Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Interesting use of one-way context, Whiteout. Since you like dealing in hypotheticals, answer me this: If Canada had a similar cultural opinion of gun ownership and similar saturation with the weapons itself, do you think that the number and type of such incidents would remain exactly as is, the number would stay the same but use of guns in them would increase, or that the number of incidents would increase, and the number of incidents involving guns would increase?
If I was a betting man, I would bet on the latter.
And I don't understand why you continue to pretend that it is a valid argument to say things only get better if *all* or *every* person complies with a confiscation order.
|
I agree. If you moved Canada to a system similar to that of the US, you'd see the use of guns in crimes overall increase and the number of incidents would increase. The US way of doing things pretty much gives free reign to idiots who shouldn't own guns the chance to.
Oddly enough, if there was a referendum on the matter next week, I'd vote against going to a US style of doing things. I'm totally fine with the way a lot of the law in Canada reads, but would just like to see certain parts tweaked to include a bit less confusion and a bit more common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igottago
Yes other things can kill people, but these other things do not have the sole purpose of being used to kill. A gun isn't there to prepare your dinner, take you to work, or drink on a patio on a warm weekend. The primary reason a gun exists -- to take life. An object with that express purpose needs to be far more closely regulated than the items you mentioned.
|
Firearms are probably one of the most regulated items commercially available to civilians in Canada. It might just be a case of US media being so pervasive that the Canadian way of doing things doesn't get a whole lot of attention and therefore the regulations we have are not well known.