Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I did say they were trained, and women and children are also trained as well. Yes, being that Switzerland has no standing army it would make sense that their militia is trained. And those individuals with actual training and knowledge prove to be responsible.

There is a significant difference in the level of training compared to America. I would argue that the average American that gets gun training and a false sense of confidence is maybe capable of shooting on a firing range and keeping their weapon clean. They are not capable or certified in using a weapon for self defense or as a vigilante.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Jack offs like the old man that pulled out his handgun in the diner and had a discharge show that uneducated people make uneducated mistakes.

How about the retired sherrif in a movie theatre. Lets not stand on formality here, he was trained and educated and still treated his pistol like it was a water gun, pew pew yer dead. This isn't about uneducated versus educated. This is about the split second decision that the educated and uneducated make that due to the nature of the "tool" usually has horrifying and fatal and unnecessary consequences.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

What does a 500,000$ insurance policy do to save peoples lives? And once again the idea that criminals will obey the law, take out gun insurance (ludicrous btw) and walk within the limits set out by law is bogus.

Sober second thought when buying a gun, B limits people from making a snap decision when buying a gun, ensures that if you shoot someone or if you improperly store your weapon and someone takes it and kills someone that the victims are taken care and you are held personally and financially responsible. Forces its way past the whole anti registration for guns movement because you are forced to buy insurance and there is no choice in registering that insurance.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Criminals don't care about gun control/laws because they operate outside the law.

Yup, that's why crimes with guns needs to have additional sentences tacked on. And that would apply to the guy who discharged his fire arm in public places because he was engaged in a shootout with a criminal. This kind of stuff can simply not be tolerated anymore.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

The problem I read earlier about people moving firearms without trace to other individuals, I would like to ask what you think would happen if 300+ million firearms were suddenly outlawed. In a desperate economy where nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, a gun ban would create a huge black market for what would be then considered illegal firearms.

Sure, but its a starting point to changing the culture, and that's all you can do. Hey maybe a food for guns program would bring some of those guns in.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

And I wouldn't expect a country to turn over their guns to the hypocrites who have been exposed for mass gun trafficking themselves.

Change has to start at the top.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

This is about the first reasonable post I've seen, thank you. But to say there are NO restrictions on firearms is false. There are already numerous laws in the US restricting what they may or may not own. Don't get me started on Canada.

In response to the car example, they are apples and oranges but I would like to ask a couple questions and see if you can draw a parallel.

Do you have to have a drivers licence to purchase a car?

Do you need a licence/registration/insurance do drive your vehicle on private land?

Well fine, I'll admit there are a few minor restrictions on firearms in America, and a few more in Canada. I knew that before too, I was more making a general statement about the amount of restrictions on firearms compared to other very common objects and consumables. Of which there seems to be a lot less, or almost none comparatively. But yes, my comment was an overstatement/exaggeration and incorrect.

And I will agree cars and guns are apples and oranges though I know it's not going to be for the reasons you will probably say, and if you use the argument to make your point, you'll probably get a lot of pushback from me as I see them as apples and oranges but mostly for reasons to make my point. I actually think it's a great example.

As for your questions, all knowledge I have beforehand, plus the small amount of research I did just now, plus the knowledge that you probably wouldn't be asking a question that didn't favorably (at first glance) bolster your argument says the answers are no.

But my question is, why does that matter? Why would a person buy a car to not use it? Same with the gun? Why would a person by a gun to not use it? Sure there may be the odd collector that just wants to buy a gun and keep it unloaded, especially historical guns (which I do believe there should be exceptions for) but that is such an infinitesimally small number. And is mirrored by people who buy cars to collect them anyway. It really doesn't help your argument any.

As for not needing the same level of paperwork and documentation for a vehicle on private property I have to ask again, why does it matter? For the majority of uses you need for a car, there are many strict rules. There is a licensing program. For a gun, there is not. You can argue all you want about people using it solely on their land, or buying it for the purpose and intent of that, but the fact of the matter is 1., this is obviously not happening as much as people think it is, and 2., you don't have these restrictions for public use either. It's a strawman.

I'll hit another few arguments you've made recently. The one in response to UCB's comment about the damage a gun does, you replied with the typical, that's the exact reason you don't wants bans (or tougher rules I assume), alluding to the highly incorrect assumption rampant in NRA circles about guns making things safer. There is ZERO statistical evidence that backs that up, and in fact, there's a lot of evidence that proves the other side of the argument. If you've got statistical evidence that isn't gun lobby based, I'd love to see it, but all there is is a small handful of exceptional stories giving the illusion of circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is more guns make things more dangerous through misuse, incapable untrained users, and mistakes.

It doesn't even make logical sense. Sure, perhaps in the case of a home invader who is brandishing a knife or baseball bat, there may be a logical argument for a gun, barely. But in cases of gun vs gun, it isn't even logical, which is actually what your retort was implying. Gun v gun. All any logic dictates is that there is more chance for things to escalate, more chance for more people to get shot, and more chance for there to be mistakes and people outside the confrontation to get hurt. Heck, even police make mistakes on when to use their guns, and they are trained. Are you really telling me a populace in which everyone has a gun would be safer? It would eliminate most crime cause what, people would suddenly have 'healthy fear of wronging someone else?'

What makes more sense is that it just mean people would just shoot quicker, before the other person would could get their gun out. Criminals would shoot quicker before the other person would have a chance to react. Killing a lot of people who may have just been mugged. Yes, the criminals are still in the wrong, but that's small consolation to the person who is dead. There would be more Zimmerman types shooting sooner to protect themselves against threats possibly real but in most cases likely imagined or overblown. Good families at home would have more accidents shooting first and thinking later. You cited fear in one of your defenses, don't you see how this would ramp up the level of fear? It's a never ending spiral and it has to stop somewhere or it just gets worse.

Finally, I want to touch on your other misconceived notion of logic in that banning guns would have no affect on gun murder rates. I get the idea behind what you are saying, and the very real example when compared to drugs, but to state there is no watershed mark where banning something doesn't help is ludicrous. Of course it will help. Drugs are more popular when they are legal. Look at cigarette abuse, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse compared to illegal drug abuse. Much higher rates. At one point not too long ago 50% of the public smoked. Now I think it's close to 25%. Does 25% of the public use heroin? Cocaine? Heck weed? Nope. Sure, some people still get high. But to suggest the ban doesn't prevent higher numbers makes zero sense, and again has no real evidence backing it up. And yes a lot of those drugs are more harmful than cigarettes and that may affect their popularity, but guess what, weed isn't. Shoot, there's more and more evidence that MDMA isn't. So no, your comparison doesn't fly. Yes a ban doesn't stop things from being used completely, but it does reduce it. Now the morals of such is another case, and I'm a bit of a libertarian on the matter, which is why I'm not against owning guns, just that there are some rules about it. I also think people should be able to do drugs, as long as it's responsible. I would argue for restrictions there as well. But it doesn't change the fact that yeah, bans do help.

Also, resorting to a gun ban is a escalation of the argument that is unnecessary and incorrect. I don't know why the pro gun crowd always goes there. No one (at least no coherent argument) has ever suggest a total gun ban. But for some reason, a lot of the pro gun crowd flips to that black or white reasoning right away. I don't think a gun ban is needed, I think the balance of rules (and culture differences) Canada has works pretty good for the most part. But it's still insane to trot out that argument, as the pro gun crowd does, then argue that a ban wouldn't make things a little better in the short term, and a lot better in the long term as guns are slowly phased out and the culture changes. It obviously would. People would hate it, and there would be pushback, and small difference in the beginning as guns would still be everywhere, but it would.

Whew, I think I had more, but that's pretty long already.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

You would rather someone coddle you and read to you the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (in particular section 26) rather than educate yourself?

Color me surprised.

Colour me surprised you can't provide an answer.

You make a claim, you support it.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If everyone who bought a gun used it on themselves like with drugs, the problem would be solved fast. Obviously these are 2 completely different issues as you can see. No one is addicted to guns.

Its about availability and criminal intent that ignores the law.

You can't make the firearms disappear, and banning a object has no influence on criminal intent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

The 2A doesn't protect hobbyists and hunters, thats kinda... you know the whole point of this debate?

And that's why the 2A is flawed and need to be re-written to reflect the times. The 2A should be amended to define what the right to bear arms is and what kind of arms can be owned.

The 2A is rapidly becoming a suicide pact and a justification for wanton violence and death.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

You would rather someone coddle you and read to you the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (in particular section 26) rather than educate yourself?

Color me surprised.

ok, so other people don't need to look this up:

from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

This is a very good point, in Canada firearms owners have a background check run every day.

Stats Canada shows that licensed firearms owners are more than three times less likely to commit homicide.

And yet I'm the nutbar. Tell me, anti gun heros, when I get background checks performed everyday, have been proven to be a peace loving individual who does not commit crime, and passed training programs to ensure capability in owning firearms...

Why would I trust any of you? Whens the last time you had a background check?

Do you think that the reason gun owners are less likely to commit homicide is the strict regulations on gun ownership?

For the record I had a background check done about 2 months ago. It's not a very invasive process, a police service checks to see if you have a criminal record. In Canada all criminal proceedings are public record, so it there's no invasion of privacy.

From what I can tell, there is a database that cross-references firearm licencees against people who are charged with a criminal offense on a daily basis. In my mind that's good sense, if you have the capacity to do that, why wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Please go and read your Canadian charter of rights.

Research and understand the fine print of what a registration certificate entails, keeping in mind your charter of rights.

I'm curious what section under the Charter you're referring is in violation. Also, if it IS in violation how is it not saved by section 1?




Shnabdabber I'm not accusing you of not knowing the following, I'm just stating it for general information:

The Canadian Charter of Rights first section allows for restrictions of the rights outlined in the Charter if it is justifiable in a free and democratic society. For example, section 1 saves the Hate Speech laws despite them violating section 2 Freedom of Speech.

The United States doesn't (to my knowledge) have a similar provision. So a Bill of Rights violation is an outright violation. Which would be why Westboro gets away their ridiculous shenanigans.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by jammies

Or, you could just explain what you mean. Strange idea, I know.

I don't think he can.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

You would rather someone coddle you and read to you the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (in particular section 26) rather than educate yourself?

Color me surprised.

For the record Justice Gabrielson of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's bench determined, "There is no unfettered right to possess or use firearms in Canada pursuant to the Bill of Rights 1689 or any subsequent legislation" when analyzing gun ownership with Section 26 of the Charter. http://canlii.ca/t/1vm4n

So it does not appear that gun ownership is protected by Section 26 of the Charter.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

For the record Justice Gabrielson of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's bench determined, "There is no unfettered right to possess or use firearms in Canada pursuant to the Bill of Rights 1689 or any subsequent legislation" when analyzing gun ownership with Section 26 of the Charter. http://canlii.ca/t/1vm4n

So it does not appear that gun ownership is protected by Section 26 of the Charter.

You know he was referring to vehicle ownership and section 26 right?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You know he was referring to vehicle ownership and section 26 right?

Nope, missed that. My fault for skimming this thread with a headache.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Nope, missed that. My fault for skimming this thread with a headache.

To be fair you are not the only that was confused.........

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

To be fair you are not the only that was confused.........

Yeah I just went back clicking on the specific quoted parts. It got lost as if you read the thread straight through it appears to make sense.

It also wasn't just one quote back, it was a response to post that was a response to a post that was a response to a post that was a response to a post that had to do with cars in a gun thread.

Anyway, guns = bad, candy = good. Yay candy!

[Shnabdabber]

Section 26 states you have the right to enjoy property. Not own.

Any and all property can be confiscated through legal avenues.

This is of concern to canadian firearms owners, because in the past firearms have been confiscated through the registry with no compensation made.

The registration of firearms has proven time and time again to be a precursor to confiscation, even after elected officials deny this to be the case. This resentment towards lying officials and lack of true property rights is but one of the main reasons why firearms owners in Canada are strongly opposed to a registry, especially since the registry never does what it's promised to do, that is save lives and solve crime.

Registration and licensing always, always leads to confiscation of "property" of law abiding citizens.

[Shnabdabber]

Thanks Daradon for the well thought out reply, I'd like to give a proper reply when I have the time.

[Daradon]

No prob Bob. I should probably be moving on from the forum too for now.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

You would rather someone coddle you and read to you the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (in particular section 26) rather than educate yourself?

Well, duh. Who doesn't enjoy being coddled?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Any and all property can be confiscated through legal avenues. .

Do you seriously believe the "right" to own property prevents that from happening in other, presumably more enlightened countries? In the specific case of the USA, have you ever heard of this law? It overrides said "right" - despite that right being supposedly inalienable - and has been widely abused to take away the property of people whose only crimes are being poor and unconnected with local law enforcement.

Words on a piece of paper (and guns) protect nothing, what protects your "rights" are transparent public institutions, government respect for the rule of law, independent courts, and independent media. Regardless of what the Canadian Bill of Rights may *say*, the practical difference between Canada and the USA, as far as property rights go, is that in Canada the probability of some backwoods sheriff "impounding" your car for a phantom offence, and then selling/using it without any possible recourse is much less likely.

So, just as I thought, your claim that reading Section 26 would somehow support your ridiculous assertion that the fine print of your car registration, along with the Canadian bill of rights, proves you don't own your own car, was so much puffery covering a profound misunderstanding of how law, society, and good sense work.

For anyone interested in PRACTICAL reality, I own my car (well - if I had a car) and it can't be taken away without due process under both very rare and specific conditions. Your definition of ownership being dependent on the government not being able to seize property is akin to saying people can never really get married because it's possible to divorce.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Section 26 states you have the right to enjoy property. Not own.

Any and all property can be confiscated through legal avenues.

This is of concern to canadian firearms owners, because in the past firearms have been confiscated through the registry with no compensation made.

The registration of firearms has proven time and time again to be a precursor to confiscation, even after elected officials deny this to be the case. This resentment towards lying officials and lack of true property rights is but one of the main reasons why firearms owners in Canada are strongly opposed to a registry, especially since the registry never does what it's promised to do, that is save lives and solve crime.

Registration and licensing always, always leads to confiscation of "property" of law abiding citizens.

So in other words, the tyrannical government is going to come and take away our vehicles like they did in Nazi Germany in the 30's.

That does it, I'm gong to purchase a bunch of vehicles and fuel. They can take my vehicle when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

I'm also going to get working on a bunker, and stock that up with vehicles.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How about the retired sherrif in a movie theatre. Lets not stand on formality here, he was trained and educated and still treated his pistol like it was a water gun, pew pew yer dead. This isn't about uneducated versus educated. This is about the split second decision that the educated and uneducated make that due to the nature of the "tool" usually has horrifying and fatal and unnecessary consequences.

This is the number one reason for a ban on handguns IMO, I'm sure if everyone thinks hard they can come up with a few instances where they're glad they didn't have one close.

People snap,it's human nature to snap and unfortunately lives are destroyed instead of just a bump or a bruise because there was a gun around.