Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

It's a good metaphor - 114,000 people injured or killed each year
feels like a pandemic of guns.

 

It's like say we have 10,000 nukes world wide. A few nuked cities is insignificant
compared to the total nuclear arsenal. And a million Coronavirus cases makes a
10,000 deaths seem insignificant.

 

To my quote, "One hundred thousand people shot ever year should be a good reason."

THAT'S a "rational and reasoned argument" for limiting access to guns.

 

So do you think we should get rid of the guns so that they can't kill people?

 

What's the limit on when we think we've gone far enough in new laws?

 

Look, you have a super excellent point. You make a law and you get 'mission creep'
It's here where I do support the gun lobby. Mission creep is real, it happened with
euthanasia where it was only applicable to terminally suffering people. It happened
with the "decriminalization" and then "tolerance" of gays which led to gay marriage,
all of which was denied by the early activists.
"Slippery slopes" aint just a logic fallacy.

 

Not necessarily - just don't allow it be such an extreme as it is today. All good things
can end up becoming extreme. Even stopping so much as a background check on
someone wanting a gun is extreme.

 

This is confusing to me, does this mean you are for it against bk checks? The way its worded throws me off.

I'm pretty hardcore 2a, but I'm 100% behind bk checks. I consider those that want to block them or remove them to be too hardcore for me. But everyone has a different line in the sand.

 

If I was dictator -------
I would ask for background checks. Registered firearms. Membership of a gun club or
"militia" which is "approved" - approved by whom? Groups like the NRA etc.. Be strict
but let it become the thin end of the wedge. I suspect, like Australia, many people who
want to ban guns want to ban lots of other things too.

 

Such will ultimately amount to nothing in the long run, as it will fail to address the underlying problem. That underlying problem is ultimately the human species and its very nature. Humans are the only species that demonstrate a fanatical obsession with killing itself off, through whatever means possible, in the largest numbers possible. If firearms were not available, the species would simply come up with something new to carry out its fixation with elimination of life as it is known. It would create new weapons, and more creative ways of killing one another for whatever justification, or even no justification whatsoever.

Humans are the ones who invented and created nuclear ordnance, simply because conventional ordnance was not good enough at killing off large numbers of people.

The human species cannot be saved from its own destructive nature. Nor should it even be attempted to do such. Even if humans could be convinced to stop killing themselves and each other actively, they will simply refocus on destroying the planet and all life it holds, until it is rendered uninhabitable through pollution and other deadly forces.

The only way for anything to improve, is for the entire human population to be rendered extinct. Every last man, woman, and child on the face of the planet, ultimately has to die and the species be wiped from existence. It is the outlier, no different than an invasive species.

 

Agent smith was right.

 

That Vegas guy Paddock. He was able to kill or injure nearly 600 people with firearms, shot
at a distance. Without access to firearms he would have had to use a knife. No way to hurt so
many people with a knife. A gun is just so easy - point and click.

 

He could have killed way more with a few bottles of gas tossed into a crowd from where he was at, guns are not needed to execute mass murders.

But you hate guns so you cannot understand such realities.

And by the way when was the last you had to go through numerous background checks and spend thousands of dollars to buy 10 gallons of gas and a dozen of so glass bottles?

 

Nothing here changes the fact that, compared to the 423,000,000 gun in the US, 30,000 deaths approaches statistical zero.
Put another way:
- For every gun used to kill someone in the US, more than 14000 are not.
- 99.99291% of the guns in the US are not used to kill someone.

Thus, there's no rational basis for your position.

 

Not to anyone who knows how many guns there are in the US.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it remains a falsehood.

 

Fifty eight killed. Far more were murdered in the city of Nice in the nation of France where the only weapon was a common motor vehicle.

Explain precisely why such is believed. Stephen Paddock was licensed to operate aircraft. Explain precisely why it is believed Stephen Paddock would have resorted to usage of a knife if firearms were not available, rather than piloting his aircraft into the crowd.

Justify your position, prove that it is indeed logical.

Mass stabbings are very common, and yield equal or greater numbers of death as some mass shootings. Explain why such is considered the better alternative.

What relevance does such ultimately have with either the fact the human species is ultimately the problem, or with your evaluation that legal firearms ownership is a pandemic in need of being specifically addressed.

