Recommended Posts
Quote>How far do you want to take it?
I don't want to "take it" anywhere. If you own guns, and protect them such that they are not stolen or misused, you are a responsible gun owner. Results, not my opinion, defines what a responsible gun owner is.
I see that as being an "ivory tower" view of the world. People with modest financial means living in bad neighborhoods may not be able to afford to do a great job of securing their firearm(s) but that does not make their need for self defense go away.
It's quite easy for me to afford to secure my firearms (and I do secure them) but I don't think it is right or even realistic to put the same requirement on everyone.
Walt
philh 0
"I don't think you really understand the problem. Guns are a tool. Guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. "
"These same people could kill with a knife, a hammer, a pipe, a sharpened pencil, a brick, a screwdriver, chemicals, bombs, or any number of other things just as easily."
---------
So do guns make crime easier or not ?your first statement the answer is no, your second the answer is yes. Perhaps you can give us a consistent argument to address?
I think anyone would agree it is easier to kill someone with a gun than without. Thats why modern armies have guns rather than knifes or swords. So when you make crime easier (by having lots of people with guns) dont be suprised if you get lots of crime. if you have a country where there are according to you " more people who are prone to commit violent acts" does it really make sense to give them to tools to make their violent acts easier?I would have thought it would make more sense for such a country to have less guns not more than others.
"These same people could kill with a knife, a hammer, a pipe, a sharpened pencil, a brick, a screwdriver, chemicals, bombs, or any number of other things just as easily."
---------
So do guns make crime easier or not ?your first statement the answer is no, your second the answer is yes. Perhaps you can give us a consistent argument to address?
I think anyone would agree it is easier to kill someone with a gun than without. Thats why modern armies have guns rather than knifes or swords. So when you make crime easier (by having lots of people with guns) dont be suprised if you get lots of crime. if you have a country where there are according to you " more people who are prone to commit violent acts" does it really make sense to give them to tools to make their violent acts easier?I would have thought it would make more sense for such a country to have less guns not more than others.
Quote"I don't think you really understand the problem. Guns are a tool. Guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. "
"These same people could kill with a knife, a hammer, a pipe, a sharpened pencil, a brick, a screwdriver, chemicals, bombs, or any number of other things just as easily."
---------
So do guns make crime easier or not ?your first statement the answer is no, your second the answer is yes. Perhaps you can give us a consistent argument to address?
I think anyone would agree it is easier to kill someone with a gun than without. Thats why modern armies have guns rather than knifes or swords. So when you make crime easier (by having lots of people with guns) dont be suprised if you get lots of crime. if you have a country where there are according to you " more people who are prone to commit violent acts" does it really make sense to give them to tools to make their violent acts easier?I would have thought it would make more sense for such a country to have less guns not more than others.
Poor choice of wording on my part.
Does it make sense to have guns in a country having more people who are prone to violence?
Yes, so their potential victims can defend themselves.
Walt
billvon 2,478
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line on responsibility
>and negligence.
I draw the line at results, rather than along arbitrary standards like a gun safe with X inch thick steel. If whatever you do works, then great. If it doesn't work, then it wasn't enough.
Case in point - you need FAA approval to carry a canoe on a floatplane. The examiner may ask you to demonstrate a takeoff and landing with the canoe attached. If you crash, you don't get the approval.
>and negligence.
I draw the line at results, rather than along arbitrary standards like a gun safe with X inch thick steel. If whatever you do works, then great. If it doesn't work, then it wasn't enough.
Case in point - you need FAA approval to carry a canoe on a floatplane. The examiner may ask you to demonstrate a takeoff and landing with the canoe attached. If you crash, you don't get the approval.
billvon 2,478
>I see that as being an "ivory tower" view of the world.
????
What do you define as a BASE rig that is sufficiently safe? One that has X jumps on it, Y stitches per inch in the webbing, and Z actual tests? Or one that works every time you've jumped it?
That's the opposite of an "ivory tower" approach - reality.
>It's quite easy for me to afford to secure my firearms (and I do
> secure them) but I don't think it is right or even realistic to put the
> same requirement on everyone.
I disagree. It's like a skydiver who can't afford to maintain his gear, or make more than a jump every two years. If you can't afford to do what it takes to skydive safely, you shouldn't be skydiving. If you can't afford to do what it takes to secure your weapon, you shouldn't have it. (Again, each person, not the government, should make this determination, and be responsible enough to stand behind that determination.)
????
What do you define as a BASE rig that is sufficiently safe? One that has X jumps on it, Y stitches per inch in the webbing, and Z actual tests? Or one that works every time you've jumped it?
That's the opposite of an "ivory tower" approach - reality.
>It's quite easy for me to afford to secure my firearms (and I do
> secure them) but I don't think it is right or even realistic to put the
> same requirement on everyone.
I disagree. It's like a skydiver who can't afford to maintain his gear, or make more than a jump every two years. If you can't afford to do what it takes to skydive safely, you shouldn't be skydiving. If you can't afford to do what it takes to secure your weapon, you shouldn't have it. (Again, each person, not the government, should make this determination, and be responsible enough to stand behind that determination.)
craddock 0
QuoteI'm just trying to find out where you draw the line on responsibility and negligence.
Keep it mind the Liberal mindset will have a very hard time with this. As applies to everything they don't agree with, conservatives are doing it all wrong but the Liberals don't dare try to tell how to do it right.
Liberals are very good at handing out problems, solutions can be a different story. This is a glaring problem with Liberals.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
Quote>I see that as being an "ivory tower" view of the world.
????
What do you define as a BASE rig that is sufficiently safe? One that has X jumps on it, Y stitches per inch in the webbing, and Z actual tests? Or one that works every time you've jumped it?
That's the opposite of an "ivory tower" approach - reality.
>It's quite easy for me to afford to secure my firearms (and I do
> secure them) but I don't think it is right or even realistic to put the
> same requirement on everyone.
I disagree. It's like a skydiver who can't afford to maintain his gear, or make more than a jump every two years. If you can't afford to do what it takes to skydive safely, you shouldn't be skydiving. If you can't afford to do what it takes to secure your weapon, you shouldn't have it. (Again, each person, not the government, should make this determination, and be responsible enough to stand behind that determination.)
I don't buy into your analogy. BASE and skydiving, no matter how much we like to think otherwise, are hobbies.
Protection of self, property, and loved ones is a whole 'nother thing.
Walt
kallend 1,683
QuoteQuote>I see that as being an "ivory tower" view of the world.
????
What do you define as a BASE rig that is sufficiently safe? One that has X jumps on it, Y stitches per inch in the webbing, and Z actual tests? Or one that works every time you've jumped it?
That's the opposite of an "ivory tower" approach - reality.
>It's quite easy for me to afford to secure my firearms (and I do
> secure them) but I don't think it is right or even realistic to put the
> same requirement on everyone.
I disagree. It's like a skydiver who can't afford to maintain his gear, or make more than a jump every two years. If you can't afford to do what it takes to skydive safely, you shouldn't be skydiving. If you can't afford to do what it takes to secure your weapon, you shouldn't have it. (Again, each person, not the government, should make this determination, and be responsible enough to stand behind that determination.)
I don't buy into your analogy. BASE and skydiving, no matter how much we like to think otherwise, are hobbies.
Protection of self, property, and loved ones is a whole 'nother thing.
Walt
Yes, and it should be done responsibly.
Your (plural) persistent claim that it's illegal guns in the hands of criminals that are the root of the problem shows VERY CLEARLY that the processes in place right now are INEFFECTIVE in preventing legal guns from becoming illegal ones. And it's the legal gun owners that have to come to terms with it and deal with it.
I don't own a gun so there's no possible way a criminal can get an illegal gun from me.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
philh 0
Does it make sense to have guns in a country having more people who are prone to violence?
Yes, so their potential victims can defend themselves.
I have already given relevant data in my earlier post to refute this argument. But in case you need reminding the data was 85,000 defensive uses of firearms against 1 million offensive uses . i think that speaks volumes. The reality is that guns give a much larger advantage to the attacker than it does to thee defender in a violent confrontation. this is beccuase the denfender will rarely have the oppurtunity to get to their gun in time to repel an attack. Whislt there will be some people who defend themselves with firearms the net result is a large number of victims of violent gun crime. That is the reosn why the US has such a high murder rate compared to any other western democracy.
Yes, so their potential victims can defend themselves.
I have already given relevant data in my earlier post to refute this argument. But in case you need reminding the data was 85,000 defensive uses of firearms against 1 million offensive uses . i think that speaks volumes. The reality is that guns give a much larger advantage to the attacker than it does to thee defender in a violent confrontation. this is beccuase the denfender will rarely have the oppurtunity to get to their gun in time to repel an attack. Whislt there will be some people who defend themselves with firearms the net result is a large number of victims of violent gun crime. That is the reosn why the US has such a high murder rate compared to any other western democracy.
QuoteDoes it make sense to have guns in a country having more people who are prone to violence?
Yes, so their potential victims can defend themselves.
