Should guns be outlawed?

I think his being 16yo and listing his occupation as "zombie slayer" gives him this view

 

Canadian politics is pretty scary. We had effectively one-party rule for a number of years, which resulted in millions of dollars being filtered into party coffers and Liberal Party-friendly corporations. Do a google for the "sponsorship scandal", and you'll get a good idea of what went on. In essence we had a dictatorship under Chretien who did his best to ruin the good relationship we had with the U.S., and did his best to ruin the government of Paul Martin (his rival and ultimate successor within the Party). Now we finally have a minority Conservative government (conservative by Canadian standards, which is compareable to U.S. leftists and centrists.

It was the Liberal government which started the controversial gun registry, saying it would cost several million dollars, which has ballooned to over a billion dollars (it's referred to as "the billion dollar boondoggle"). One of the clauses is if you have a registered firearm, you forfeit your right to demand a search warrant from police officers wanting to enter your home. Scary, huh? If you own a firearm, you forfeit constitutional rights. Democracy at its finest, brought to you by power-hungry Canadian politicians. Interestingly enough, the RCMP in Alberta were planning on not going out of their way to find unregistered firearms, preferring to arrest, you know, criminals.

Fortunately, the Conservatives are dismantling the gun registry, and stopping the massive waste of money spent on hassling law-abiding Canadians.

And I don't have any particular love of the Conservative Party either. I just think they've done a bit of good work, when I thought they'd botch everything.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

Thanks for the info. It's allways interresting to get a glimpse into other nations' politics. I guess politics is a non-topic on this forum, but from what you write, I guess if we were citicens in the same country, we'd vote different parties

I wouldn't have any problem with that law about beeing allowed to search a house without a permit if the owner owns a gun; that's Stolenbjorn for you :Alien:

If my 50 year old hunting neighbour lost his marbles and I called the police, informing them that he sat in one of his windows, aiming his gun in general directions, I'd like them to come at once, not having to wait for some buerocrats in Oslo signing search-warrent papers.

It all comes down to who are we to protect; the minority owning guns or the majority not owning guns.

As I've written several times before; I'm against a total ban of guns; I have no problem with the fact that 75% of my neighbours own at least 1 huntingrifle each, I just like that in Norway, you have to redgister your weapons, that the firing pin/bolt is to be stored locked down and in a different location than the rest of the weapon, and that you have to do yearly shooting-tests in order to be allowed to shoot at animals

 

Guns dont kill people, bullets do, outlaw the bullets, that way all those "collectors" can still collect. ONLY sell bullets at ranges, hunting leases, or in small enough quantities to provide for home protection. Also track who, and how many times someone buys bullets.

 

I think that would make it far too easy to get round the law. It's easier to hide and smuggle bullets than guns.

 

and u can always smack someone over the head with the butt of the gun. ^^

 

Ok... here are some of my random thoughts on this.

In the USA the gun laws should be left alone. They should not be made illegal.
Seems like the logic that alot of people use is they are bad because they cause people to die. So because they are dangerous they should be illegal? That could be said about alot of things. Yes it's always sad when someone dies, but people should not live their lives in fear. People die in car wrecks, yet cars are not illegal. We still drive them.

The whole idea of lots of people buying guns to defend themselves because they are scared is wrong, at least for the people I know. It is more of a hobby/sport, like martial arts is to most people. Pistols are bought for the same reason as rifles.

Also, I think its pretty messed up how many people think, "I don't like guns and they are dangerous so they should be illegal".
"I don't like doing martial arts, and it is dangerous so it should be illegal." - That is the same way of thinking and most of us would object if someone said this. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is easier for people to say that something is bad when they don't get enjoyment from it. Believe it or not but some people like using guns for things other than killing people.

Here in the US there is a lot of land and room to safely use a gun. Its not like we are all packed into cities like some of the countries some of you may be from. If this country was really crowded my view would prob. be a little different.

...also, perhaps a little off topic, but how come guns are not not considered a martial arts weapon (or are they)?

 

That depends on your definition. The weapon itself is no martial art, just as a katana can not kick ass without a wielder. It could be a piece of art, though

Modern soldier training is a martial art, be it pilot-training, tank-crew-training or foot-soldier-training.

Some types of club/sport-related target-practice could be defined as a martial art.

Hunting is IMHO not a martial art, just as fishing isn't or shopping meat in the "mart" isn't.

-and just for repeating my self yet again, I'm against total banning of guns, but I'm for severe restrictions. I don't care about USA; I'm talking about My country. If americans wants to look to norway, that's fine by me, but that's their call

 

Banning guns to curb violence is nonsensical, IMO. After all, if you're willing to break the law to hurt people with a firearm, you'll have no problem breaking the law to get a firearm in the first place, which is an easy thing to do. If someone is intent on causing harm to his fellow humans, there's nothing that can stop him. If you can't use a gun, you'll use an IED, or simply use your automobile. If you're crazy or desperate enough to kill someone, you'll use whatever it takes.

-Mark

 

Agreed

 

I agree, people are always going to find a way to kill others, so you might as well give them the best tool for the job.

After all, if a kid wakes up one morning and decides to comit mass murder in his school, the last thing you want is for him to have to do it with an inferior weapon, therby making it harder for him to kill in such large numbers, and easier for the police to stop him.

Mass murder with an automobile? What a joke. Guns for all I say.

