Toronto Votes For A Total Ban On Handgun Sales After Mass Shooting
140 replies, posted
I guess I'd draw the line at hobbies involving extremely dangerous devices that can very easily kill people
I completely agree that legally-bought guns and crimes like what you described are far less common, but does that make them any less worth preventing in the meantime while the country works on the poverty and mental health issues?
Of course, this is pretending that America is going to do absolutely anything about poverty or mental health any time soon.
You can have a dramatic impact on DUI deaths by banning the consumption of alcohol. Shutting down theme parks would prevent thousands of people a year from being injured. You could completely put an end to shark attacks by banning swimming in the sea.
You could seriously impact terror activities by locking down internet access. And maybe banning violent video games would keep little Timmy from bringing a gun to school?
Where do you stop picking away at liberty? Do you really need that liquor? Do you really need that roller coaster? Couldn't you live without GTA 6?
It's a lot harder to kill someone with a bottle, a roller coaster, or a game disc than it is to kill someone with a gun.
Why should cars be able to go faster than 75 mph, the highest speed limit in the US? For that matter, most vehicle attacks use light trucks or vans; couldn't you just hire a professional if you need to use one of those vehicles temporarily? Why should unvetted persons be using these machines?
Unvetted people certainly shouldn't be using those machines. They should go through a vetting process known as acquiring a driver's license, fork lift operator license, etc. Maybe cars should have capped speeds for civilian use.
You don't need a license to purchase, own, or even drive any motor vehicle - only if you want to use it on public (state owned) streets.
But even then, a lack of competency isn't what's causing people to commit terror attacks with trucks or guns. So what do those tests have to do with preventing violence?
"You don't need a license to purchase, own, or even drive any motor vehicle - only if you want to use it on public (state owned) streets." Maybe that should change if vehicles are going to kept being used as weapons.
You're obfuscating my point. My point is that guns are inherently dangerous objects that are too easily acquired, and the less Little Timmys that have easy access, the better.
Listen, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I frankly don't enjoy debate that much, so I'm gonna head out of here. I hope America can address it's underlying problems causing gun crime, and that the people that die in the meantime aren't anyone you know.
Alcohol is significantly easier to acquire, easier to abuse, and far less regulated all across the US, and, statistically speaking, is responsible for far more deaths. But we accept alcohol as normal and deaths due to it just happen; someone was irresponsible and caused a death, "oh well."
Your point is weak and doesn't hold up to examination. There are angles to approach gun control from that work - measures that make sense and are effective. But there are also measures that amount to flailing in the dark, measures that pointlessly impact personal liberties for no societal benefit, and the thought process that leads to those measures mirrors yours very closely.
Okay
... in a thread about a Canadian shooting... oke doke bucko
Theres the point i was making with comparing objects made as tools/entertainment being compared to literal weapons. I never seen other gun carrying nations say this kind of stuff.
So you’d ban bow hunting, all forms of HEMA, and a whole whack of other things in a short sighted desire to do “something”.
You just made made everything worse good job
Ban hobbyists from owning power tools; they're very sharp and can be used to kill. Only licensed powertool users should be able to buy a drill.
Ban hobbyists from owning welding torches; they can be used to set people on fire. Do you really need to weld things? Don't you care about lives?
Ban people from drinking alcohol; it can cause rage and impairs judgement. Can't you go without your precious alcohol? What about all the people who die? You like alcohol more than human life?
Ban people from making food and giving it to others; they could poison it and kill you. Do you really need to give others food you made? Your desire to appear cool to your friends is more important than human lives? Really? Just buy it from the store, asshole.
Ban people from saying things that aren't 100% objectively true; someone might misinterpret you and do something rash. Does your freedom of speech really matter against the lives of humans? Why would you ever need to say something that can't be instantly backed up?
Ban people from playing video games; they might spend too much time on it and neglect their children. Children are more important than dismembering people virtually, you know.
Ban Starbucks from selling coffee; someone with a heart condition could die from the caffeine. Do you seriously think that your ability to get a fix for your addiction measures up against the innocent lives being ended?
