Canadian Handgunners

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Piggy:
In response to Stray Dog, I always love it how Canadians, desperate to convince themselves that they don't live in an opressive socialist state, become apologists for the government like good little citizens.[/quote]

Okay...Canada happens to be just about the most peaceful, democratic country on the planet, but whatever. I've touched neither apologetics nor jingoism in my comments, but say what you like.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Piggy:
Your argument about people pulling out guns because someone cut them off is the typical argument I hear from Canadians (and American anti-gunners)...its getting old already. Here in TX, there are guns EVERYWHERE..and very little, if any, records are kept, particularily when firearms have been circulated through the private market. Yet people are NOT shooting eachother on a daily basis because of traffic incidents as you suggest should be the case...[/quote]

Read carefully. You may find it insulting that i've suggested that Texans shoot each other out of road rage, but i've done nothing of the sort. What i DID say was that there would be nothing to prevent a person from doing so and gettin away scot-free. Furthermore, i was in fact talking about a hypothetical lunatic, not someone raised with "the moral teachings of my youth...thats nuts and nothing but propaganda you've been fed by CTV, Macleans magazine etc." I don't actually read Macleans, by the way. The only issue i looked through was about universities, not what would seem to be common sense about gun laws over here.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Piggy:
Also, your statement that guns are not available in Canada is proposterous. Where do you live? Vancouver? Toronto? Montreal?[/quote]

You seem to be reading roughly every other word i write...what i have said in previous posts is:

a) that i live in Toronto...no need to guess.
b) that it is *difficult* to obtain a gun in Canada, far from impossible.
c) references to criminals having difficulty finding guns to steal were made because gun ownership is uncommon in Canada, not because it's illegal to own a gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Piggy:The reality is that the Canadian government is well aware that the people are becoming weary of high unemployment, high taxes, poor medical care, and lack of opportunity. Guns in peoples hands in the current sociopolitical climate in Canada, is a threat to the Liberal party who would erect Cretien as King if they had their way.[/quote]

Ok, it's Chrétien, for starters. We're not actually living in a monarchy over here (it's possible that you were being facetious, but given how seriously you've taken everything else i've said, as well as a host of things that i haven't, i don't know if tongue-in-cheek is a part of your dictionary).

Yes, there are unemployed people in this country. Sure, taxes are high compared to the normal US rates. Granted, Canadians take issues with their health-care system (which is still far superior to the American one...here medicare is FREE for one thing).

I find it more than a little unlikely that the government of Canada expects a revolt of some kind, and is doing their best to surpress an insurrection by robbing Canadians of rights to guns. You haven't explicitly said that this is the motive for my government's actions, but i don't see any other scenario in which gun ownership would present a threat to the government...unless were we going to use them to rig the vote? I can think of interesting ways to spoil a ballot, in pretty 1-inch groups from 15 metres.

-Stray
is somewhat confused by what you have to say, but has the feeling that it's probably because you don't really know what you're typing.


[This message has been edited by StrayDog (edited June 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by StrayDog (edited June 17, 2000).]
 
O, and if smart guns suck, thanx for the info. I had no idea, that's why i was asking.

If there were a version that were built such that the smart mechanism would be impossible to deactivate without making the gun useless, would this still be a bad innovation?

And does anybody out there own a CZ75 with the original, short slide rails? If so, could you send me a pic?

-Stray
likes guns, or why would he be here.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy B. Meredith:
Straydog,

Registration does NOTHING to make it more difficult for your psycho to obtain a gun. It does NOTHING to make it easier to identify the gun or the individual unless the psycho is also crazy enough to turn the crime weapon over to the police. Duh.

[/quote]

I disagree. If the legal procedure for obtaining a gun involves signing your name to own it, it forces a criminal who wishes to obtain a gun for the purposes of using it in a crime to do so illegally (unless he wants to leave his name attached to a hot piece). This may not be difficult for a good criminal, but it is definitely harder than stopping by Wal-Mart to pick up a couple USPs before you head over to the bank across the street for a quick 'withdrawal'.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Nor does registration do anything to cause individuals to be more responsible in preventing accidents.[/quote]

Um, yeah, i already admitted that actually.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Narrow selections of crime reports can be taken from any number of countries to support or deny a relationship between gun ownership and crime. Some countries with less guns have a higher crime rate than the US. Are they to be congratulated because their murder, rape and robbery is supported by use of knives or clubs rather than guns?[/quote]

Yes, they are. I'll tell you why in a second, let me grab your next argument...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A total ban on guns would mean we would need to begin going to the local high school campus to get guns. That is where people currently obtain their banned drugs...

In short, registration does little or nothing to assist in prevention of crime or prevention of accidents. There is no purpose in saddling responsible people with nonfunctional laws.
[/quote]

Ok, so the premise is that if the laws do little to prevent abuse of the system, we may as well discard the law. Following this logic, in the case of your high-school druglords, since the drugs are readily available to the public it no longer makes sense to make those drugs illegal, since the existing laws are 'non-functional'. We may as well legalize heroin - no, actually we may as well ignore it entirely, and govern it with less care than cigarettes. After all, "there is no point saddling responsible people" with these laws...they now well enough on their own not to do crack, or start selling it themselves. No reason to monitor the drugs.

Why are those countries to be congratulated? Because they've realized that ignoring a problem because it's difficult or impossible to solve is not a viable course of action. Perhaps there are more crimes of a non-life sentence worthy nature, but i would be very impressed if a country that outlawed guns had a higher murder rate than the US.

I make *NO CLAIMS* (stress here) that the existing gun laws in Canada are perfect, or even satisfactory...however, much like the two cheers for democracy argument, there is no better, available alternative...YET.

-Stray
gets the vibe that you have thought out your statement pretty well, and appreciates the effort. Please let me know if i've messed up anything in mine.

[This message has been edited by StrayDog (edited June 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by StrayDog (edited June 17, 2000).]
 
Sheesh, this is about the third "Gun Control in Canada" flamefest I've seen this month.

Different cultures, different histories, yet we keep trying to make meaningful comparisons.

It's simple -- the United States was born out of a bloody armed revolt. By the time it was said and done, the former-colonists didn't want much to do with England anymore. They even went so far as to change the spellings of words in the language (colour vs. color) to distinguish their language.

Furthermore, they wanted the citizens to remained armed. They added a Bill of Rights to their Constitution spelling out the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Like it or not, firearms ownership is an American tradition.

None of this has a whole lot to do with Canada, does it? That's my point.

Canadian culture still remains aware of its French and English origins. There is a desire to maintain the refinement and civility inherited from these cultures. It seems that Canadians are also pretty tired of their loud neighbor to the south and want to distinguish themselves as the "civilized" nation in North America.

It's the cultures, folks. The gun laws are just a by-product.


------------------
Warning: the above statements may be entirely content-free
 
Thank you elmo... that was said to perfection.

Lets close he chest beating now and get back to shooting.... man my Glock 17 groups like a charm. 2.5" groups at 25 yards, first time I ever shot it. sweet pistol.

------------------
PROUD TO BE CANADIAN
 
Elmo did hit the nail on the head. Different cultures are difficult, if not impossible, to compare.

It is also very difficult for anyone who has not been born, raised, and properly educated here to understand the term "Inalienable Rights" as stated in our constitution. Educated citizens of the US understand that these rights cannot be abridged by anyone, especially our government, as they are "God given rights". No other constitution in the world recognizes or includes this very important difference. "Rights" in any other country are bestowed upon their citizens by their government which can easily modify them or deny them at will. The United States government, on the other hand, is supposed to be under OUR control, not the other way around.

Our forefathers RELUCTANTLY CREATED a government out of necessity to bind the states together for a number of reasons, the most important of which was for self-preservation. During the past 200 years, however, many of the initial purposes of the government have been expanded to where they are today and the citizens are very concerned about it. The Government has become too invasive, controlling, and burdensome. This is why, during very distinctive times in our history, you'll find big swings from very liberal to very conservative representation: like right now.

Unfettered gun ownership, in itself, is important but more importantly represents those "Inalienable Rights" just like the First Amendment: the freedom of speech. While gun owners here in the States fight for the second amendment, they are also fighting for all of the other amendments, too. Registration, for instance, can be debated by intelligent people as good or bad. In the context of our Constitution, however, registration represents yet another encumbrance against the 2nd amendment just as any type of censorship would represent an encumbrance of the 1st amendment of free speech.

I know this is long winded but to discuss the firearm issue in any other light is fruitless and non-productive. Any other argument ignores the very core issue of God given "Inalienable Rights". I hope this helps clarify to our Canadian brothers why we in the US feel so strongly about the ownership of our firearms. It isn’t about barrel length, self-defense, or any other superfluous point. It goes well beyond the firearms issue: it is actually the preservation of our culture as recognized by our Founding Fathers. God help us if we do not teach our children about this.

Rome
 
Well this argum .. er, thread is now well over 100K so it's time for part 2. But if there is a part 2 it should be in either General Discussion or Legal and Political not in the Handgun forum...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top