Federal gun smuggling

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by Makarov

^ I disagree (and strongly agree with woob.) Ideas, logic and reason are the currency in debates like this. Sometimes education fosters those things in a person, sometimes it does not. And many people are able to develop those things with very little education indeed.

Attack Mikey's arguments, not his education.

Not attacking his education - I agree, many people have done great things without it. But debates like the ones we see on CP require relatively UNBIASED knowledge, and the best way to get that is through an education.

Otherwise you end up like Mikey and soearch out knoweledge that supports your own pre-determined bias. Having an education and learning from many smarter people who have different biases opens you up to the world. Being uneducated and self-taught only gives you a deeper inherent bias in what you already believed.

CASE IN POINT: MIKEY.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Ummm, you do have to get a license to own a gun. You can't just stroll in there and come out with a military arsenal without a background check for example. That's not what we were talking about anyways. People like SCUD wish to abolish citizen gun ownership altogether.

So you'd be okay with a dramatically more exhaustive licensing regime then, one that more directly mirrors that of vehicles? Required classes, testing, separate categories, graduated levels etc. You'd be good with all of that?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you'd be okay with a dramatically more exhaustive licensing regime then, one that more directly mirrors that of vehicles? Required classes, testing, separate categories, graduated levels etc. You'd be good with all of that?

In fact, considering that guns are far more potentially dangerous than vehicles (is that fair to say?) and certainly have less everyday practical benefits, gun regulation and licensing should be far more restrictive.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Not attacking his education - I agree, many people have done great things without it. But debates like the ones we see on CP require relatively UNBIASED knowledge, and the best way to get that is through an education.

Otherwise you end up like Mikey and soearch out knoweledge that supports your own pre-determined bias. Having an education and learning from many smarter people who have different biases opens you up to the world. Being uneducated and self-taught only gives you a deeper inherent bias in what you already believed.

CASE IN POINT: MIKEY.

The reason I have a pre-determined bias is because I have the belief that it is my god given right to defend myself from people who intend me or my family harm.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you'd be okay with a dramatically more exhaustive licensing regime then, one that more directly mirrors that of vehicles? Required classes, testing, separate categories, graduated levels etc. You'd be good with all of that?

You have to do most of those things to be able to own a firearm, in Canada anyways.

I am good with that. My problem is with people who think guns need to be eliminated from the public.

[woob]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Not attacking his education - I agree, many people have done great things without it. But debates like the ones we see on CP require relatively UNBIASED knowledge, and the best way to get that is through an education.

Otherwise you end up like Mikey and soearch out knoweledge that supports your own pre-determined bias. Having an education and learning from many smarter people who have different biases opens you up to the world. Being uneducated and self-taught only gives you a deeper inherent bias in what you already believed.

CASE IN POINT: MIKEY.

Disagree. One can obtain this knowledge via other means than education. Social interaction with different people in different walks of life, world travel, reading (which even Mikey, with his grade 7 education, should be able to do), life experience, etc. A higher education is not needed to form a solid base of beliefs, values, and morals.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You have to do most of those things to be able to own a firearm, in Canada anyways.

I am good with that. My problem is with people who think guns need to be eliminated from the public.

Well, I don't think anyone is really advocating that. I'm quite comfortable with the level of firearm regulation in Canada. And even as a pro-gun control "socialist", I recognize that some people, especially those who live in rural areas and on farms/ranches, have a real use or need for firearms (protecting animals from coyotes, for example.)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You have to do most of those things to be able to own a firearm, in Canada anyways.

I am good with that. My problem is with people who think guns need to be eliminated from the public.

Doesn't it stick in your craw though that the government has assigned a level of firearm ownership that is simply unattainable for any citizen?

For instance, it is not illegal to own a BMW, unless you are 8 feet tall and have 3 arms.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by woob

Disagree. One can obtain this knowledge via other means than education. Social interaction with different people in different walks of life, world travel, reading (which even Mikey, with his grade 7 education, should be able to do), life experience, etc. A higher education is not needed to form a solid base of beliefs, values, and morals.

In fact, based on Mikey's grammar and spelling, which is much better than grammar and spelling I've read in some undergraduate term papers, he clearly does spend time reading and writing. Of course, I still don't agree with him on a great many points, but it isn't because he's "uneducated." Its because he's a damn redneck.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Education is currency in debates like this. It shows how deep of intellectual pockets you have. Education has 99% play in this.

No it doesn't.

There are a lot of well-educated people on both sides of this argument. Both sides have interesting and at times convincing ideas that they present.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you'd be okay with a dramatically more exhaustive licensing regime then, one that more directly mirrors that of vehicles? Required classes, testing, separate categories, graduated levels etc. You'd be good with all of that?

I want even more than that. If you want a gun license, you should be forced to pay out of your own pocket for extensive training and safety classes. The license to own should be regulated and looked after similar to how drivers licenses are looked after.

I disagree with the idea that the guns themselves should be registered. Especially long guns. There is a good argument to make in regards to required registration for handguns and assault rifles though, and I would take a serious look at it.

Banning guns won't work. It is very similar to wanting to ban drugs. It simply doesn't work.

But education in regards to usage and safety does work.

Ironically, Scud loves to talk about how much education means, but when it comes to educating people about guns, he would rather just spout off more ignorance about a subject he clearly has no experience with.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Not attacking his education - I agree, many people have done great things without it. But debates like the ones we see on CP require relatively UNBIASED knowledge, and the best way to get that is through an education.

Otherwise you end up like Mikey and soearch out knoweledge that supports your own pre-determined bias. Having an education and learning from many smarter people who have different biases opens you up to the world. Being uneducated and self-taught only gives you a deeper inherent bias in what you already believed.

CASE IN POINT: MIKEY.

What an arrogant, simplistic and feeble argument.

Your logical association is that in order to not have a pre-determined bias, you need to accept linear education from one pre-determined viewpoint?

I'm not going to comment on the validity of mikey's opinions, thoughts or points of view, but you're bullying him from an assumed position of intellectual superiority which, by your commentary, you are clearly not in.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You have to do most of those things to be able to own a firearm, in Canada anyways.

I am good with that. My problem is with people who think guns need to be eliminated from the public.

Well we're talking about the US here aren't we? I think Canadian regulation is pretty good, although I'm not super familiar with it. The people I take issue with are those who fall the opposite extreme of the ones you reference, people who point to the 2nd Amendment as if it means they are free to own an AK47 and 'damned if any guverment is gonna tell them they can't'. Too many Americans are stuck in the 1800's when it comes to he issue of firearms.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you'd be okay with a dramatically more exhaustive licensing regime then, one that more directly mirrors that of vehicles? Required classes, testing, separate categories, graduated levels etc. You'd be good with all of that?

Terrible example. I think all of us have seen people do some dumb s**t on the roads and wondered how the hell they got their drivers licence. I think it's quite a bit easier to get a drivers licence then a firearms licence.

I do agree that firearms really aren't that necessary, and this is coming from a gun owner. At the end of the day, it's a fun hobby.

I think as far as gun regulation goes in Canada, it's pretty good. Long guns are easy to aquire, no wait period. Restricted weapons like handguns and assault rifles are a bit tougher to get as you need to wait a few days to actually take it home and can only be fired at approved ranges.

Where I would start getting nervous is if the government started allowing concealed carrying. That's one thing I just don't get. I post frequently on an American gaming forum and tons of people down there are all over talking about their concealed carrying. They spout reasons like personal safety and "their right" to do so when at the end of they day, the only thing a concealed carry is doing for them is making their junk feel a little bigger. Unless you are living in a war zone, NO ONE needs to carry a gun on them at all times. If you do in fact live in that rough of an area, MOVE. If you have enough money to collect and fire guns, you have enough money to move somewhere safer.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Terrible example. I think all of us have seen people do some dumb s**t and wondered how the hell they got their drivers licence. I think it's quite a bit easier to get a drivers licence then a firearms licence.

There is far more to motor vehicle regulation than just licensing exams: mandatory registration, mandatory insurance, a ~80 page piece of legislation describing how one must operate that motor vehicle, as well as hundreds of municipal by-laws setting out the rules of the road.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Makarov

, a ~80 page piece of legislation describing how one must operate that motor vehicle, as well as hundreds of municipal by-laws setting out the rules of the road.

And eveyone follow those rules as gospel too, right?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well we're talking about the US here aren't we? I think Canadian regulation is pretty good, although I'm not super familiar with it. The people I take issue with are those who fall the opposite extreme of the ones you reference, people who point to the 2nd Amendment as if it means they are free to own an AK47 and 'damned if any guverment is gonna tell them they can't'. Too many Americans are stuck in the 1800's when it comes to he issue of firearms.

I believe there are background checks for mental illness etc. in America.

Maybe PIMKing can fill you in some more?

I just want to say one thing that does irritate me about gun owners is that some of them take a lax attitude in weapon/ammo storage etiquette. Like come one guys.....

[T@T]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

....in your dreams..

Yeah it would be a bad day if you had to go to a funeral without your gun.

Two people were killed and two were wounded Thursday near Atlanta while attending a funeral for a murder victim, police said.

Parish said people at the funeral shot back and killed the man

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

Call me crazy but personally I wouldn't want to live where I felt the need to pack a gun under my suit at a wedding or a funeral, American's are loosing their minds.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yeah it would be a bad day if you had to go to a funeral without your gun.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

Call me crazy but personally I wouldn't want to live where I felt the need to pack a gun under my suit at a wedding or a funeral, American's are loosing their minds.

The presence of another man's gun justifies the possession of your gun!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yeah it would be a bad day if you had to go to a funeral without your gun.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

Call me crazy but personally I wouldn't want to live where I felt the need to pack a gun under my suit at a wedding or a funeral, American's are loosing their minds.

You bumped this thread for that??

A funeral shooting in Atlanta ....I know it would be cliche but you have to wonder if there is gang activity involved in this case. Atlanta is a high crime city. Too bad there aren't more details in the article.

Luckily the people attending the funeral had the means to protect themselves ....only slaves can't protect themselves.