Ban people from modifying their cars; they might explode or go out of control. I know you like to VROOM VROOM but maybe get out of your head and think about the countless children who could be slaughtered by your gross negligence.
Ban programmers from programming; they might make a virus. Yeah dude, I know you like to make software, but you can't be trusted not to create malware. What, you think you're more important than my credit card details? Unbelievable.
Ban martial arts training; they could snap and kill anyone with their expertise. Doing cool kicks and flips doesn't matter when we compare it to the children you're going to be kicking, monster.
Ban people from owning dogs; dogs are vicious creatures who have sharp teeth made for ripping and tearing. Your comfort and companionship is irrelevant against the potential victims of your bloodthirsty animal. What do you think their teeth are made for? Violence.
Ban bows and arrows; why would you ever need one? The only reason I can think of is to kill innocent people. It may be fun to shoot at a range but consider the victims here.
Ban wearing rings on your fingers. Who cares about your desire to symbolize a commitment or make a fashion statement? You could punch someone and the metal ring could kill them. You don't need the ring, after all. Get over yourself.
"But guns don't have a legitimate usage like these things!"
I didn't realize that defending yourself against another person with ill will was invalid. Guess I'll just die.
But we've decided to also make certain drugs prescription only and even banned some.
We limit who can use explosives and we don't let people drive if they're too young or have drunk alcohol.
etc etc
The argument that matters is how bans or limitations will help and if people are willing to forgo things for this. Obviously both those points can be debated but to say that the idea of limiting freedoms to save lives is absurd....well that idea itself is absurd. This is what laws are for.
To a degree.
If you honestly wanted the world as safe as it could be, that would involve stripping everyone of most of their freedoms.
There is no way around that.
For me, the question is "Where is the line?" and I worry, explicitly so, that many of you say "It's over there" and you haven't thought about any of it beyond the knee jerk reaction.
Guns are an issue, but they're an aside from the real issues that are happening.
The real issue with accidents on the road is people paying attention while driving but we still have seat belts. There's no real why the fact that income inequality is a more important factor for violent gun crime means gun control options are off the table.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems like the USA really likes their guns and it'll take a lot more misery for the country to seriously consider taking them away. At least, when compared to other countries.
Many drugs are banned due to corruption; those that are banned for valid reasons are objectively unsafe for use at all. Guns do not compare.
We limit who can use explosives because unlike guns you don't go to the bomb range and lob 500lb bombs at stuff for fun - and bombs are significantly more prone to accidentally going off and killing random people than a gun, considering the unstable nature of explosives. But did you know you can own small amounts of explosives for hobby purposes, without any licensing? I currently have several pounds of a binary explosive that I use on the gun range just sitting in my closet, ten feet away as I type this.
What's more: you can be 12 years old and black out drunk and you can drive whatever you like for as long as you like on private property. Limitations on who can drive, what they can drive, and under what circumstances they can drive it apply strictly to public (state owned) property. If you own 500 thousand acres you can fly your own private 747 around as long as you keep it within your property line and inside of your own legally designated airspace.
The limitations on who can drive a car on public roads are for objective safety reasons, just like most banned drugs (read: the ones not banned due to corruption) - and guess what? Most states have limitations on who can carry guns in public places. Those that recognize "constitutional carry" (you can carry a gun without a license) still will not let you carry a gun if you have a history of violence or other instability.
Regarding your last sentence, the idea that there's any correlation between gun proliferation and violent crime across multiple countries has been fairly extensively blown out of the water in this thread.
I mean if you looked into the reasoning why half the drugs listed "Schedule 1" are listed schedule 1, you'd realize the Government doesn't have any interest in saving peoples lives from danger.
They exist to control things.
I am not a big gun supporter, but I'm also not for more gun regulations. They don't do anything.
From an outsiders perspective, as a Canadian, we spent 2.7 billion dollars over a 15 year period to have a "Long Gun Registery". It stopped 0 crimes, and helped solve 2.
Is that worth 2.7 billion dollars? No. Fuck no.
