Guns. Lots of Guns.

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Let's pinch out the enthusiasts and leave all the guns to the criminals, all while spending finite legal and government resources and billions of dollars doing it?

That's not what jayswin said.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by btimbit

The nice/interesting thing about gun enthusiasts in Canada is not that many of us (that I talk to at least, maybe it's just my circles) want anything to do with having our laws become like the US. We're largely in favour of stricter licensing and more training to get said licenses, and all have a good laugh at going down to the US for shows and shoots and meeting the classic big dumb Bubba who doesn't feel safe leaving his house without a Glock.

So we get very annoyed and defensive at people that see America's gun problems and then come at us. We're not a militia we're freakin nerding out over these things

I respect that and I have no doubt that the CP gun enthusiasts are by and large responsible gun enthusiasts. That said...

Laws influence culture. This particular law may have little to no direct impact on gun crime but it, and similar laws, creates the cultural barriers that prevent the Canadian gun culture from slipping closer to that of US. Part of the reason our gun culture in Canada is different from the US is because of our laws, not despite them, even the silly ones.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by jayswin

My statement was as worded, you added the narrative yourself, putting words in my mouth. I want the least amount of Canadians interested in guns. I said nothing about pinching out the enthusiasts and leaving guns to criminals. Contrary to popular belief these are not mutually exclusive feelings, either.

Wanting less gun culture in Canada does not mean wanting to leave all the guns to the criminals, in fact I want less guns for the criminals too. I want less guns everywhere. But at the same time have full respect and no animosity towards those that love and own guns properly and safely (which is the vast majority of gun owners).

What I'm trying to point out is that by eliminating one, you're not doing anything to eliminate the other, and in fact, trying to eliminate enthusiasts spends valuable limited resources which cold otherwise be used to eliminate illegal guns.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I respect that and I have no doubt that the CP gun enthusiasts are by and large responsible gun enthusiasts. That said...

Laws influence culture. This particular law may have little to no direct impact on gun crime but it, and similar laws, creates the cultural barriers that prevent the Canadian gun culture from slipping closer to that of US. Part of the reason our gun culture in Canada is different from the US is because of our laws, not despite them, even the silly ones.

There’s no second amendment in Canada, no right to bear arms. It’s not about culture or anything abstract. It’s a simple matter of law, our constitutions are different. There is simply no comparison between acquiring a gun in the US or Canada. It takes three days to get a gun in the US, 3 months or more to get a PAL in Canada.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

https://twitter.com/user/status/1256354160552800258

I don’t care about guns, or peoples positions on them. But this whole ‘making up for a lack of manhood’ schtick that is used against anything people find disagreeable is beyond atrocious. It’s a tired, pathetic copout of an argument, relying on misandry and sexual stereotyping that I find hard to believe is still acceptable in the day and age.

Someone likes something you don’t, and it’s acceptable to make insult and insinuation regarding their body, mind, and sexuality? Just ####ing stop. There are much better arguments to be made than ‘must have a small dick’.

[Ark2]

If everyone simply ignored Duffman, and didn't quote any of his posts, it sure would make putting him on ignore much more effective...

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If everyone simply ignored Duffman, and didn't quote any of his posts, it sure would make putting him on ignore much more effective...

At what % ignored does CP gain Herd Immunity from Duffman

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I don’t care about guns, or peoples positions on them. But this whole ‘making up for a lack of manhood’ schtick that is used against anything people find disagreeable is beyond atrocious. It’s a tired, pathetic copout of an argument, relying on misandry and sexual stereotyping that I find hard to believe is still acceptable in the day and age.

Someone likes something you don’t, and it’s acceptable to make insult and insinuation regarding their body, mind, and sexuality? Just ####ing stop. There are much better arguments to be made than ‘must have a small dick’.

triggered?

Originally Posted by Ark2

If everyone simply ignored Duffman, and didn't quote any of his posts, it sure would make putting him on ignore much more effective...

censor?

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

At what % ignored does CP gain Herd Immunity from Duffman

51?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I don’t care about guns, or peoples positions on them. But this whole ‘making up for a lack of manhood’ schtick that is used against anything people find disagreeable is beyond atrocious. It’s a tired, pathetic copout of an argument, relying on misandry and sexual stereotyping that I find hard to believe is still acceptable in the day and age.

Someone likes something you don’t, and it’s acceptable to make insult and insinuation regarding their body, mind, and sexuality? Just ####ing stop. There are much better arguments to be made than ‘must have a small dick’.

Silly image aside, I think you’re taking it too literally. The fact that guns are a stand-in or protectant of manhood is fairly established. Men commit the vast vast majority of gun related crimes, men own guns at significantly higher rates than women, etc.

While you may see it as sexual stereotyping, it really isn’t. The issue of “guns” goes much deeper, intertwined with our culture’s view on masculinity, what one must be to hold on to their masculinity, and the importance of power in maintaining or gaining masculinity. So, it’s actually a very important argument to be made, and it’s not just about having a small dick (the small dick is a physical stand-in for a lack of manhood/masculinity). Guns very much provide a false sense of power, right, protection, and all the other things men are supposed to have or provide. You can see it in the statistics, you can see it in the language used by “gun nuts.” It may be insulting, but it is very true, and gun ownership and worship is a symptom of a much bigger cultural problem concerning masculinity.

Of course, it doesn’t explain all gun owners. It doesn’t even try to. A “gun nut” is not your run-of-the-mill Hunter, or sport shooter, or whatever. There are plenty of people who do not use guns for violence, or as a false sense of protection, or to make up for insecurities with their own masculinity. But.... there are many more vocal folks who do. Pretending the manhood problem doesn’t exist basically ignores one of the fundamental and largest hurdles in gun obsession.

TLDR: The image is crude but accurate.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I respect that and I have no doubt that the CP gun enthusiasts are by and large responsible gun enthusiasts. That said...

Laws influence culture. This particular law may have little to no direct impact on gun crime but it, and similar laws, creates the cultural barriers that prevent the Canadian gun culture from slipping closer to that of US. Part of the reason our gun culture in Canada is different from the US is because of our laws, not despite them, even the silly ones.

Absolutely no arguement there. I would say we had already achieved that years ago though

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Silly image aside, I think you’re taking it too literally. The fact that guns are a stand-in or protectant of manhood is fairly established. Men commit the vast vast majority of gun related crimes, men own guns at significantly higher rates than women, etc.

While you may see it as sexual stereotyping, it really isn’t. The issue of “guns” goes much deeper, intertwined with our culture’s view on masculinity, what one must be to hold on to their masculinity, and the importance of power in maintaining or gaining masculinity. So, it’s actually a very important argument to be made, and it’s not just about having a small dick (the small dick is a physical stand-in for a lack of manhood/masculinity). Guns very much provide a false sense of power, right, protection, and all the other things men are supposed to have or provide. You can see it in the statistics, you can see it in the language used by “gun nuts.” It may be insulting, but it is very true, and gun ownership and worship is a symptom of a much bigger cultural problem concerning masculinity.

Of course, it doesn’t explain all gun owners. It doesn’t even try to. A “gun nut” is not your run-of-the-mill Hunter, or sport shooter, or whatever. There are plenty of people who do not use guns for violence, or as a false sense of protection, or to make up for insecurities with their own masculinity. But.... there are many more vocal folks who do. Pretending the manhood problem doesn’t exist basically ignores one of the fundamental and largest hurdles in gun obsession.

TLDR: The image is crude but accurate.

Quite the leap in logic you have presented here. Your argument essentially states that because men make up the majority of gun owners and those that commit crimes with guns, gun ownership is therefore largely the result of compensation for uniquely male insecurities. Where's the evidence for this? Men and women tend to have different preferences. Does the fact that I enjoy sports more than my wife mean that I am compensating for something? What about how I have greater appreciation for cars? Is that manhood problem as well?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I respect that and I have no doubt that the CP gun enthusiasts are by and large responsible gun enthusiasts. That said...

Laws influence culture. This particular law may have little to no direct impact on gun crime but it, and similar laws, creates the cultural barriers that prevent the Canadian gun culture from slipping closer to that of US. Part of the reason our gun culture in Canada is different from the US is because of our laws, not despite them, even the silly ones.

This should not provide cover to useless laws that only serve to irritate law abiding gun owners.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/canad...box=1589222223


3 of the 4 guns used in the Nova Scotia mass shooting came up from the States. Confirmed that the shooter wasn't a licensed gun owner.


Mounties still won't disclosed the type of fire arms used.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://calgaryherald.com/news/canad...box=1589222223


3 of the 4 guns used in the Nova Scotia mass shooting came up from the States. Confirmed that the shooter wasn't a licensed gun owner.


Mounties still won't disclosed the type of fire arms used.

From the article that you posted:

The federal force says in a news release today that only one of the guns could be traced back to a source in Canada.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this Canadian sourced firearm the one that he took from the police officer that he killed?

[FlamesAddiction]

In Canada, shurikens (throwing stars), switch blades, metal knuckles, butterfly knives, bludeons and sand clubs are all illegal.

It would make sense that many, or most firearms would fall into the same category of things that don't serve any real practical purpose and are potentially harmful.

https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/ite...throwing-stars

[2Stonedbirds]

I cant hunt with throwing stars.

[dre]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In Canada, shurikens (throwing stars), switch blades, metal knuckles, butterfly knives, bludeons and sand clubs are all illegal.

It would make sense that many, or most firearms would fall into the same category of things that don't serve any real practical purpose and are potentially harmful.

https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/ite...throwing-stars

It sounds like alcohol could easily fit in that group of things that don’t serve any real practical purpose. Except in the medical field.
I’m sorry to all the responsible drinkers out here on CP.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by dre

It sounds like alcohol could easily fit in that group of things that don’t serve any real practical purpose. Except in the medical field.
I’m sorry to all the responsible drinkers out here on CP.

A lot of recreational drugs are like that, even ones that are illegal. Not everyone who casually uses cocaine, molly, mushrooms, lsd, etc.. instantly becomes a fiend. A lot of people can use substances and moderate themselves perfectly fine. I personally know some very affluent business people, lawyers and accountants that use cocaine regularly.

But we make it illegal because other people can't handle it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Quite the leap in logic you have presented here. Your argument essentially states that because men make up the majority of gun owners and those that commit crimes with guns, gun ownership is therefore largely the result of compensation for uniquely male insecurities. Where's the evidence for this? Men and women tend to have different preferences. Does the fact that I enjoy sports more than my wife mean that I am compensating for something? What about how I have greater appreciation for cars? Is that manhood problem as well?

Well... no, and I’m not making the connection, I’ll leave that to actual psychologists and sociologists which you’re welcome to read since google is littered with it. The evidence, of course, is in the science of our brains, our evolution, and our culture. [EDIT: you’ve also got it twisted, you’re thinking A (male gun ownership) + B (male gun crimes) = C (guns as a security aid to masculinity). A and B are a result of C, they are not what makes C true.]

As far as leaps in logic goes, it’s a strange one to assume I suggested anywhere that everything is a compensation for something. You probably enjoy sports because you like sports, you’re probably more inclined to enjoy sports than your wife because of an evolutionary trait of competition, where men are much more a part of that than women. It should go without saying though that both men and women can enjoy sports and competition.

I don’t know about the cars thing. Maybe you’re just boring?

To my point, tho, I will again stress that just because you like guns does not mean you are compensating for something. If you bothered to read, I’m talking about the “gun nut,” the “I’ll show him my shooting range test and then he’ll see my power!” types, the “let’s march in there with our guns and show them how strong we are!” types... you know... the “gun nut.” If you identify as that, then surely yes you’re using guns to compensate for insecurities or your otherwise precarious manhood, which is both a you problem and a culture problem, but I kind of doubt you do identify as that? So I’m not sure why you took it personally. What you and your wife like is mostly irrelevant.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by btimbit

The nice/interesting thing about gun enthusiasts in Canada is not that many of us (that I talk to at least, maybe it's just my circles) want anything to do with having our laws become like the US. We're largely in favour of stricter licensing and more training to get said licenses, and all have a good laugh at going down to the US for shows and shoots and meeting the classic big dumb Bubba who doesn't feel safe leaving his house without a Glock.

So we get very annoyed and defensive at people that see America's gun problems and then come at us. We're not a militia we're freakin nerding out over these things

I'm not a gun owner, but have many friends who are. I also worked professionally with a company that deals with gun ownership as well.

Unsurprisingly, these people are normal everyday individuals who happen to own a gun. The hysterics (and downright ignorance) surrounding having more gun ownership oversight on this particular (and largest) demographic is incredible.

Ultimately, as everyone is seeing in this thread, it always boils down to two sides yelling and belittling each other looking for a 'win'.

I'm supportive of increased gun control on individuals prone to violent crime and the mentally unwell. I believe these current laws do little to help that and apparently that belief also means I have a small pee pee.