This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.
Rabid describes the NRA and similar pro-gun people, not people who support gun control. How many threads on here (this one for instance) are started by gun control supporters compared to the pro-gun people? Go ahead and count them...I'll wait for an answer.
I'll grant that there are some pro-gun wing nuts, but all you need to do is puruse some anti-gun websites to find that there are equally rabid parites on that side of the fence. The key difference is that the media doesn't paint them in such an unflattering light.
The media is notably absent from this whole debate so I don't know where you get that last statement from. On every issue there are extremes, and pointing fingers at them as if they represented the entire side of the debate is not helpful to constructive dialogue. For instance, yfly is a gun advocate and yet supports the registration because he doesn't feel threatened by it. In fact he welcomes it as a means of making gun owners more responsible and accountable. I don't happen to own any guns, but given what I did in my early years anybody accusing me of fearing guns or being ignorant of weapons, which most of you do, is laughably out to lunch. I don't care if you have a gun in the house, but registering it make you responsible for it which I view as a pretty good idea.
I also greatly support gun control because there are far too many yahoos, dirty harry wannabe's and people who truly don't understand weapons out there. If you were all like yfly it probably wouldn't be an issue, but you're not.
Dex wrote:
ROFLMAO!!!!! So, you get your guns taken away from the regulator and you want me to register your guns in my name for your use and to store at your place? At any rate your example shows that now John Doe is responsible for that "legal" firearm and the regulator has a record of this.
It was a theoretical worst case example. Things would never ever be taken that far. But it just goes to show how weak the registry is.
Just keeps getting better Your using a "theoretical worst case example" which "would never ever be taken that far" to show us just "how weak the registry is"?!!
Dex wrote:
ROFLMAO!!!!! So, you get your guns taken away from the regulator and you want me to register your guns in my name for your use and to store at your place? At any rate your example shows that now John Doe is responsible for that "legal" firearm and the regulator has a record of this.
It was a theoretical worst case example. Things would never ever be taken that far. But it just goes to show how weak the registry is.
Just keeps getting better Your using a "theoretical worst case example" which "would never ever be taken that far" to show us just "how weak the registry is"?!!
Dex argument?
Do you take pleasure in acting like a dick on the internet?
Rockie wrote:
The media is notably absent from this whole debate so I don't know where you get that last statement from. On every issue there are extremes, and pointing fingers at them as if they represented the entire side of the debate is not helpful to constructive dialogue. For instance, yfly is a gun advocate and yet supports the registration because he doesn't feel threatened by it. In fact he welcomes it as a means of making gun owners more responsible and accountable. I don't happen to own any guns, but given what I did in my early years anybody accusing me of fearing guns or being ignorant of weapons, which most of you do, is laughably out to lunch. I don't care if you have a gun in the house, but registering it make you responsible for it which I view as a pretty good idea.
I also greatly support gun control because there are far too many yahoos, dirty harry wannabe's and people who truly don't understand weapons out there. If you were all like yfly it probably wouldn't be an issue, but you're not.
Rocky:
I have a lot of respect for you, and enjoy reading your posts. But to speak candidly, all I'm seeing right now is, "Registry good, me safe." over and over.
I also greatly support gun control, which the registry is not a part of.
So here is my argument against:
The gun registry is the honor system, there is no enforcement or oversight.
It does not prevent unlawful use of firearms.
It does not control who owns firearms.
It does not restrict transportation or storage of firearms.
I'm hard pressed to find anything positive it does do.
Can we have a reasonable argument for? I'm really looking for something from the other side.
I dislike hypotheticals because anything can be made up. But if you would like an example where the registry would be useful here's one for you.
Your gun is stolen from your house and is subsequently used in a crime and recovered. Knowing where that gun comes from can produce all kinds of useful information such as where a particular gang may be operating, as well as linking it to other crimes that could be occurring in other places. Guns have histories which is often useful in solving crimes, but without a registry there isn't much of a history.
Another benefit to the registry is the fact that you are the documented person responsible for that weapon. Having someone on file as responsible for a weapon can never be a bad thing in my book because untracable guns are bad - tracable guns are better.