I do not understand why people who are capable of recognizing the danger of a Trump government, are also quick to seek to empower said government with control over guns in a way that, like we've seen historically, is not designed to keep people safe.
People who are arguing on your side of this argument are being naive. Many facts and studies have been posted in these threads(Mostly by Grendiac) that whole heartedly dispute the liberal notions that are so often used verbatim.
My point was that we can and often justify limiting freedoms in the name of public health and safety. At this point, I don't think any kind of gun control will really help with any of the problems that the USA has right now but I reject the libertarian idea that these regulations and laws are absurd.
My last sentence was a response to the notion that guns are necessarily for protection when many people enjoy safety without owning a gun. I disagree with the idea that owning a gun or the right to own a gun makes you more safe.
Maybe read my post boy.
Recreational shooting and collecting are a big part of the culture though. Also I don’t see where you’re going with the toxic masculinity angle since encouraging women to empower themselves with a firearm for self defense is kind of a thing. We want more people to educate and empower themselves with firearms regardless of identity politics.
As for the associations with “power and independence”, I don’t see how anyone wouldn’t get those impressions from the concept of gun ownership. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to empower the people. Aside from the whole limits on government thing, guns are one of the best means self preservation. Having a firearm means you won’t have to be 100% helpless from violent attackers within the 5 to 30 minutes it takes for first responders to reach you. This becomes increasingly apparent in times of crisis like a natural disaster or state of emergency when all emergency services will be preoccupied with more pressing matters. The same thing applies to people who live in more remote areas (especially Alaska) where having a gun is considered a basic necessity because the local wildlife and natural predators can/will fuck your shit up.
What is wrong with the gun culture?
Short term memory loss sucks doesn’t it?
This dumb “your hobby is more important than human beens!” meme needs to die, but okay let’s pretend that people being able to live and people being able to own weapons are mutually exclusive to each other. Let’s dumb down people’s rights, lifestyles, investments and livelihoods to a just a “hobby” for the sake of argument.
If you don’t think hobbyists are responsible for gun crimes and know that bans won’t stop gun crimes, then why are you supporting legislation which punishes hobbyists, while failing to have any effect on gun crime?! We all know assault weapons bans don’t have even the slightest effect on gun crime in this country as it’s been pointed out hundreds of times by now.
Well... at least you didn’t compare the second amendment to slavery yet.
The point of our argument is that people are biased and can only think of “GUN = BAD!”
Regardless of how inherently dangerous anything else is, it’s 100% okeedokee as long as it’s not a gun. Literally nothing else which causes death in any notable capacity is demonized as much as a gun, and I think you are only arguing against guns because they are simply an effective weapon which people/society wants you to be afraid of.
Please consider the the following question: Would you be able to trust yourself with using a firearm in a safe and legal manner? Why or why not?
I don't want to take credit for this. Most of my arguments appeal to critical thinking and reasoning, I only really cite statistics if someone challenges me to these days. I leave the hardcore statistics to people with bigger brains. @Zombinie is the man when it comes to that - he posted the great graphs earlier in this thread and also built this kickass resource: Firearm Proliferation Resource Compendium
Maybe in Canada, not in the US. Those who would sacrifice freedoms for security deserve neither, yourself included.
Never would I want to give up my freedoms just so I could feel safer. In no reality would I actually be safer.
To an extent - but a very limited extent. Maintaining maximum personal freedom should always be the objective; that's the way we approach every other issue, right? The object is to find a balance between your freedom and preventing your freedom from infringing on the next guy's. It is an objective, indisputable fact that most people do not represent any kind of active, purposeful threat to other people whether they have guns or not, so heavyhanded regulations don't make sense to me. Guns can't really be compared to dangerous drugs like PCP since you can't really use PCP responsibly.
I reject the notion that I am somehow made less safe by having a shotgun to defend myself with if someone kicks in my door.
I would readily give up my freedom to murder and steal if it meant that I could suffer less from it. I would also give up my freedom to lie and deceive when advertising if it meant there would be less lying and deception. I don't think that the freedom to get a gun easily is very important but it's clear that many Americans disagree on this point.
