I understand what you're saying, but you can't argue that simply allowing guns of any nature in a country doesn't make it easier for potential nutcases to commit more damaging acts than they would be able to without them. I just don't see any reason for someone to own a gun at all, but again, that's just my opinion.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
I understand what you're saying, but you can't argue that simply allowing guns of any nature in a country doesn't make it easier for potential nutcases to commit more damaging acts than they would be able to without them. I just don't see any reason for someone to own a gun at all, but again, that's just my opinion.
You're really comparing owning an AR-15 to drinking alcohol? It sucks losing money, but it’s hard to sympathise with someone who owns a gun like that. It goes way beyond the purpose of allowing a citizen to have a gun for self defence.
That's the question where we do not really have objective research on. Pro-gun advocates say that there are more people saved than get killed through gun legalising. Anti-gun advocates say the opposite. The question about this balance is pretty important, though.
And quite frankly - both sides should be interested in figuring out how to make some objective statistics on this matter.
No one needs to consume alcohol. It's one of the more apt comparisons when it comes to this issue. Both are things people enjoy, both can be dangerous to the user and others if used improperly.
It's ok. We're not allowed to have guns for self defence in Canada. Hunting, target shooting and collecting only.
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Restrictions are required. Up until today I thought we had the best balance of that anywhere in the world here. People could acquire a wide variety of modern sporting firearms provided they met the legal requirements and used them responsibly. The evidence supporting that is overwhelming.
Potential nutcases, going by your argument, would include me. I am not a mass murderer in waiting, despite what Justin Trudeau would like you to believe.
If that was the case then alcohol would be used in wars instead of guns. It’s just not a good comparison.
Is an AR-15 used for hunting? Can’t single shot rifles be used for target shooting? Or just go to somewhere licensed to do that.
I wasn't suggesting that you are arguing that, I'm simply saying that even you, a gun advocate of some sort, wouldn't be able to argue that point. Objectively, a country with no guns is a safer place.
If you move the goal posts like that and suddenly include war as a criteria, sure. My statement is limited to comparing two things that are reasonably unnecessary, quite dangerous to users and bystanders and widely available and used for enjoyment. Only, your moral code disagrees with guns, which is fine, that's your choice. Maybe my moral code views alcohol as a destructive influence on people and asociety that we'd be better off without.
Loads of people use the AR platform rifles for hunting in the US. We're not allowed to in Canada because of their restricted status (remember we have a strict system of gun control here already). We're only allowed to use them for target shooting at approved firing ranges. So the government gets to make the argument that it's not used for hunting, because they don't allow it to be used for hunting, and therefore it has no legitimate purpose (ignoring the fact that target shooting is a legitimate purpose as per Canadian law). I'm sure you can appreciate the twisted logic used there.
This one country that you may wish objectively not to have guns has a neighbour to the south where people can still get guns, illegally.
I'm of the opinion that there are a multitude of ways for a bad actor to kill lots of people without guns and that someone who is determined to cause that sort of destruction won;t be deterred by a lack of guns.
So American peeps.
What are you're thoughts on vanilla isis occupying your government buildings?
What are you're thoughts on vanilla isis occupying your government buildings?
I included that because that was the intended use for those kind of guns. They were designed for the Vietnam war yeah? Not for citizens to have under the guise of target practice or hunting. Yes alcohol can cause damage to the user if abused, agreed, but it’s not really going to cause damage to others, unless you add in something else like a car. I can’t go to a shop, buy a bottle of whiskey and kill 20 people with it.
Again, if you specially want to use a gun like that for target practice, then go to a licensed place that lets you borrow one. I understand it’s a very different culture to what we have in the UK though.
Each and every gun out there was designed for one group of people to shoot at another group of people at one time or another. So you can appreciate why I think the "designed to kill" / "designed to hunt people" argument is bullshit. It's used when convenient to generate an emotive response and will be used again in the future to take away lever actions, pump actions and finally bolt action firearms.
You acknowledge that ‘determined’ is a get out of jail free card There?
