay to say people kill people when it makes sense and it does with gun violence, as it does with various things. The question you should of asked is why do people kill people with ???, you're gonna get a different answer every topic. The way to stop this sort of violence should be the talking point. The problem is there is no context with the statement. Without the object of "guns", it's just saying people kill people. The context comes from the opinion the person has making that statement; thus the "rhetorical implication" I was referring to. For argument sake, let's said we add that context to the argument about gun violence. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Okay. Does this mean that we should focus on people not killing people? Do we quarantine (wow that's an ironic word) everyone from each other? Does this mean that we should ban guns because people are killing people with those guns? There's literally 2 different sides that this statement focuses on. I also want to point out that most of your paragraphs are what provides the context and that's how an argument should be. The statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", does not. That's my point with this. If it needs an elaboration, it doesn't have a context. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 28 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I think it's funny you say that I don't provide sources when I always do All your memes say hi. Lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 34 minutes ago, inane said: All your memes say hi. Lol Yup I post memes but when I post political stories I provide the source. Imagine that I can do more than one thing..you should try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: I think it's funny you say that I don't provide sources when I always do. It's that you only trust CNN and belittle every other source. Everything politics for you, you're in the minority, if the sources you quote and you act as if you and your sources are so superior. I find it funny, a page or two back you laughed at another member saying a specific firearm wasn't banned he then shows you from the government website it is and don't even apologize, admit he is right or even edit your stupid lol. I think when people see that it shows a discussion with you is pointless. It took you all kind of prodding to get you to post a source. I'd give you credit for it if you but then you just think discussions with me is pointless. So it will be pointless to give ya credit this time. And his example was some modern rifle, not a vintage gun like the bluderbuss. I have mentioned his other example in 10 12 gauge shotguns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 43 minutes ago, The Lock said: The problem is there is no context with the statement. Without the object of "guns", it's just saying people kill people. The context comes from the opinion the person has making that statement; thus the "rhetorical implication" I was referring to. For argument sake, let's said we add that context to the argument about gun violence. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Okay. Does this mean that we should focus on people not killing people? Do we quarantine (wow that's an ironic word) everyone from each other? Does this mean that we should ban guns because people are killing people with those guns? There's literally 2 different sides that this statement focuses on. I also want to point out that most of your paragraphs are what provides the context and that's how an argument should be. The statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", does not. That's my point with this. If it needs an elaboration, it doesn't have a context. From my understanding when people state guns don't kill people, people kill people they imply that the people that are behind the weapons are responsible for their actions. I believe they're defending that guns, in responsible hands, don't kill people. In that sense they are correct, though there's room for argument there with police shootings but then it becomes a policing topic. It could all be stemming from them feeling targeted and resorting to feeling and acting defensive toward the other side. It does seem like a defensive thing to state. All in all I have no issue with the statement. It can make sense when you break it down. If you are unaware of their meaning behind then you can be misunderstood. That's where going into further detail will help you understand. If people are just stating guns don't kill people, people kill people and add no evidence then I can agree if you have a problem with that. It can become a moot point which might be what you're getting at. You aren't gonna have a conversation with anyone that isn't gonna explain and get down to the details. Well then after you get passed that you can ask people kill people with guns how? You're perfectly fine with asking that question and any follow up question. Personally those are the questions I want to talk about because they help create dialogue that can help people agree or disagree and come to an understanding. It will help solve these issues. What kind of people use these guns? What crimes are committed with these guns? How are these guns acquired? Where do these guns come from? What is the best way to prevent people acquiring these guns or committing these crimes? So on and so on. These are the questions I want to have conversations about. A part of my opinion on this is why the ban first? IMO majority of reasonable people are gonna support a task force that stops illegal goods(especially guns) from crossing our border if the government decided to put more money toward it. Personally I feel like we resorted to a last resort first. I don't even have any guns and have only shot an air rifle when I was in cadets as a kid. I shouldn't have a strong opinion about this, even as a conservative. I just don't like the senseless discourse created by this ban when we could of went in a more productive direction first and foremost. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: It took you all kind of prodding to get you to post a source. I'd give you credit for it if you but then you just think discussions with me is pointless. So it will be pointless to give ya credit this time. And his example was some modern rifle, not a vintage gun like the bluderbuss. I have mentioned his other example in 10 12 gauge shotguns. You were asking about bolt actions and 10/12 gauge shotguns being banned. I did list some bolt-actions and how by the legislation is written, that 10 and 12 gauge shotguns are now prohibitive. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Lancaster said: You were asking about bolt actions and 10/12 gauge shotguns being banned. I did list some bolt-actions and how by the legislation is written, that 10 and 12 gauge shotguns are now prohibitive. U posting porkies again...... ?? The RCMP issued a notice last week stating that 10-gauge and 12-gauge shotguns “are below the 20mm threshold” and therefore won’t be banned. https://nationalpost.com/news/trudeaus-gun-ban-appeared-to-ban-some-coffee-a-website-and-a-toy-heres-why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Pfft. Landmines don't kill people. People stepping on landmines killed themselves. Point is...don't step on my landmines. I only put them out to stop solicitors and door to door salesman. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 52 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: U posting porkies again...... ?? The RCMP issued a notice last week stating that 10-gauge and 12-gauge shotguns “are below the 20mm threshold” and therefore won’t be banned. https://nationalpost.com/news/trudeaus-gun-ban-appeared-to-ban-some-coffee-a-website-and-a-toy-heres-why You're still around? You still haven't answered my question from before. I asked you twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 So it turn out the NS psycho and his guns were reported to the RCMP, but they claimed they couldn't do anything about it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-shooting-nova-scotia-firearms-gun-violence-1.5567330 I find this incredibly disturbing. If a credible person (part of the Canadian forces in fact) reports that a disturbed person has a gun stockpile "nothing can be done"? We're in more trouble than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 20 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: He isn't my messiah. Sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: So it turn out the NS psycho and his guns were reported to the RCMP, but they claimed they couldn't do anything about it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-shooting-nova-scotia-firearms-gun-violence-1.5567330 I find this incredibly disturbing. If a credible person (part of the Canadian forces in fact) reports that a disturbed person has a gun stockpile "nothing can be done"? We're in more trouble than I thought. Allowing Canadian citizens ownership of semi auto guns.... puts every single canadian at risk. The vast majority of Canadians wants semi auto weapons ownership restricted / banned. Bring it on and arrest those that resist / refuse to hand in the semi auto / assault style weapons. Edited May 13, 2020 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Allowing Canadian citizens ownership of semi auto guns.... puts every single canadian at risk. The vast majority of Canadians wants semi auto weapons ownership restricted / banned. Bring it on and arrest those that resist / refuse to hand in the semi auto / assault style weapons. I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about people owning these things in some way.... right now I'm more concerned about the lack of the RCMP to act, I don't know if they are really prohibited from investigating someone having a stockpile or if it was just a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about people owning these things in some way.... right now I'm more concerned about the lack of the RCMP to act, I don't know if they are really prohibited from investigating someone having a stockpile or if it was just a mistake. There are provisions in the Criminal Code to do something about illegal weapons. But if I were you, I would question the story the media puts out and assume it is nowhere near what actually happened rather than it being anywhere near what really did happen between that person telling their story to the media and the truth. I have years of direct experience with media not reporting details that were told to them but rather they throw out a bunch of random opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now