These are obviously incomparable to gun ownership. Making statements like this weakens your position.
You dont have the freedom to steal or murder, yet people still kill and still steal, yet people still do it. Its almost as if criminals dont follow laws, just as the criminal in the OP did not follow Canadas strict gun laws. Great work comparing a constitutional right to something thats a crime in every civilized country.
Its irrelevant what you think is important in regards to American rights and freedoms, the fact is we have them. Even further, your opinion is very clearly wrong. Every fact, every piece of data, and every statistic points to gun rights not being a cause of murder.
Gun crime is a consequence of a greater issue than the fact guns exist. You can continue to argue further but youre just blatantly wrong. Youre arguing on emotions while everyone else is arguing facts.
Youre wrong. Get with it or get over it.
None of this is related.
You have completely misunderstood the essence of the social contract that binds us as far as I can tell.
Guns should not be introduced to an area that does not have guns.
However, the US has a massive amount of guns, and in that instance the idea that banning them will do anything is naive.
There are massive issues with this that are complicated and exist far beyond "Your hobby is less important than someones right to live". You're totally right, and also bringing up a totally unrelated concept.
I doubt many people here who are progun want more guns to be distributed without any thought going into it. I believe(Correct me if I'm wrong here fellow gun supporters) that most people who are against the banning of guns and "Gun control" laws are only doing so as those laws protected few, and harmed many, but were percieved, by people like yourself to be doing "something".
To me, the biggest threat guns pose, is the the threat that illegal weaponry poses.
I am not scared of Joe Blow with 1000 legally owned guns. He's not going to kill me with one of those guns.
The motherfucker who owns one illegal gun though, that guy owns an illegal gun for a reason. I'm far more concerned with that, then the opposite. You seem to worry far more about the law abiding citizen, than the actual criminals.
PCP isn't dangerous until someone takes it and even then it is only dangerous to oneself. Likewise, guns are a hazard when around people. They go off in accidents and generally just make things more lethal when they're involved. Domestic disputes are more lethal when there are guns. Gang violence is more lethal when guns are involved. Suicide attempts are more lethal when guns are involved. If people are arguing that gun control will not have any impact or a negative impact of the number of deaths then of course I understand why you think banning guns is a bad idea. But if you, like me, believe that at least some deaths can be prevented then the question is, "how many deaths need to be prevented for it to be worth it?" I don't believe the answer is 1 but I definitely don't believe that there is no number.
PCP is illegal because it was used in psychological experiments in the 1950's and 60's as a psychotherapists tool, some media stories about it ran with poorly informed coverage, laws were drafted, and it was banned.
You keep arguing for more regulation, and using examples of poorly thought out, poorly designed, and poorly implemented regulations that do more harm than good.
You mention gangs. What guns do you think they have? Are they going to be giving up the guns when the guns are banned nation wide? Have you thought this through at all?
You only need to prevent 1 death to make the stripping of freedoms acceptable to you. I do not consider that reasonable.
Should we ban bows? Bows are associated with more than 1 death
Should we ban guitars? More than 1 people have died from guitar related accidents.
Should we ban coffee and caffiene pills? More than 1 person has died
Your metric for "What is the line" is so useless we genuinely are no further than when we started this conversation.
What? PCP specifically makes you dangerous to other people. It makes you very prone to extreme violence and basically disables your body's natural subconscious limitations on strength etc that normally prevent you from injuring yourself through exertion. That's the purpose of the drug, that's why it was developed and that's what it does. It has no useful recreational properties.
All of those things get more dangerous when guns are involved but don't happen because of guns. Removing guns from the equation won't make those things stop happening, so why not spend a quarter of the effort democrats spend trying to ban guns on pursuing the factors that cause domestic violence, gang violence, suicide, et al? Then there's no reason to punish the 99.9999% of Americans who will never misuse a firearm. Then you've solved the problem correctly - with a minimal impact on personal freedom - just like all laws should.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.