This is a weapon, why would anybody have a problem with registering it?
Rockie wrote:
Your gun is stolen from your house and is subsequently used in a crime and recovered. Knowing where that gun comes from can produce all kinds of useful information such as where a particular gang may be operating, as well as linking it to other crimes that could be occurring in other places. Guns have histories which is often useful in solving crimes, but without a registry there isn't much of a history.
This is a good point. Thanks, it's good to hear a voice of reason from the other side.
Topspin wrote:
It was a theoretical worst case example. Things would never ever be taken that far. But it just goes to show how weak the registry is.
Just keeps getting better Your using a "theoretical worst case example" which "would never ever be taken that far" to show us just "how weak the registry is"?!!
Dex argument?
..........
Do you take pleasure in acting like a dick on the internet?
Auuu, Im sorry if I hurt your feelings on the internet, I thought you were on a bout of Socratic Irony!!!
Rockie wrote:
Another benefit to the registry is the fact that you are the documented person responsible for that weapon. Having someone on file as responsible for a weapon can never be a bad thing in my book because untracable guns are bad - tracable guns are better.
When the cost of the registry is high enough to draw significant funds away from other law enforcement initiatives, and does nothing to prevent crime, then I don't see how it can be a good thing.
This is a weapon, why would anybody have a problem with registering it?
Because there are far more cost-effective means of preventing the illegal use or possesion of firearms than by registering them. By using a system that isn't cost-effective, you draw resources away from systems that are. I think a thousand cops running gang taskforces in each major city would reap more rewards than trying to register every gun in the hopes of having criminals comply with the law. Strict controls on the sale of ammunition not used in hunting rifles and shotguns would be a good idea too, or at least a better one than the long gun registry.
---------- ADS -----------
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
if you want to make a meaningful difference to the world, instead of blaming the tool, blame the person using it. Rockie, with your mentality, there'd be a registry for just about anything: kitchen knives, cars, trucks, baseball bats, golf clubs, slingshots, nail guns, etc... where would it end?
A real fix would be a violent offender registry, sexual predator registry, gang member registry, etc. Get the criminals behind bars and let them rot.
Would a knife registry prevent an innocent man from being beheaded on a bus? I'll answer for you, 'no'. But having a crazy man properly diagnosed and treated and/or behind bars would have prevented it. People kill people, get it in your head already.
Anyone who's ever lived up north or in a rural area knows that there's dangerous things all around you, and a gun is no more dangerous than grandpa's tractor, or dad's pickup truck, or the river at the edge of the property.
Well, I just bought a hammer, I'm off to register it!
Yes, proof of the effectiveness of our resident bureaucrats is their continued issuing of registration certificates for glue guns & hair dryers. They are certainly earning their hard earned bucks.
Rockie wrote:The media is notably absent from this whole debate so I don't know where you get that last statement from.
We were talking about the application of the term 'rabid' to some anti-gun proponents, you (correctly) pointed out that the term could be applied to some pro-gun individuals, I (correctly) pointed out that the other side of the fence has individuals of the same disposition but the media tends not to focus on them. Point being; there are some unreasonable people on both sides.
I don't think the majority of gun owners would be opposed to the registry if there was some solid assurance that it wouldn't be taken any farther (ie all the way to a ban). Sadly, this is not the case.
The anti-gun lobby has some really crappy facets. The worst of these are the opportunistic politicians. They are trying to gain votes by selling the public cop-out solutions that don't address the key problems. Banning guns, or controlling them more tightly than they already are, won't solve the problem. The type of guy using a gun for a crime right now didn't bother to obtain it legally, nor will he turn it in if guns are banned. (Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that losening gun laws would solve this problem....I'm saying that the gun laws as they stand now are just about right). If you want to reduce crime then focus on ways to discourage people for commiting crime (I won't open the debate on how to do that, but some combination of education/welfare/decapitation should work).
The problem with addressing the really problem is that it is expensive and complex, which means that it is hard to sell to the public and makes for poor sound bites during an election. It's much easier to rally the proles behind a cry of; "Guns bad, Jack ban!".
---------- ADS -----------
____________________________________
I'm just two girls short of a threesome.
Jastapilot wrote:if you want to make a meaningful difference to the world, instead of blaming the tool, blame the person using it. Rockie, with your mentality, there'd be a registry for just about anything: kitchen knives, cars, trucks, baseball bats, golf clubs, slingshots, nail guns, etc... where would it end?
A real fix would be a violent offender registry, sexual predator registry, gang member registry, etc. Get the criminals behind bars and let them rot.
Would a knife registry prevent an innocent man from being beheaded on a bus? I'll answer for you, 'no'. But having a crazy man properly diagnosed and treated and/or behind bars would have prevented it. People kill people, get it in your head already.
Anyone who's ever lived up north or in a rural area knows that there's dangerous things all around you, and a gun is no more dangerous than grandpa's tractor, or dad's pickup truck, or the river at the edge of the property.
Well, I just bought a hammer, I'm off to register it!
Love your suggestion of registering offenders. But once again I feel frustratingly compelled to explain the difference between a hammer, creditcard, car, tractor, nailgun, baseball bat etc, and a gun.
All of the things you've suggested that can be used as a weapon were designed to do something else. I'll leave it to your own smarts to figure out what that is. A gun on the other hand is designed and built to fire a bullet, which in turn is designed and built to penetrate and kill a living creature of some kind. That is a purposely built weapon. Please do not insult anyone's intelligence (including your own) by putting them in the same category as a farm tractor.
The gun registry makes Rockie feel good, ergo bingo, it doesn't matter how annoying it is, how cost effective or even whether or not anyone has ever benefitted from it; if Rockie feels good, logic and reason and cost are immaterial.
This message brought to you by Your Government, doing stupid things at great expense, just for Rockie.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Police reported 594 homicides, down slightly from 606 in 2006. The homicide rate fell for the second year in a row, continuing a long-term decline that began in the mid-1970s." Stats Canada, 2007.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
All causes 215,669
Cancers 58,703
Diseases of the heart 57,417
Cerebrovascular diseases 16,051
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and allied conditions 9,618
Unintentional injuries 8,626
Pneumonia and influenza 8,033
Diabetes mellitus 5,699
Hereditary and degenerative diseases of the central nervous system 5,049
Diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries 4,767
Psychoses 4,645
Suicide 3,681
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 2,654
Chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis 2,030
Neurotic disorders, personality disorders and other nonpsychotic mental disorders 1,163
HIV infection 626
Notice that Rockie's disorder, the second from the bottom, is about 3X the rate for homicide.
Note also that homicide as a cause is not even considered material in Stats Canada's analysis? Interestingly, the rate for HIV deaths is now down to the murder rate.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
xsbank wrote:The gun registry makes Rockie feel good, ergo bingo, it doesn't matter how annoying it is, how cost effective or even whether or not anyone has ever benefitted from it; if Rockie feels good, logic and reason and cost are immaterial.
This message brought to you by Your Government, doing stupid things at great expense, just for Rockie.
Before you attribute things to me xsbank you should take the time to read the things I've actually written. You might then realize how ridiculous this sounds.
"Over the 1990s traffic fatalities decreased but suicides were on the rise. Since 1992, the number of suicides has been greater than the number of road fatalities. In 2003 there were 26 per cent more suicides than traffic deaths.
According to Statistics Canada 3,765 suicides were reported in 2003, compared with 2,766 traffic fatalities that same year. In 1991, there were 3,593 reported suicides, compared with 3,690 traffic fatalities.
Alarming as these statistics are, they may be low. This is because it is impossible to know exactly how many deaths in single-vehicle crashes, railway trespassing incidents and other 'accidents' are intentional.
In Canada, suicide is the leading cause of death for men aged 25 to 29 and 40 to 44, and for women aged 30 to 34. It is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 15 to 24. For each completed suicide there are 100 attempts, and over 23,000 Canadians are hospitalized each year for a suicide attempt.
Prevention Strategies
Suicides are not sudden and unpredictable. They are rarely the result of a single painful experience or loss. About 80 per cent of victims give signals that they are suicidal before taking their own life, although few make a direct plea for help.
Mental health conditions, sometimes very well-hidden, are usually a factor. Over 90 per cent of suicide victims have a psychiatric illness, most often depression, at the time of their death, in many cases undiagnosed, untreated or both. One in 10 people living with schizophrenia dies by suicide.
The mental health community must be at the front lines to address the causes of suicide through treatment, public education, and strategies to help at-risk individuals. In addition, safety measures and policies play an important role.
The proportion of completed suicides is highest with a firearm (92 per cent). A home where there are firearms is five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide than a home without a gun. Reducing access to guns results in fewer suicides.
The highest incidence of self-inflicted poisoning is among women in their 20s to 40s who use tranquillizers, analgesics, anti-depressants and other psychotropic medications. Physicians and pharmacists must keep a close eye on such prescriptions.
The combination of mood disorders and substance abuse greatly heightens the risk of suicide. This reinforces the need for preventive policies with respect to alcohol, illegal drugs and prescription medications.
Another suicide method has been to inhale vehicle exhaust, which is high in carbon monoxide (CO). The levels of CO coming from the tailpipes of new vehicles are now so low it would be very hard for them to cause poisoning.
The media have a powerful influence. They can educate the public about suicide - or they can provoke copycat suicides. If a suicide is covered, reporting must be responsible and sensitive.
Guns in the Home
Nearly 80 per cent of all firearms deaths in Canada are suicides, compared to 15 per cent of homicides. A firearm is the method used in nearly 20 per cent of all suicide fatalities. Some say that in the absence of a firearm, a suicidal person will seek out another method, but research indicates that is not so.
A Quebec study by the Centre de prévention du suicide 02 examined whether suicide rates were related to gun ownership rates. It found that where hunting for sport is common and firearms are more readily available, the firearm suicide rate is higher than in urban areas. Moreover, as the firearm related suicide rate increased, so did the overall death rate by suicide. The researchers concluded that if a suicidal person does not have access to a firearm, there is no evidence that another method will be used, at least not one as lethal as a firearm."
So firearms are the preferred method for suicide - not having firearms in the home results in fewer suicides. I can see how effective the gun registry has been in preventing suicides - the rate is rising and it is higher than vehicle accidents.
HOWEVER, 20% of suicides use guns - if all the guns were to disappear, and we assume that all of those 20% of potential suicides didn't try another method, then 3765 X 0.8 = 3012 suicides that would be committed without a gun or a savings of about 750 people.
Good value for 2 billion, eh? Oh wait, the gun registry has not made any changes to any of the above rates!
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by xsbank on Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
xsbank wrote:All causes 215,669
Cancers 58,703
Diseases of the heart 57,417
Cerebrovascular diseases 16,051
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and allied conditions 9,618
Unintentional injuries 8,626
Pneumonia and influenza 8,033
Diabetes mellitus 5,699
Hereditary and degenerative diseases of the central nervous system 5,049
Diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries 4,767
Psychoses 4,645
Suicide 3,681
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 2,654
Chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis 2,030
Neurotic disorders, personality disorders and other nonpsychotic mental disorders 1,163
HIV infection 626
Notice that Rockie's disorder, the second from the bottom, is about 3X the rate for homicide.
Note also that homicide as a cause is not even considered material in Stats Canada's analysis? Interestingly, the rate for HIV deaths is now down to the murder rate.
And it is this kind of logic that really states the case for gun control and registration. Some people just do not understand what a weapon is.
Rockie, some of the stuff you write is readable, I've even been known to agree with you on some things, but when you talk about the gun registry, you are totally and completely out to lunch.
There is no benefit to the gun registry except in your mind. You are a total victim of the media and you are completely closed-minded as far as this topic goes which is why I get so passionately annoyed that someone as smart as you cannot see how we are being taken for a ride here.
Yes, if there is a gun in my house (there isn't, by the way) I am more likely to shoot myself with it, the same way I am more likely to hit my thumb with a hammer, if I owned one (I don't).
Otherwise, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the ability to retire on your lottery winnings (that's another topic that incenses me, government involvement in gaming - another time) if you believe all the scare-mongering associated with guns.
Please read my published statistics, they are all readily available on Google, and they all prove without a doubt that guns just aren't a problem in Canada and they never have been.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
xsbank wrote:Rockie, some of the stuff you write is readable, I've even been known to agree with you on some things, but when you talk about the gun registry, you are totally and completely out to lunch.
There is no benefit to the gun registry except in your mind. You are a total victim of the media and you are completely closed-minded as far as this topic goes which is why I get so passionately annoyed that someone as smart as you cannot see how we are being taken for a ride here.
Yes, if there is a gun in my house (there isn't, by the way) I am more likely to shoot myself with it, the same way I am more likely to hit my thumb with a hammer, if I owned one (I don't).
Otherwise, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the ability to retire on your lottery winnings (that's another topic that incenses me, government involvement in gaming - another time) if you believe all the scare-mongering associated with guns.
Please read my published statistics, they are all readily available on Google, and they all prove without a doubt that guns just aren't a problem in Canada and they never have been.
Do you honestly think I am influenced by scaremongering when it comes to guns? I have my own background to draw from thank you very much. It's safe to say I've recieved very expensive training and been qualified on an array of weapons for more extensive, sophisticated and destructive than the majority of people on this forum including you. In the years since then I've been able to think about weapons from a philosophical point of view rather than simply a tactical point of view. I form my own opinions. Don't preach to me or pretend you know more than me.
Narrow interpretation of statistics or quotes from some of the articles you post on here show a small sliver of the issue that can easily be massaged to anyone's position. Try and take a broader view like society does.
Jastapilot wrote:if you want to make a meaningful difference to the world, instead of blaming the tool, blame the person using it. Rockie, with your mentality, there'd be a registry for just about anything: kitchen knives, cars, trucks, baseball bats, golf clubs, slingshots, nail guns, etc... where would it end?
A real fix would be a violent offender registry, sexual predator registry, gang member registry, etc. Get the criminals behind bars and let them rot.
Would a knife registry prevent an innocent man from being beheaded on a bus? I'll answer for you, 'no'. But having a crazy man properly diagnosed and treated and/or behind bars would have prevented it. People kill people, get it in your head already.
Anyone who's ever lived up north or in a rural area knows that there's dangerous things all around you, and a gun is no more dangerous than grandpa's tractor, or dad's pickup truck, or the river at the edge of the property.
Well, I just bought a hammer, I'm off to register it!
Love your suggestion of registering offenders. But once again I feel frustratingly compelled to explain the difference between a hammer, creditcard, car, tractor, nailgun, baseball bat etc, and a gun.
All of the things you've suggested that can be used as a weapon were designed to do something else. I'll leave it to your own smarts to figure out what that is. A gun on the other hand is designed and built to fire a bullet, which in turn is designed and built to penetrate and kill a living creature of some kind. That is a purposely built weapon. Please do not insult anyone's intelligence (including your own) by putting them in the same category as a farm tractor.
By that exact logic: A butcher knife is designed to slice through skin and remove tissue, many of them are designed to behead (Kill). So should we have a dangerous butcher knife registry in addition to our glue gun registry?
Also baseball bats, automobiles and drugs kill far more people every year in Canada than guns. At what point to we draw the line between danger & perceived danger?
xsbank wrote:
There is no benefit to the gun registry except in your mind. You are a total victim of the media and you are completely closed-minded as far as this topic goes which is why I get so passionately annoyed that someone as smart as you cannot see how we are being taken for a ride here.
He made a good argument about a perceived benefit.
If your house is broken into, the theft of the firearm can link evidence to a conviction. So if the cops manage to find the evidence, and recommend to a crown that actually decides to press charges, and the defendant doesn't cop a plea, and the crown actually gets a conviction, and the judge sentences more than 30 days out after 2/3's, 3 weeks.....then we have an increase to the safety of society.
So their is a capability for doing some good there. But IMHO it's like being on step 762 when we haven't yet passed step 3.
