Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

[Mark & Juanita]

So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since you already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun laws?

You act as if guns and/or alcohol are recent innovations and that only now citizens are getting access to guns. The exact opposite is true and societies now have less guns on a per capita basis than in the past. Yet somehow, the population in years past wasn't decimating itself in drunken shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to what is a very small problem?

Some of that gang-related stuff. Again, guns are hardly a new innovation -- perhaps it's time to use some of that energy being used to restrict peoples' freedom by restricting a tool and start to work on what is causing the behavior and attitude instead. What is so laugh-in-your face funny (again, but for the serious consequences) is the notion by gun ban advocates that somehow guns have just appeared on the scene and are now causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about. Kids used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons: gun club, show and tell, and to hunt on the way home after school. There weren't wild rampages then, so guns aren't the problem, why do you think banning them now would be the solution?

The whole idea that by banning an inanimate object along with the accompanying unintended consequences and side effects will somehow solve the problems you describe above would be laughable if it weren't so darn serious for the peasants (what disarmed citizens become) who are subjected to such regulations. The gun control part is just part of the total package -- just look to England. After disarming the citizens, the next step was the idea that "a few farthings worth of x is not worth someone losing their life over" and now you have the case where defending oneself in one's own home leads to jail time for the person doing so. People still die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning knives. [You just can't make this stuff up].

All deaths are tragic, society seems to be onto this notion that somehow the world can be made completely safe through the application of various laws and restrictions. The problem is that those laws and restrictions have other various serious consequences and side effects. Where I grew up, and where I live now, law enforcement is a minimum of 30 minutes (most likely

45 minutes) away -- you are proposing disarming people like myself and putting us at the mercy of those who are already breaking the law. Mighty compassionate of you.

[Doug Winterburn]

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.

[jo4hn]

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves, you can't fire your gun.

[Doug Winterburn]

How do you know about my gun? - a pump bb/pellet rifle. Next you'll claim I kill or maim innocent pigeons while secretly removing my boxing gloves!

[J. Clarke]

So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?

[jo4hn]

Practice practice practice.

[Upscale]

Obviously, they've happened because even though the laws are restrictive, guns were still available. Yet, here are wanting to make more guns available and more easily? The only possible end result is that things like that would happen more. There's no way you can argue that point.

While a number of gun crimes result because of firearms stolen from collectors, a sizable amount of them have happened because of guns smuggled up from the US.

And to Doug who jokingly suggests that baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned, all of those things have other other uses while hand guns have one use. A deadly use that can be effectively wielded from a distance ~ not even closely comparable to the examples you used Doug.

And of course for John Clarke, it makes perfect sense to legalize guns for millions so the four Olympic shooters in the country can practice their craft. Well thought out reasoning John.

It's an increasing problem, not a small problem.

You do have a point there, but for one thing. Population sizes and societal values have changed to a great degree. People weren't as packed together like sardines in the cities as they are today and there's been an extremely large influx of immigrants into Canada. When I went to school, if there was a fight, it was a fist fight. I wouldn't have dreamed of pulling out the pocket knife I had in my back pocket and I've never carried a gun of any type for the purpose of protection. Those values are different these days.

I won't argue for one second that just removing guns is going to solve all the problems that exist. I never suggested that for one second. However, it will help while also attending to the root causes of why a number of people use guns to solve their problems.

[J. Clarke]

Yes, if you want that gold medal you do have to practice, practice, practice, but what does that have to do with your point?

[Doug Winterburn]

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little differently than you:

[jo4hn]

Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.

You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at

Interesting stuff.

mahalo, jo4hn

[Charlie Groh]

...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14 back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence haven't...yet.

cg

[J. Clarke]

In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its accomplishment.

And before you say something stupid about tanks, consider that the crews have to get out of them sometime and the crews have families and both the crews and their families live in the same country in which the insurrection is taking place.

[Doug Winterburn]

You didn't read it all:

SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

[Upscale]

And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country. Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not one of them.

Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens. Until then, shove it.

[Doug Winterburn]

My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for anyone including the US.

With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun isn't easily available to you.

[Larry Blanchard]

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!

What are the odds? :-)

[Upscale]

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed at will?

I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and neighbours.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far with it.

[Upscale]

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago? Please tell me how they make sense in today's society? Like or not, the government of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.

[Doug Winterburn]

You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.

"beep, boop, boop"

"911. What's your emergency?"

"Someone is breaking in my front door!"

"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."

"STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"

"This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"

Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was best in modern day US.

[Morris Dovey]

How? In /exactly/ the same way they made sense all that long time ago.

It's not important that you do or don't understand, and may be helpful for you to know that at this point it may be more of a cultural than societal issue.

Beware of showing the same arrogance of which you earlier accused someone else.

Your assumption in your second sentence is false.

I think your vision is at fault - or, at the very least, incomplete.