 

Flying a light aircraft into the Strip at Vegas won't get 600 people.
Flying a big aircraft is a lot harder these days.
Ploughing your car into a crowd at the strip won't get 600 either.
Mass stabbings of 600 people aint going to happen.

Making a bomb is a problem these days as you have to source precursor chemicals.
So if guns are easy to source, maybe we should just go easy on flight checks and
access to chemicals - after all, it's all about our rights to defend ourselves?

 

how many guns there are has nothing to do with easy access to them and how
so many people get shot. It's like some grim consolation as you fall down on the
sidewalk, "Well, I am shot, but there's 150 million guns out there that didn't shoot
me!"

 

Sure, but we need 'gas' as you Americans call it. And we need cars.
And 100k people don't get injured or killed every year from gas.
That many and more get killed by cars, for sure, but hardly any of these
are a result of deliberate murder - they are accidents.
But 100k people shot? Most are deliberate. And super easy to do. It's
the absolute EASE of doing it that is so chilling. Point and click.

 

To begin, a great deal of ignorance has been displayed on the part of yourself in your post. Stephen Paddock did not kill six hundred individuals, but a mere fifty eight. Those whose injuries were not directly attributed to being shot, but rather panic, do not count and will not be discussed. The official figures are fifty eight dead, four hundred and thirteen injured, and those figures will be the only ones discussed. Cease the intellectual dishonesty further.

Explain precisely why not. How would such not be achieved?

Explain why it would not have been a possibility to do such.

And yet in the city of Nice in the nation of France, eighty six individuals were killed and another four hundred and fifty eight were severely injured, all in the span of a mere five minutes, and all committed with nothing more than a common, everyday motor vehicle that is freely available to anyone. Thus proving one does not need a firearm, or even multiple firearms, to commit a successful mass killing.

The more the six hundred figure is cited on the part of yourself, the more other mass killings are diminished and dismissed on the basis that not enough individuals were murdered for you to care.

In the nation of China there was what is known as the Kunming Attack, which resulted in thirty one individuals being stabbed to death and another one hundred and forty one individuals seriously injured. For the sake of comparison, that is the same number of deaths as the Virginia Tech school shooting in the united states, and more than eight times the number of seriously injured victims.

And yet such has done nothing to decrease the number of bombings being carried out around the world, especially in the nation of France that experiences far more successful terrorists attacks than the united states.

Meaningless and irrelevant nonsense meant to try and divert from the fact the position on the part of yourself has neither factual basis, nor intellectual integrity.

 

Thus an admission on the part of yourself that those who die due to motor vehicle-related incidents are a necessary sacrifice for both personal convenience, and the functioning of society, as trying to do anything that would potentially stop their loss of life would cause more harm than good. Thus an admission that some problems are simply too large to address, and no effort should actually be made.

Thus, stay out of the issues of the united states and let them sort things out for themselves. If they wind up depopulating their own nation, how does such affect yourself? All the better for the rest of the world.

 

Yes, the world accepts the loss of life in automobile accidents. The world has striven mightily since
the 1970's to reduce this toll. In my state there was 1070 deaths in 1973 - today that figure is below
200 despite there being twice as many cars and each car goes double the distance. To do this we
had to lose some liberties - seat belts, stringent license testing, car roadworthy, police presence, air
bags, more tax on roads etc..
Why can't we do that with guns?

 

For the simple fact that, unlike motor vehicles which can be subject to any number of restrictions without cause or reason, firearms ownership is a constitutionally recognized, guaranteed, and protected right.

Firearms are already quite safe to use, far safer than motor vehicles, and they are already subject to a great many restrictions that do not apply to motor vehicles. Pray tell, what more truly needs to be done on the matter, other than it already being a felony offense to use a firearm for the purpose of committing harm to others?

If it were not for so many individuals advocating for the registration of firearms so they can be confiscated from their legal owners, perhaps more could be done. But those who are opposed to legal firearms ownership have let slip what they want, and what they intend to do if given the opportunity. Thus they have demonstrated there is no room for compromise, and they must instead be resisted to the greatest degree possible.

 

Into -that- crowd? More than 600. Easy.
Why do you talk about things you know nothing about?