Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-18-2009, 02:46 PM   #101
Zarathustra
Scoring Winger
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
Do you drive? Because cars can kill too..............and accidents happen so maybe we should ban cars too.
I laugh at the stupidity of this argument every time I hear it.

Are cars designed and manufactured with the sole purpose of causing death and harm?
Zarathustra is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Zarathustra For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 02:55 PM   #102
habernac
Franchise Player
 
habernac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
Exp:
Default

I respect the right of people to own firearms. I'm pretty sure most of them have no need to parade around with them in public, however.

Is Susan Nattrass packing her trap shooting pistol everywhere she goes? Maybe she takes it shopping. How about the Canadian biathlon team? Think they're touting around their rifles everywhere they go? If Bob needs to go hunting on the weekend, does he sling that 30-06 over his shoulder and head off to Safeway with it to buy provisions?

No. Because the whole idea of carrying in public is stupid. There's no need for it. It's not the year 1985 in Beirut. We aren't in Kandahar. It's not the frontier times.

Last edited by habernac; 08-18-2009 at 03:16 PM.
habernac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:12 PM   #103
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I laugh at the stupidity of this argument every time I hear it.

Are cars designed and manufactured with the sole purpose of causing death and harm?
No......but get this, irresponsible/careless users cause the accidents.......
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:19 PM   #104
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers View Post
The reason it is in place is because the majority of Canadians are in favour of strong gun control laws. It is a small, fringe minority of Canadians that are in favour of anything close to what the Americans have. That is why handguns have been banned in Canada since 1934, with the exception of collectors.

It is interesting that the Police are the strongest supporters of the Firearm registry. One assumes that this is because the police consult CFIS 10,300 times a day. But, what the heck do the police know about crime prevention....
When did the people of Canada get to vote on the gun registry? If I recall right, most people were against it because of the cost.
Just because the police have to look in the gun registry does not mean that they are preventing or solving a gun related crime. I am going to guess that most of the time they are just checking to make sure the gun is registered to start with.
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:32 PM   #105
RubberDuck
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default Some gun registry myths

http://www.leonbenoit.ca/EN/4148/82102

Myth #1: The Gun Registry is a valuable tool for the police and they access it 9,500 times per day. The “9,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading per the Public Security Ministry’s website of May 17 2006 (Ques 18). Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), Ottawa Police Service (1,050 officers) and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Additionally, every legal purchase of a firearm generates three administrative hits to the registry; for the buyer, for the seller and for the firearm. These changes to the computer records are conducted by police agencies and are counted in the totals. Given the seven million firearms registered in the system, legal transfers must account for the majority of “hits”. Clearly, a hit on the Registry does not denote legitimate investigative use.

Myth #2: The registry provides police officers information on the presence of firearms when they respond to emergency calls.
Maybe. The Firearms Registry only provides a list of the legal guns, the very guns an officer is least likely to be harmed by. The truth is, very few legally owned guns are used in the commission of crimes. The latest report shows some 7% of firearm homicides were committed with registered firearms in the last 8 years. The elimination of the registry will only eliminate the useless lists of lawful guns. The fact an individual has a firearms licence will still be known to the police. They will know whether a legal firearm is at a particular location by virtue of the fact that an individual has a licence. The abolition of the long-gun registry doesn’t affect that. Even so, it is the illegal firearms that police are usually the most concerned about (93% in the last 8 years). No police officer would rely on the inaccurate registry data to dictate how they approach a domestic or emergency call. They would approach all calls with an appropriate measure of safety.

Myth #3: Firearms related deaths have been reduced due to the long gun registry.
Reduction in firearms deaths started in the mid 1970’s, well prior to the introduction of the registry in 2003 (StatsCan)and mirrors a proportionally greater reduction experienced in the United States, where firearms laws are being loosened. There is no evidence to link the reduction in deaths with the registry and it has far more to do with the aging demographic that anything else.

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered . . . the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.