 

Indeed. That's what bombs are for. Relatively easy and cheap to make. However, that requires effort, so people resort to guns first, which are harder to use for mass murder. With the recent shootings in Montreal, one person died, by a legally registered firearm. A legally registered target weapon, for the record. It was easy to get, and it's a low-powered weapon. Just under 20 people were shot, but one died from seven rounds. Much more damage would have been done with a common hunting rifle. My opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it) is as follows: Had guns been banned, then he'd have used a bomb or gotten an illegal firearm. Had he gotten an illegal firearm, then it likely wouldn't have been a little target rifle, but something worth selling on the black market, and more damage would have been done, with perhaps 20 people shot fatally. The problem isn't guns, it's whackos. We blame the symptoms, but not the root cause. If in my own country, we properly tackled the problems of poverty, alienation of youth, and mental illness, this wouldn't be a problem. But we don't, because there's no political advantage in helping the marginalized. If there had been someone with a legally concealed firearm there in Montreal who had taken a defensive pistol course, there might be no one dead except the perp.

People do use vehicles as weapons... right here in Calgary a guy used his car to plow into a crowd of people, killing one instantly. I'm not sure how many people were injured. Same death toll as the Montreal shootings, done in a split second, with no firearms used at all. So obviously, it's the firearms that cause the violence. :bang:

Best regards,

-Mark

 

Langenschwert,

You say it is easy to obtain illegal guns, but surely it is a lot easier to obtain legal ones?

And having larger numbers of legal guns in circulation will inevitably result in a greater number of illegal ones being in circulation too. Surely the majority of illegal guns were legal ones originally?

 

I really don't like the "if they can't do it this way, they'll do it that way" argument.

Anyway, this is completly hypothetical. I could say that if they didn't have access to guns, then they would use a lesser weapon rather than even think to use a bomb. As you said, people are lazy.

The problem is neither of us can prove out theory, so it's pointless to worry about it.

That one person was still killed, and what do you think happened to the wounded? They just pop the bullet out of themselves, go home and have some lunch? What about the trauma those people have to live with now?

And if guns were readily available, he could have had a hunting rifle, or worse. The low powered gun was a sort of 'luck', if you could call it that.

We in Australia had a shooting mass murder in 1996, in Port Arthur.

30 people were killed.

Guns have since been banned. No bombs, no mass murders.

True, but the problem is probably made worse by giving said wackos easy access to a weapon with which they can kill many people.

Since we don't have a wacko test that we can do on everybody, and therefore weed out the wackos, our only option really is to treat the symptoms.

In a perfect world, yes, I couldn't agree more. But we don't live in a perfect world, so there is no point making that claim.

In a perfect world, nobody would kill anyone, so there wouldn't be a need for laws concerning murder, but since our world isn't perfect, we need those laws. Why should this be any different?

Or they may have been the person who snapped and killed people. Or they may have accidentaly killed some innocent people in their attempts to kill the criminal.

Again, this is all hypothetical.

Never said people don't use cars to kill, just that cars arn't as good at mass murder as a gun.

There are limits to a cars maneuverability, not to mention limits to where a car can go, for example small buildings.

And banning cars is absurd, cars are cool. :woo:

And I never said guns caused violence, just that they can make it much worse. :bang:

EDIT:

Johnno, you rock!

 

The only people who want to ban guns are tree hugging hippies.

 

Oh, please. Reasoned debate is one thing, and mudslinging quite another.

-Mark

 

Not for criminals; to legally obtain a weapon you need to have a background check if you have a criminal record or mental condition you don't get one.

To legally carry a concealed weapon (in AZ) you must additionally complete a training course where you have to demonstrate a level of marksmanship, pass tests involving gun safety and legal issues in the use of deadly force and be interviewed by the Sheriff's department.

So to buy a weapon legally it's not real simple and is impossible if you have a record (if you're on parole it's a quick ticket back to prison to have a firearm).

Of course, the fact that we have so many legit weapons in circulation does make obtaining them easier for the illegal market. But there's plenty of money at stake and plenty of demand so any efforts at stopping them meet the same fate as other items of contraband.

In the UK and Australia you have the advantage of being separated by water and the rest of Europe borders countries with similar laws in effect. What if it weren't that way? What if you shared thousands of miles of border with a poor country where laws were enforced based on who bribed best today? How successful would you be at keeping illegal weapons off the streets?

What if France decided to take the American approach to firearm ownership (pre waiting period America), do you think the rest of Europe could stick to the current system when illegal firearms started pouring over the border?

 

That's an interesting point.

This effectively means that you have a fair degree of 'gun control' - the dreaded phrase which makes some of your countrymen froth at the mouth! It's not the same level as we have in the UK (for example) but it is still far removed from the days when you could buy 'tommy' guns by mail-order!

So clearly there are many levels at which 'gun control' can work. It isn't just a simple black-and-white issue of 'gun control' or 'no gun control' - which is how the argument sometimes sounds.

True - anything illegal is available if there is enough demand and it will generate enough money for someone to supply it. You just try to make it as hard as possible for the suppliers to operate, and make the punishments severe. You'll never totally eradicate it. It's like the 'war on drugs'.

Different countries have different circumstances, and I'm not saying that everywhere should implement the same level of gun control which the UK has. There are parts of the world where owning a gun seems essential. Wild and dangerous places, like Afghanistan and Colorado.

Like you said before, being an island gives us certain advantages here. As far as the rest of Europe goes, there are countries where gun ownership is widespread (including former war zones like Bosnia) but it doesn't seem to have resulted in gun crime going ballistic throughout the rest of Europe.