If the scale is 0-100, how close to 100 do you need to be to commit an atrocity with, and without a gun?
Not being inclined to commit mass murder I wouldn't know. I'll assume there is a line that is crossed between thinking about it and doing it and that line is close to 100 with or without a gun.
You are viewing the Canadian system with an American lens. Guns are strictly controlled here. I've posted a cost and time estimate to obtaining an AR-15 here earlier.
Hence the get out of jail free card comment.
You don’t have to be a nutbar to think it over. You’re a bright fella. I know that you don’t honestly think that if all the mass shooters in America didn’t own a gun, most would Still have found a way to kill lots of people.
As noted earlier, I'm not talking about the American experience. Indeed, I've argued for stricter control in the US plenty in this thread. I am currently discussing recent actions by the Canadian government. If you're intent on discussing American talking points, please don't waste my time.
Americans doing what they do best.
So sad, pointless and infuriating. Poor guy was shot in the head apparently.
So sad, pointless and infuriating. Poor guy was shot in the head apparently.
Two more people were shot at a McDonalds by people refusing to respect Covid 19 rules. It comes on the heels of armed goons confronting police in Texas at a bar that opened up early, among other incidents. It is becoming a disturbing theme here in the US, people with guns that don’t want to be locked down.
CNN
CNN
cnuts on parade
You mazlem apologist. Lynch him!
Just kidding. Join the rest of us disclaimants who walk around with it tattooed to our foreheads (Muslim, Not Terrorist; Chinese, Not Infected, etc).
https://www.wect.com/2020/05/07/hig...g-off-duty-deputy-terrorized-them-their-home/
Full story in article. I've got no doubt that if the mother wasn't there, Dameon would have been killed.
Full story in article. I've got no doubt that if the mother wasn't there, Dameon would have been killed.
My God. This is some 19th century reading.
fecking hell thats terrifying.
Like a scene out of Django.
America is a shithole country with a giant anus leading it.
Not sure if this is posted
A couple of funny things about those pics...
1) Guy with the flag tank top on has an empty tube on his back.
2) Guy taking the selfie is carrying a fake, wooden, replica of an M2 machine gun.
Stolen from somewhere, so I can’t claim credit but: ‘Meal Team Six’.
If only it was that ancient. This reads like a precursor to a jolly negro lynching in the 1920s, somewhere in the deep South or in some Midwest sundown town. Complete with the picnic and ghastly postcards.
Definitely blunted.
I continue to wonder about your general worldview.
Feck me, yeah, it's nowehere near that long ago.
If only it was that ancient. This reads like a precursor to a jolly negro lynching in the 1920s, somewhere in the deep South or in some Midwest sundown town. Complete with the picnic and ghastly postcards.
Honestly, it's 21st century reading if we're being honest.
I continue to wonder where you live and if you have been outside of where you live and if so for how long?
I somehow doubt you can make such a sweeping statement mainly based on personal experience and first hand knowledge, not relying on news, reports, and other people's accounts.
But are you serious that ugly things like this killing and the months-long institutional disinterest in it are likely to be found nowhere else in the world?
Why can't I? Most people who writes reports have not even visited most places they write about. I said I don't know about south America and think it would not happen in most African countries. The rest I have visited not as a tourist but for work and spent a fair bit of time in those places. Speak some languages too so know from first hand instead of others writing or newspapers.
If any other Europeans and Asians here can counter what I have said and point out which country in Europe and Asia they see and expect these things to happen regularly and show me the proof I would hold up my hand and say I am wrong.
It's not really the thread's topic (my own fault), so I keep it to one answer:
Two examples of vigilante murders and (at least partial) state complicity on a larger scale I can immediately think of: Hindu-nationalist violence against Muslims in India & Duterte's anti-drug war in the Philippines. Then there are war and conflict zones where civilians live under constant threat from armed groups and rackets.
Last edited:
The reason it seems to only happen in America is that there's a deeper saturation of video recording devices there.