Myth #5: The registry protects women in violent domestic situations.
Registered long guns were used in (all) homicide only twice in 2003 (Public Security Ministry website), and a total of 9 times from 1997-2004 (Library of Parliament). The registry of 7,000,000 firearms did not prevent these deaths. Given the extraordinarily low rate of misuse of some 7,000,000 registered firearms, it is unreasonable to believe that maintaining a registry of long guns could have any effect on spousal homicide rates. Moreover, the vast majority of violent domestic assaults are preceded by a lengthy, police recorded history, effectively denying abusers a firearms license. This should address their access to legally acquired guns.

On an average day, women’s shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere due to lack of funding. Clearly, there are better uses for the money than registering duck guns.

Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible in storing their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners

Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84% of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% of crime firearms originate in Canada. That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers are removed.
Myth #7: The information on the registry database is secure and cannot be accessed by the criminal element.
There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a “shopping list” for thieves.

Myth #8: The money has already been spent to set up the registry. It is foolish to dismantle it now.
The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still don’t have a firearms licence, more than 400,000 firearm licence holders still haven’t registered a gun and more than 300,000 owners of a registered handgun still have to re-register 548,254 handguns ( Canadian Firearms Registry). Based upon precedent, it will cost another billion dollars to complete the registry.

Myth #9: Rifles and shotguns are the weapon of choice for criminals and are the most used firearms in crime.
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, 71.2% involved handguns (but it is estimated that over 1/3 involve replicas or air guns), only 9% involved rifles or shotguns (of which 2.1% were registered) and 6.5% involved sawed off rifles or shotguns (already prohibited).

Myth #10: The tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry.
The registry’s monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores the folly of registering the firearms of the law abiding. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of firearm, despite the presence of the registry. These events prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.
RubberDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RubberDuck For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 03:43 PM   #106
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers View Post
That is why handguns have been banned in Canada since 1934, with the exception of collectors.
Case in point.

Exhibit A. Canadian Citizen who does not know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to gun laws.

Handguns aren't 'banned'.....if you have a restricted license, and you're a member of a proper gun range, you can buy all the handguns you want. There are laws for carrying, transportation, storage, etc, etc....but by no means are they banned.

Thanks for proving my point though.

Those that are so passionately argue about gun laws don't even understand the laws in their own country. How sad is that?
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:45 PM   #107
Gozer
Not the one...
 
Gozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Those that are so passionately argue about gun laws don't even understand the laws in their own country. How sad is that?
I don't think that's sad at all.

I'm rather proud that guns aren't really an issue in Canada.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Gozer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 03:49 PM   #108
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer View Post
I don't think that's sad at all.

I'm rather proud that guns aren't really an issue in Canada.
Its not sad that we're not educated about certain laws in our own country?

There are almost 8 million firearms in Canada, surely that means it should be an issue, right?

I mean, if all guns are for is to kill people....
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
bcb
Old 08-18-2009, 03:50 PM   #109
Jordan!
Jordan!
 
Jordan!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chandler, AZ
Exp:
Default

I'd buy an AR-15 for the fun of owning one to take to a gun range, for hobby purposes... and in the event of a zombie outbreak.

My thing with guns here is that, there aren't enough restrictions to keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible, and insane.

There needs to be manditory training courses imo.

In AZ, I can get a handgun and wear it on a holster here, like the old west, haha. it's almost like controlled chaos. It seems to work just fine. There's not much road rage here because anyone and everyone could have a gun in their car. BTW, I've yet to see anyone actually wearing a holstered weapon here, its frowned upon.. and you do need a concealed weapon permit if you aren't showing it.

It's not that big of a deal, if you live here.

Last edited by Jordan!; 08-18-2009 at 03:53 PM.
Jordan! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jordan! For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 03:55 PM   #110
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow View Post
I'd buy an AR-15 for the fun of owning one to take to a gun range, for hobby purposes... and in the event of a zombie outbreak.

My thing with guns here is that, there aren't enough restrictions to keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible, and insane.

There needs to be manditory training courses imo.
I absolutely agree 150%.

Far as I'm concerned, just because the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own a gun, it doesn't mean that it should be so frickin' easy to buy one.