I have already given relevant data in my earlier post to refute this argument. But in case you need reminding the data was 85,000 defensive uses of firearms against 1 million offensive uses . i think that speaks volumes. The reality is that guns give a much larger advantage to the attacker than it does to thee defender in a violent confrontation. this is beccuase the denfender will rarely have the oppurtunity to get to their gun in time to repel an attack. Whislt there will be some people who defend themselves with firearms the net result is a large number of victims of violent gun crime. That is the reosn why the US has such a high murder rate compared to any other western democracy.
I see the data differently. It looks to me like more law-abiding citizens need to arm themselves.
Walt
Well, we can just agree to disagree on this one. I keep my guns secured and think that is the right thing to do. I realize, however, that not everyone can afford to take the measures I do, and I am unwilling to say that for that reason, they should not be able to have a gun to defend themselves.
Walt
Walt
QuoteWell, we can just agree to disagree on this one. I keep my guns secured and think that is the right thing to do. I realize, however, that not everyone can afford to take the measures I do, and I am unwilling to say that for that reason, they should not be able to have a gun to defend themselves.
Walt
Are your guns secure to the point they would be useless in the event you needed to defend your life?
QuoteQuoteWell, we can just agree to disagree on this one. I keep my guns secured and think that is the right thing to do. I realize, however, that not everyone can afford to take the measures I do, and I am unwilling to say that for that reason, they should not be able to have a gun to defend themselves.
Walt
Are your guns secure to the point they would be useless in the event you needed to defend your life?
My rule of thumb is to keep every gun under *double* lock (e.g., front door and safe) unless it is within my direct control (e.g., I am home and my handgun is where I can reach it).
Walt
billvon 2,478
>Protection of self, property, and loved ones is a whole 'nother thing.
Not arguing that. What I AM discussing is that guns are dangerous devices; they cannot be treated like any other gadget in your house. They must be secured properly (which it sounds like you do) so that criminals do not use the guns of law-abiding citizens to perpetrate crimes.
Like I've said before, any law-abiding, sane adult should be allowed to own weapons. If they prove they cannot safely own a weapon (say, they shoot themselves in the foot, or shoot their neighbor's house accidentally, or walk around drunk threatening people with it, or allow someone else to commit crimes with them) they should, at the very least, lose that right. Is it sad that they can then not protect themselves with that gun? Yes. But the safety of the rest of society is the larger issue when you have someone who has proven they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a dangerous weapon.
Not arguing that. What I AM discussing is that guns are dangerous devices; they cannot be treated like any other gadget in your house. They must be secured properly (which it sounds like you do) so that criminals do not use the guns of law-abiding citizens to perpetrate crimes.
Like I've said before, any law-abiding, sane adult should be allowed to own weapons. If they prove they cannot safely own a weapon (say, they shoot themselves in the foot, or shoot their neighbor's house accidentally, or walk around drunk threatening people with it, or allow someone else to commit crimes with them) they should, at the very least, lose that right. Is it sad that they can then not protect themselves with that gun? Yes. But the safety of the rest of society is the larger issue when you have someone who has proven they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a dangerous weapon.
QuoteI don't own a gun so there's no possible way a criminal can get an illegal gun from me.
It's your model rocket engines which concern those of us in government the most Kallend, we couldn't care less if you get your Newtonian kicks with namby pamby bullet-firing guns.
My office believes that we should implement a mandatory FRUMP* identification card program with background screening for any citizen who desires to own a model rocket engine sized larger than 'A' and these should be issued on a need-to-own basis.
The risks such unnecessary contrivances pose to our way of life when they fall into the hands of juvenile misfits, including by criminally incentivizing children away from Creationism and towards hard science, outweigh the potential benefits assuming there are some in the first place
* Federal Rocketry Upgraded Motor Permit
Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!
RMURRAY 1
QuoteQuoteI'd agree with a total ban. You have to understand this is Canada not the US.
So that makes it okay to deprive law abiding citizens, who dutifuly registered their handguns, of their property, their sport, and their self defense?
yes, that is what the PM is proposing and he is doing it to try to get re-elected. So the Liberal Party figures it will get more votes than it will lose due to it - I would tend to agree.
notice all the vocal posters are not Canadian? that shows how much we really care about the issue. the bigger issue is healthcare.
rm
craddock 0
Quotenotice all the vocal posters are not Canadian? that shows how much we really care about the issue
The first three post in this thread were from Canadians. None of which supported the ban.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.
I'm just trying to find out where you draw the line on responsibility and negligence. Apparently, your view is if a gun owner puts a trigger lock on his handgun, locks it up in a steel gunsafe and then puts the gunsafe inside a vault with 12'' of concrete, reinforced with rebar and the gun is still stolen, thats irresponsible. OTOH if it's just hidden under the bed and not stolen, that's responsible.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites