Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

Err.... if you'd read my post properly, you would have seen the phrase you quoted was in a section summarizing my opponents arguments, not my own. Better luck next time.

 

Oh, and for completeness. No you didn't - you just deliberately misinterpreted what I said as and when it suited. Having failed to address the core of my argument at all you then insisted on substituting the word 'all' when referencing my arguments in place of the word I actually used i.e. 'some'. Poor debating form old chap.

 

It is not a matter of how mass killings can still occur in hypothetical terms. Rather it is a matter of confirmation that mass killings are still occurring in terms of confirmed fact. It has been proven through these actions that both the desire to kill as many people as possible, and the willingness to engage in such, are both still present and have not been hampered.

Outside the matter of domestic violence, which is already illegal, none of the aforementioned other causes of death are the result of deliberate criminal actions committed against others, nor are addressed with the proposal of drastic prohibitions or confiscations of private property in the desperate hope it will stop private individuals from acting against others.

Continually attempting failed endeavors in the desperate hope that, this time, something will be different, is not a solution. It is nothing more than being part of the problem, as it wastes finite resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.

To be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, one must recognize and address the basic fact for some problems there are simply no answers. Not simply no easy answers, but rather no answers whatsoever.

Correct. Firearms, their legal use, and their ownership by the public for whatever reason they wish, are constitutional rights held by the people, subjecting them to far greater standards of legal protections than anything else that may be brought up for comparison purposes.

Because such proposals are nothing more than a false sense of security that amount to nothing whatsoever. Have any of the such proposals served to stop a legal firearm owner from deciding to use their firearm in the commission of a crime once they have determined that they are actually willing to commit a firearm-related offense? Do storage mandates serve to prevent a firearms owner from taking their firearm out of its designated storage area for the purpose of murdering someone in a dispute? Is a licensed firearm incapable of being used in the commission of a murder? Have background checks served to prevent any mass shooter from acquiring the firearms they used in the commission of their killings?

Part of being the solution to a problem is recognizing failure for what it is, and not trying it in hopes that success can be had the next time around. And until such time the real problem is addressed, that is basic human nature itself, scapegoating the inanimate object will not do anything worthwhile.

Pray tell, why do some individuals choose to murder others? What makes them conclude that the life of another holds no value whatsoever, and leaves them feeling justified in ending said life? Can such be answered without attempting to bring an outside inanimate object in to blame for being available?

 

I'm sorry you do not like the fact you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim, but there's nothing I can do about that.

 

LMAO!
You referring to some other poster (me) as not reading a post properly. That's rich! Especially considering that my posts/replies are/were pretty much identical to what your "other opponents" have written, makes it even more laughable.
When I said...

...YOU retorted...

I already addressed that error on your part in another post. I can't help it if your level of understanding what others (Me, specifically, others in general) wrote is flawed.
Perhaps you should re-read what has been written and go back and correct your (several) mistakes. And THIS time, do try to keep the goalposts firmly planted where they were to begin with, M'kay?

Again, what a joke!
I interpreted what you wrote to a "T". YOU just can't understand that there are other means in my correct analogy of your posts. YOU substituted MY analogy with your own analogy because it suited you. And, by doing so, put what I wrote in a completely different form. In other words, I posted something that didn't suit you so you changed it to suit you and then argued that. I addressed the "all"-"some" problem you were having in some detail as well. I don't know if I can tell it in another way to make it even more clear than I already have. Well, I probably can. But after doing what I did in re-explaining it to you in a very over simplified and detailed way and you still didn't get it, why should I bother.
I can't help it if you fail to digest information properly.
Poor comprehension skills, old chap.

P.S. Referring back to the first post (#126) I quoted of you in this post...
If you stop looking at posters that you are discussing/debating with as "opponents" and look at them as more like people just out having a beer (or coffee or tea) and solving the world's problems, you might fare a bit better.

 

Look this debate is clearly going around in circles now. I've identified what I regard as valid statistical evidence (and related causative factors) that I believe support the position that the ban in Australia has been successful with regards to a specific type of weapon. You don't regard my 'evidence' as evidence and I don't regard your counter arguments as valid because I believe they fail to address the case I am actually arguing. You then say the same about me. And around we go.