While it isn't mandatory in Canada, there are courses offered that help you with obtaining a PAL license. That course should be mandatory.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 04:14 PM   #111
Antithesis
Disenfranchised
 
Antithesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck View Post
No......but get this, irresponsible/careless users cause the accidents.......
Gun used for its purpose = harm
Gun used improperly = harm

Automobile used for its purpose = transportation
Automobile used improperly = harm

There! See the difference? This is why your argument is stupid.

Last edited by Antithesis; 08-18-2009 at 04:17 PM.
Antithesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 04:29 PM   #112
mikey_the_redneck
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lethbridge
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
Gun used for its purpose = harm to who? the animals and clay pigeons?
Gun used improperly = harm

Automobile used for its purpose = transportation
Automobile used improperly = harm

There! See the difference? This is why your argument is stupid.
Fixed.
mikey_the_redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 04:30 PM   #113
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
Gun used for its purpose = harm
Target shooting causes harm?
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 04:34 PM   #114
Zarathustra
Scoring Winger
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

You have to be delusional to think that guns are designed to shoot targets.

If you love shooting targets so much, buy a paintball gun. The colours of the paint also looks cool!
Zarathustra is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zarathustra For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 04:50 PM   #115
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Oh, so you can't admit that what the majority of civilians use guns for, target shooting and hunting....is not intended to cause harm to other people.

This is exactly why these gun threads go the same router every single damn time. People, probably those that have never owned a gun in their lives just love to bitch and complain about how dangerous guns are without admitting to the fact that alcohol kills more people every year than guns do. Or that more people die every year from obesity.

So, what is more dangerous? Guns, or alcohol/unhealthy foods? The evidence is quite clear.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2009, 04:57 PM   #116
Antithesis
Disenfranchised
 
Antithesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Target shooting causes harm?
Are you and Azure seriously trying to claim that the main purpose of a gun is to shoot targets? Come on. You're a smart guy, Azure, I normally enjoy your takes even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but this is absurd.

Let's go through a non-exhaustive list of intended purposes for both cars and firearms.

Firearms:

Shooting targets (I even put it first for you and mikey)
Self-defense
Harming people
Hunting
To intimidate

Automobiles:

Transportation
Status symbol

This is the difference, and I can't believe you can't see it. Even if you could argue that the main purpose of a firearm is target practice (which it is not) and not to shoot at people, the fact remains that absolutely nowhere on the list of intended uses of an automobile is something that causes harm to others.

How can you even compare banning guns to banning automobiles? It's absurd.
Antithesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 05:01 PM   #117
Gozer
Not the one...
 
Gozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
the fact remains that absolutely nowhere on the list of intended uses of an automobile is something that causes harm to others.
A two-ton object that can travel faster than anything in nature controlled by most members of society is inherently dangerous.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Gozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 05:01 PM   #118
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

I never said that they were comparable.

Besides, intended uses and what most people actually use them for is vastly different.

I'm sure almost 98% of law-abiding civilians use their guns for hunting/target shooting. In other words, 98% of the population isn't out there intending to shoot people with their guns.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 05:08 PM   #119
Antithesis
Disenfranchised
 
Antithesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Exp:
Default

And all I'm arguing (really) is mikey's ridiculous argument surrounding banning guns and banning automobiles.

Realistically, guns (to this point) have affected my life very little, and I seriously doubt they ever will, so I really don't care about guns.
Antithesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 05:10 PM   #120
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
And all I'm arguing (really) is mikey's ridiculous argument surrounding banning guns and banning automobiles.

Realistically, guns (to this point) have affected my life very little, and I seriously doubt they ever will, so I really don't care about guns.
Thats the thing. Guns, for the most part don't affect 90% of the population. Even those that own them are not affected by that in a negative way.

As for those people that use guns to kill other people, a VERY small percentage of those guns are stolen from law-abiding citizens, and the rest come from the black-market, which just in case anyone noticed, there is no way you can get rid of those firearms.

Its like the stupid war on drugs. Has cost billions of dollars, and people can still buy coke on the street corner in Detroit.

So what point would there be in banning guns?
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy