Guns, Gangs and Toronto

[48Highlander]

48th, I'm sure we are all in agreement that there are many ways that a person can be killed, and by using many means to do so.  But Kilo 302 brings up a valid point.  Handguns are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for handguns, other than target competition.  They are made to be highly portable, and concealable.  Why does you average citizen need a Glock .40 with a tactical light on it?  Or a Beretta 9mm?  Or ANY of the firearms whose design has been geared towards law enforcement or tactical operations?  I don't believe your average citizen needs a weapon like that.

Frankly, who the HELL are YOU to tell me what I need?  Last I checked, we're SUPPOSED to be living in a free society.  I know it hasn't actually been that way for a while now, but that doesn't mean I want to give up any more of my rights.

It's no different than a knife.  It can be as dangerous to you as to the person who you are defending against if you don't know what you are doing with it.

Thinking along those lines....why does your average person need a knife?  Knives are made to kill people.  There is no other valid purpose for knives, other than their culinary applications.  They're highly portable and concealable.  I don't beleive your average citizen needs a weapon like that.

</SARCASM>

 

[Blackhorse7]

Wow, you've got a mouth on you 48th.  Read my profile if you want to see my credentials about what I think is right.

I'm the guy who is going to have to face down one of those guns on the street, not you.  So before you go running off at the mouth, you better know what the hell you are talking about.  And if you took the time to read my post, I never said that I thought a handgun ban was the right answer.  I'm simply stating that unless you can give me a VALID reason why you would need that gun, I would support it.  And the way it stands right now, I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a law enforcement/military grade pistol.

And as for your comments on knives, I don't even know if I want to respond to that.  Hell, I will anyway.  I carry a gun and a knife in the course of my daily duties.  I use my knife almost every day (opening mail, boxes, prying locks, and God forbid, if I have to cut a seatbelt).  I don't use my gun everyday, but I'm glad it's there.

 

[48Highlander]

Wow, you've got a mouth on you 48th.  Read my profile if you want to see my credentials about what I think is right.

According to your profile....you're a 32 year old male from Prince George, BC.

....

AND??  What exactly does that tell me about your credentials?  Maybe you're talking about the uber-eleet JTF display picture you've got going?

I'm the guy who is going to have to face down one of those guns on the street, not you.  So before you go running off at the mouth, you better know what the hell you are talking about.

Ah, I see.  So you're what, a cop?  Frankly, you're from Prince George, and I'm from Toronto.  I could be a kindergarden teacher, and I'd still have more chance of "facing down one of those guns" than you  ;D

  And if you took the time to read my post, I never said that I thought a handgun ban was the right answer.  I'm simply stating that unless you can give me a VALID reason why you would need that gun, I would support it.  And the way it stands right now, I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a law enforcement/military grade pistol.

I don't need to give you a reason for anything.  You're the one that wants to restrict my right to own a firearm based solely on your opinion that I don't need it.  That's horse-shit.  What's next?  Maybe you think I don't need to be reading certain books?  Maybe you don't think I need to be voicing certain beleifs?  Hell, nope, too late for that one, I'm already restricted in what I can say thanks to hate-speech laws.  So now you're controling what I can say and what I can own.  How long untill you try to control what I can read, and what I can think?

And as for your comments on knives, I don't even know if I want to respond to that.  Hell, I will anyway.  I carry a gun and a knife in the course of my daily duties.  I use my knife almost every day (opening mail, boxes, prying locks, and God forbid, if I have to cut a seatbelt).  I don't use my gun everyday, but I'm glad it's there.

You don't go to the range on a fairly regular basis?

 

[Blackhorse7]

Your just showing off your ignorance now.  This was professional until you starting making it personal.  Try to keep your comments a little more objective rather than downright insulting.  And as for your comments about TO, well... I deal with know-it-all's like you everyday.  Maybe you should become a Police Officer if you have more of a chance than facing a gun than I do.  That is, if you got past the interview, which I doubt if you came off with the same attitude that you have displayed to others in your comments.

Keep on track of the thread instead of making personal attacks.

 

[48Highlander]

Your just showing off your ignorance now.  This was professional until you starting making it personal.  Try to keep your comments a little more objective rather than downright insulting.  And as for your comments about TO, well... I deal with know-it-all's like you everyday.  Maybe you should become a Police Officer if you have more of a chance than facing a gun than I do.  That is, if you got past the interview, which I doubt if you came off with the same attitude that you have displayed to others in your comments.

Keep on track of the thread instead of making personal attacks.

Fine, but don't start pretending your "credentials" give you some sort of moral authority over the rest of us.  You want to debate why gun control is or isn't a good thing, GREAT.  Let's have a reasoned discussion!  So far your only reasoning has been that you don't see why I need to have a gun.  Oh, and that YOU are the one who's going to have to face these guns "on the street".  Do you REALLY think that either of those is a logical argument?

Oh and for future reference, if you're going to make a post asking someone to refrain from using personal insults in a thread, it's best if you try not to refrain from insulting the person at the same time.  Otherwise it usualy degenerates even further.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Gentlemen, please debate the topic (on facts supported by references or declared as personal opinions) and minimize the personal attacks.

Thank you.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Every day I have to cross the road to get my mail.  There is a school on that road, and school buses run up and down all day.  The school board bought those buses, now I have to face them on the street, every day.  It's not right, something should be done.... ;D

 

[Blackhorse7]

You are the one projecting this "moral authority" issue, not me.  I thought this was a place to voice constructive opinion without prejudice.  Note I said "constructive" opinion.

For God's Sake, read posts before you reply.  Back to my initial post, I simply pointed out that Kilo 302 had a valid point, and I voiced my opinion on why I believe that he had a valid point.

And pardon me if I see coming back to my family safe at night as a valid reason for making my point.  The simple fact is that less guns on the street means I have a better chance at making it home alive.  Period.  

While we are discussing your rights, why don't you tell us all why you want a handgun?  I mean, if you were deployed to A-stan, you would be issued one, wouldn't you?  Why do you want your own?  

 

[48Highlander]

You are the one projecting this "moral authority" issue, not me.  I thought this was a place to voice constructive opinion without prejudice.  Note I said "constructive" opinion.

For God's Sake, read posts before you reply.  Back to my initial post, I simply pointed out that Kilo 302 had a valid point, and I voiced my opinion on why I believe that he had a valid point.

And pardon me if I see coming back to my family safe at night as a valid reason for making my point.  The simple fact is that less guns on the street means I have a better chance at making it home alive.  Period. 

While we are discussing your rights, why don't you tell us all why you want a handgun?  I mean, if you were deployed to A-stan, you would be issued one, wouldn't you?  Why do you want your own? 

Why do you want a car?  I mean, you HAVE two feet, it's not like you need wheels too.  Heck, get a bicycle, they're much safer for everyone involved.

I should have pointed this out earlier, but if my firearm happens to get stolen, you're not going to be facing it on the street.  My gun isn't going to walk up to you on it's own and threaten your life.  You're going to be facing the individual holding that firearm.  You're a cop, and you've had plenty of experience with criminals; can you honestly tell me that you beleive that a criminal who wants to have a gun is going to be in any way impacted if I'm not allowed to own a firearm?  Or do you think it's much more likely that we'll se an increase in military and police firearms going "missing", as well as an increase in guns being smuggled in from outside of the country?

 

[Blackhorse7]

You are just not listening, are you?  I apologize in advance for the bold caps, but it seems that they are required here to make my point.

I DID NOT SAY I AGREE WITH A FIREARMS BAN!!!  I SIMPLY SAID THAT I DON'T SEE A VALID REASON FOR AN AVERAGE CITIZEN TO OWN A LAW ENFORCEMENT/MILITRAY GRADE PSITOL!!!

Can I be any more clear than that?  What other use can a person possibly have for a pistol (again aside from target competition) that to use against another human being?  I said right from the start, that if someone were to give me a valid reason why they would need a pistol, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.  Yes, you are right, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And yes, a ban would do nothing to stop gun crime.  But, read above.  I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a pistol.  I cannot make it any more clear than this.  I guess that what I am saying is that if you are against a firearms ban, then offer a better reason to the Government why you feel this way.  Simply saying "Well, because I want one."  or "It's my right."  just doesn't cut it.