So without resigning from my stated position I would like to address the last point you raised above because its one I've seen raised on this board before. To be absolutely clear my use of the word 'opponent' in this case does not mean I regard you as an enemy, that I wish you ill or that I don't look at you as 'more like people just out having a beer' etc.

When I use the word 'opponent' I am in fact using it strictly in the sense adopted during debates (which is what we are having) where it is used to describe someone who has adopted a position opposing my own. Within the context of this debate you are my opponent and I am your opponent. Importantly it has absolutely zero context outside of the debate. Your reference to 'people just out having a beer (or coffee or tea) and solving the world's problems' is one I am in complete agreement with and were we to have the opportunity meet face to face I would more than happy to sit down over a time appropriate beverage and 'chew the fat'. In fact, all things being equal I would look forward to it should I have the opportunity to visit the US or you Australia.

So unless you see a pressing need to continue can we move on to other threads? I simply don't see much chance of a resolution moving forwards, there are other threads and I'm assuming we both have limited time etc. Over to you.

 

My reply to above...
Insert any "I am the center of the universe" meme here.

I don't know why you're explaining so in depth what your use of the word "opponent" means to you. Maybe it's just conjecture or you're trying to put a veil over your attempt to put words in my mouth. Again.
Putting words in your "opponents" mouth seems to be a habit of yours. I have seen you change what your "opponent" has posted and then you argue/discuss that change because it's what YOU want to argue/discuss. Because it suits you.
I have already pointed out you doing that and addressed it in some detail in previous posts.

Were done. Here.

 

Nope. I use the use the term 'I' in the correct grammatical sense (subject pronoun) indicating ownership of the debating position in question. No ego involved, just good grammar. Unless of course its your view that someone disagreeing with you in a debate must be, by default egomaniacal? In which case perhaps you should consider just posting a photo of yourself in place of the meme you were suggesting.

I'm explaining because you were the one who brought the issue up i.e. - 'If you stop looking at posters that you are discussing/debating with as "opponents" and look at them as more like people just out having a beer (or coffee or tea) and solving the world's problems, you might fare a bit better.'

If you don't want me to respond why bring up this point in the first place? For the rest I have raised the exactly same accusation/arguments against you and as I noted we got nowhere so why the rehash?

Thankyou.

 

Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

I have never understood passing laws against inanimate objects. We should only pass laws against behavior.

 

Have you ever driven a car, piloted a plane, operated heavy machinery or even just had to take a prescription medicine? The list of 'inanimate' objects you can't use except under certain specific, legally defined circumstances is endless. Laws that prevent the use of a certain object outside of certain specific circumstances are a fact of life. And most of the time the reasons for doing this are obvious.

And most of those laws also address behavior. Because inanimate objects cant be driven, flown, operated or taken by themselves. The two issues are inexorably linked - action without object to enact is meaningless.

P.S. And no I didn't address the issue of firearms specifically but that was because you didn't either.

 

Are any of the above classified as being constitutional rights? If not then there is no comparison to be made.

 

Xenames, I didn't address constitutional rights for the simple reason that the original poster didn't do so either. Raise a specific issue and you'll get a specific answer (if I have one). Raise a broad, 'one size fits all' issue and you get a broad 'one size fits all' answer.

 

The licenses to operate machinery are for the operator, not the equipment. So is the ability to prescribe drugs. The drugs themselves are controlled by government just like guns. Unlike guns, none of them are even mentioned in the constitution. Government controls guns just like it controls drugs. See ATF and thousands of gun control laws.

 

Xenames,

Firstly you are re-framing your argument to fit your purpose. Secondly I wasn't entering into a debate about the US Constitution, I was answering the response of another poster. Its up to him if he wants to respond or not. But to clarify my point regardless of the fact I wasn't questioning the US Constitution. The original post expressed the viewpoint that he had 'never understood passing laws against inanimate objects'. All of the examples I raised addressed this issue.

 

All of which is fine but you never actually referenced the Constitution or firearms in your original post. I was addressing the arguments you raised in your original post, nothing more, nothing less.

 

My point was that it is senseless to pass laws banning inanimate objects. It makes sense to ban behaviors. You answered by listing things that didn't ban inanimate objects supposing that it addressed what I said. Banning guns is as senseless as banning lawn mowers. Banning behaviors involving a gun does make sense and we have that covered in spades. We have sensible laws governing the use of automobiles, drugs etc. Those laws ban behaviors, not the inanimate objects themselves. Perhaps that helps clear it up for you.

 

Firstly, I'm sure there are local law where you live (regarding noise complaints) governing when you can operate lawn mowers. That aside, yes you certainly do have have laws regarding behaviors around the use of firearms, as do all well regulated societies. And no, I wasn't proposing bans on guns in the US, just addressing your original point. However to be fair there are still weapons that US citizens are banned from owning. Its matter of degrees not absolutes. And of course it's open to US citizens of the US to decide (via Constitutional Amendment) how broad that list should be.

Personally? were I a Citizen of the US 'banning' firearms of a particular type would be fairly low down my list of priorities. Way below things like training, licensing and secure storage. But again its your country and therefore your choice.

P.S. FMW my apologies for confusing yourself and Xenames in an earlier post.

 

There is really no such as an heavy equipment operators license, I can call my account rep at Sunbelt and have any type of heavy equipment delivered here within a day and the only requirement they have is, did my credit clear.

Now a person can train and test for a operators certification, the purpose being it may be a requirement to he hired, and many states have licensing for utility/construction contracting, the reason for that is to ensure the company maintains the proper levels of contractors liability insurance and that it's employee's have the proper training to know about locates to avoid hitting buried utilities.

But an actual operators doesn't exist, heck out here I know of two teenage brothers who do land clearing and grading on the weekends and during summer vacation, neither of them is old enough to get a CDL, as such their father hauls their machines to and from job sites.

Since I don't know how to operate a track hoe, I have hired them to do some work out here on the farm and watching these guys work, it's clear they know what they are doing, not shoddy at all for two guys who are 15 and 17 years old.

Their father told me their goal is to graduate from High School and then gradually take over his his utility company so he can eventually retire and sell the company to them while keeping it in the family for yet another generation.

 

O.K. I'll bite...

Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

"I have never understood passing laws against inanimate objects. Like firearm(s) laws. We should only pass laws against human behavior".

Semantics argument removed. Your turn...

 

What weapons are currently banned on a federal level?

 

Very well then.

In all of the aforementioned examples on the part of yourself, such as operating a motor vehicle or taking prescription medicine, the restrictions are very straightforward, that being primarily to not use such in a manner that puts others at the risk of harm. Yet despite their potential for harm, they are still available to the public, and will be used in whatever manner the end operator determines, regardless of legality. However this risk of misuse is not regarded as a good enough reason to prohibit public access to such, even though there is no way of stopping misuse by the public.

Quality control standards, such as those relating to manufacturing, cannot really be discussed in the same manner, as they relate to an entirely different matter that does not address use by the recipient and/or owner.

Firearms are already subjected to the same standards, that being do not use them in a manner that puts others at the risk of harm. Misuse of a firearm outside of a legal manner, in a reckless or dangerous manner is already a felony offense. There is simply nothing more than can be done on the matter, without getting into proposals to try and prevent as many individuals as possible from legally owning firearms, which has nothing to do with their use.

Licenses to purchase, licenses to possess, licenses to transport, registration, annual renewals of said registration, home inspection, storage mandates, ans a great many other firearm-related restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the safe usage of firearms, as they fall outside the scope of use of a firearm. They cannot be discussed in the same topic since they are not related to the subject.

 

Fine. What does that have to do with anything?

 

It's called disproving the statement that heavy equipment operators need to be licensed.

Too bad you cannot comprehend that.

And heavy equipment can be quite deadly when operated by someone who wish's to kill a large number of people quickly.

 

I accept the apology. I'm not aware of regulations governing when lawn mowers can be used but I assume they exist somewhere. You are arguing for regulation and I am arguing against banning. I think we are talking over each other.

Then you should have responded to the person who said they did. Instead you responded to me.

 

Oops, my error.