 

[3rd Herd]

why did I want a hand gun? I didn't everytime the CQ tried to give me one I politely said no thank you, same to the SMG. For years I have the option to own and poses a hand gun. Two yearsin a remote location  and several more in semi remote were the bears out number the humans the hand idea had some appeal, compact, fair amount of rds anywhere from 6 to 14 and for the most part good stopping power. Did some research ended up with a Winchester Defender 12 gauge ( full kit various barrels). Magazine load bird shot in chamber, followed by another bird shoot followed by three slugs. Reasoning behind this combination easy bird shoot works as a "bear banger" fired into ground in front of curious bear if turn aggressive then I have three slugs. In other words with a pistol you do not have the option scaring the bear it is a straight out kill most of the time orphaning cubs. As to range work if I want to shoot pistols I have several friends who regularly invite me. Having BTDT I concur with Blackhorse " why don't you tell us all why you want a handgun?" And for the life of me except for competitive shooting I cannot see a legit reason for a hand gun in a urban area as I have just stated my views of the rural aspect.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Gentlemen, I'm locking this one for now. Remind me tomorrow and I may unlock it for further responses on the topic and without personal attacks or innuendo.

Thank you.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Reopened, please keep the discussion on the topic without personal attacks.

Mike
Staff

 

[Manimal]

four of us were coming from small town Owen Sound last Friday, going to our course in TO, and on the way down we talked about the future of CF member travelling down there. we figured we should be armed, or at least have armed escorts lol

 

[geo]

(or a Pshych exam
(JK)

 

[TCBF]

" What other use can a person possibly have for a pistol (again aside from target competition) that to use against another human being?  I said right from the start, that if someone were to give me a valid reason why they would need a pistol, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.  Yes, you are right, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And yes, a ban would do nothing to stop gun crime.  But, read above.  I don't see a valid reason for a citizen to have a pistol.  I cannot make it any more clear than this.  I guess that what I am saying is that if you are against a firearms ban, then offer a better reason to the Government why you feel this way.  Simply saying "Well, because I want one."  or "It's my right."  just doesn't cut it."

- Well, actually, it does cut it.

Democracy is based on three boxes:
1.  The ballot box. - Voting the bastids in and out.
2.  The soapbox.  - Hyde Park tradition - freedom of speach and audience.
3.  The ammuniton box.  - secures the above two freedoms.

I did not buy a pistol until it became clear to me that - apart from voting and being active in politics - the best contribution most Canadians can make towards the retention of useful democracy in this country would be to use the present laws to the LIMIT.  If there are 18,000,000 Canadians who can vote, and 3/4 of them are legally, mentally and physically capable of possessing a Firearms License, then they should all do so.  If they can then own rifles and shotguns, then they should do so.  If they can qualify for and own restricted firearms (pistols) then they should do so.  While they are at it, they should also join associations that contribute towards the protection of our historical culture of firearms possession (the NFA, CSSA, etc).  Then, we would not have 'useful idiots' in Ottawa saying 'But you don't NEED one.'

No, and he doesn't 'need' his hooker and SUV either, but democracy is about doing what you want so long as it does no harm to others, not about what is needed.  Communism and National Socialism is about what is 'needed'.

But, really gun control is about one premis:  That a 98 pound woman should be forced to fist-fight her 337 pound attacker.

If you agree with gun control, then you agree with that statement.

And please, no "Call 9-1-1 and Die" arguments here.

The other chilling aspect to this are the "Keystoners".  "Keystoners" are bureaucrats in Police uniforms who want bigger budgets and more power but care little about the proper traditions of policing in a democracy (Sir Robert Peel, anyone?) and would willingly disarm the citizen and increase the citizen's risk of death merely to make the officer's job more comfortable.  Fortunately, we have very few "Keystoners" on this military site, as the military equivalent ("I am in the Army now, and I don't want to get hurt, so we should ban all armoured vehicles from the planet") is too ludicrous to comprehend. 

Suffice to say with both the police and military world - the risk comes with the pay.  We should not attempt to water down the rights and freedoms of others merely to make our own skins safer.

Tom

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Right you are, Tom.

In fact, to go further, no one NEEDS to smoke. 

No one NEEDS to drink alcohol. 

No one NEEDS to drive cars- especially if you live in a city.  Take transit.

No one NEEDS to take part in risky activities such as skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing, scuba diving.

All of these activities have been statistically proven to injure and kill people.  And since I pay taxes which fund health care, I don't think any of these activities should be allowed. 

The point is that, in a free society, the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it is dangerous to the group or society beyond all reason for me take part in an activity or past time.  The onus should not be on me, a citizen with no criminal record, to prove why I should be allowed to do something.  That said, I do happen to support reasonable efforts to license and train gun owners and to require safe storage of those firearms.  I can even stomach registration of firearms- if the current regime was not such a mess.  I don't support blanket bans on handguns, because I don't think the case has been made that all handguns are a plague on society.  And even if they were banned, it would not affect the availability of handguns to criminals one iota- which is kinda the point, no?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The other chilling aspect to this are the "Keystoners".  "Keystoners" are bureaucrats in Police uniforms who want bigger budgets and more power but care little about the proper traditions of policing in a democracy (Sir Robert Peel, anyone?) and would willingly disarm the citizen and increase the citizen's risk of death merely to make the officer's job more comfortable.  Fortunately, we have very few "Keystoners" on this military site, as the military equivalent ("I am in the Army now, and I don't want to get hurt, so we should ban all armoured vehicles from the planet") is too ludicrous to comprehend. 

Suffice to say with both the police and military world - the risk comes with the pay.  We should not attempt to water down the rights and freedoms of others merely to make our own skins safer.

Tom

I would have to agree with you on this one.  I live with the stark reality that if a motivated individual wants to kill me in an ambush, I am going to likely get pretty hurt (we never admit we can die).  If you really want to split hairs, getting into a hand gun fight is preferable, since if someone sets up with a long gun and a scope, my side arm is going to be pretty sad and useless.  At least hand gun on hand gun I have half a chance.  There is an inherent risk in being a police officer.  That is why there are lots of nice applicable laws to deal with people who are in possession of handguns unlawfully.  Lets use some sentencing to deal with these tools.  As far as the "lady versus big attacker" in all likelyhood if she had a gun with her to defend herself she was committing some sort of offence, but the end justifies the means in that  particular case.  All of the women in my life are loaded up with "bear spray" because we have such an uncontrollable urban bear population roaming around.  It is not illegal to possess, only illegal to use.  But if they need it...back to the ends/means comment.
Plus, lets pretend that we live in Liberal Utopia (bbrrrr) and we actually made all of the handguns disappear.  All you will see is a outbreak of chopped down rifles and shotguns and the power that goes with them (ballistic). 
The current laws are sufficient.  I would bet if the Liberals could take back their stupid promise about the hand guns they would.

 

[TCBF]

The only problem is Registration of firearms only leads to eventual confiscation: Germany, UK, Australia, Rwanda, etc.

Fom a military standpoint - you should hold at the mouth of the defile.  The defile here is the human - not the firearm.  Humans are easy to find - everyone has to come out and eat eventually whereas guns can stay buried forever.  Register ONLY those pers with criminal, mental, or social records that should prohibit them from owning any class of firearms, then you only need 300,000 files instead of 18,000,000 (for guns).  Then, put it online - I sell to someone on that list, I go to jail.

Also:  You have a gun in your house, fine.  You want to carry it concealed: you need some training.  

Safe storage is supportable, but to many safe storage charges are being layed when the gun was in 'use'. 'Storage' is not 'use'.  It should not be a catch-all.

"why there are lots of nice applicable laws to deal with people who are in possession of handguns unlawfully.  Lets use some sentencing to deal with these tools. "

I agree. I have friends on the force in my hometown, and how they keep their morale up somedays I will never know.

Tom

 

[Kilo_302]

But, really gun control is about one premis:  That a 98 pound woman should be forced to fist-fight her 337 pound attacker.

If you agree with gun control, then you agree with that statement.

I don't think the world is that black and white. That's akin to saying that someone who disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is an anti-semite. You also didn't define what you meant by gun control. I would think that everyone on this board believes in some form of gun control. You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you? The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die. I think the streets should safer, so that situation does not arise as often.Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases. Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that.

the best contribution most Canadians can make towards the retention of useful democracy in this country would be to use the present laws to the LIMIT

That is assuming that all laws in Canada are good ones. There are some that should be abolished, some that haven't been even made yet, and there are some that should be modified. By your above statement, I guess you think we should all visit the swing clubs the government just made legal, and on the way home, visit a gay bath house in downtown TO. "Useful democracy" is different for everyone.

The only problem is Registration of firearms only leads to eventual confiscation: Germany, UK, Australia, Rwanda, etc

I have heard anti-gun control advocates point to Rwanda as example of "people killing people, not guns killing people". But can you imagine how many more would have died if everyone was armed with a gun instead of a machete?