What about Handguns?
Previous 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 80 Next
uwish @ Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am
ASLplease ASLplease:
"the average canadian can't be trusted with a firearm"
"the average voter should not be allowed to vote"
"the average citizen can not be mandated the right to protect themselves"
Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
"the average voter should not be allowed to vote"
"the average citizen can not be mandated the right to protect themselves"
Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
UNLESS your in tight with the government, ATC (Canadian style CCW DOES exist but is SO difficult to obtain you need to know someone in government). There is a scandal breaking in Quebec over a private security contractor and his ATC.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story ... ction.html
Tony Tomassi, Quebec's Family Minister, has been accused of accepting bribes from Luigi Corelli, a Liberal party financial supporter. As a consequence, the Prime Minister (Charest) has fired Mr. Tomassi.
Mr. Corelli, who allegedly, had been refused an ATC (Authorisation To Carry) permit by the province's CFO, was eventually issued one following a meeting with Jacques Dupuis the Quebec Public Security Minister, which was arranged by Mr. Tomassi.
Mr. Dupuis has of course denied having any part in the issuance of the ATC to Mr. Corelli.
The whole affair brings back memories of the "sponsorship scandal", only this time, it is the Provincial Liberals who have been caught lying and cheating Canadians.
And the Provinces CFO, Inspecteur Yves Massé of the Sûreté du Québec, has of course thrown the veil of "no comment" over this scandal, due to a concern of public security. They often use the "public security" ploy, especially when the truth hurts!
After fighting with the Ontario CFO for nine months, we finally discovered that in a Province of almost THIRTEEN MILLION, there were only THIRTEEN ATC's issued in Ontario in 2008. That is a ONE-IN-ONE-MILLION chance of getting an ATC to protect your life. You have better odds of winning the 6/49.
Canadians carrying concealed handguns is already here, I just want it more accessible to those trained, and not have to bribe or pull the friends in high places card to get one.
BartSimpson @ Mon May 10, 2010 8:22 am
DeBoom DeBoom:
Agreed. I think the fundamental problem is that we in the Canada, Europe and to a lesser extent the US have substituted government intervention for personal responsibility. The issue with handguns is just a symptom of this. Large chunks of the Canadian population feel its the government's job protect people themselves and others. Consequently these people don't understand why someone would want a gun to protect themselves and distrust those who do. That coupled with news report after news report of gun violence leads them seeing the gun itself as the problem rather than the user.
Removing responsibility for self defense from individuals is dangerous. The Police can't be everywhere so citizens need the ability to defend themselves when police are absent.
Removing responsibility for self defense from individuals is dangerous. The Police can't be everywhere so citizens need the ability to defend themselves when police are absent.
+1
Welcome to CKA!
![[BB]](./images/smilies/beers.gif "Beers")
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon May 10, 2010 9:07 am
DeBoom DeBoom:
ASLplease ASLplease:
"the average canadian can't be trusted with a firearm"
"the average voter should not be allowed to vote"
"the average citizen can not be mandated the right to protect themselves"
Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
"the average voter should not be allowed to vote"
"the average citizen can not be mandated the right to protect themselves"
Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
Agreed. I think the fundamental problem is that we in the Canada, Europe and to a lesser extent the US have substituted government intervention for personal responsibility. The issue with handguns is just a symptom of this. Large chunks of the Canadian population feel its the government's job protect people themselves and others. Consequently these people don't understand why someone would want a gun to protect themselves and distrust those who do. That coupled with news report after news report of gun violence leads them seeing the gun itself as the problem rather than the user.
Removing responsibility for self defense from individuals is dangerous. The Police can't be everywhere so citizens need the ability to defend themselves when police are absent.
Yer not advocating self-defense. Yer advocting the use of deadly force.
uwish uwish:
That is a ONE-IN-ONE-MILLION chance of getting an ATC to protect your life. You have better odds of winning the 6/49.
Actually you don't. And you obviously know nothing about odds. Here's the funny thing, that 1% of the pop that gets an ATC is actually about the same percentage of the population that will be victims of violent crime. In 2008 there were approx 442,000 violent crimes reported nationwide. Keep in mind that in Canada, ALL forms of assault are considered violent crime, including getting punched in a bar. Total number of offenses that involved a firearm? 1506.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
DeBoom @ Mon May 10, 2010 10:57 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yer not advocating self-defense. Yer advocting the use of deadly force.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not advocating using deadly force in all circumstances but it does have it's place in self defense. If someone comes at you with a deadly weapon deadly force is often the most appropriate response. If a criminal is determiner to kill you the only options may be kill or be killed. In every set of military ROEs always have a provision that deadly force is always justified to protect your life or that of a fellow soldier. I don't see why it is unreasonable to apply the same rules to everybody. Besides deadly force is already allowed by Canadian law provided one's life is in danger.
If you consider it morally superior to be killed rather than using deadly force, fine that's your choice to make and I wont stop you. All I ask is that you don't stop us from using deadly force to save our own lives.
$1:
Actually you don't. And you obviously know nothing about odds. Here's the funny thing, that 1% of the pop that gets an ATC is actually about the same percentage of the population that will be victims of violent crime.
If you don't mind I'd like to see the sources of those numbers. And are those ATC 3 or all ATCs?
$1:
In 2008 there were approx 442,000 violent crimes reported nationwide. Keep in mind that in Canada, ALL forms of assault are considered violent crime, including getting punched in a bar. Total number of offenses that involved a firearm? 1506.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
First we are not advocating arming the population, merely giving trained civilians the opportunity to carry a gun if the chose.
Even if the numbers are lower side that is still not a reason to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms. In a free society the government should have to prove why it is necessary to limit what the citizens can do not the other way around.
As for paranoia I refer you to my previous post that still has not received a satisfactory counter argument:
It has also been suggested that wanting to carrying a firearm for protection is a sign of paranoia. This simply isn't true. I realize that there is a good chance that I could go through life never being a victim of a violent crime. Just as I realize that I will probably never be in a potentially fatal fire, be a risk for drowning or be in a potentially fatal car crash. What I do realize is that even though the chances are small I should still take measure to mitigate my risk. I find it weird that someone is considered prudent if they have a fire alarm and extinguisher but is paranoid if they also own a gun for protection. In 2008 213 people will killed by fire and 576 were murdered. In 2002 there were 235,270 assaults and 22186 residential property fires. If you acquire equipment to deal with the former you are considered paranoid but doing the same for the later is responsible yet it only is a tenth as likely to happen. This is clearly a double standard.
BartSimpson @ Mon May 10, 2010 11:32 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yer not advocating self-defense. Yer advocting the use of deadly force.
Meeting deadly force with deadly force is the very heart of self defense.
Telling me I have a right to defend myself against armed criminals while I must remain unarmed is bull****.
fifeboy @ Mon May 10, 2010 11:54 am
ASLplease ASLplease:
"the average canadian can't be trusted with a firearm"
Well bucko, somewhere between 2.4 and 3.8 million average Canadians own firearms. So I guess you are wrong.http://www.nfa.ca/node/72ASLplease ASLplease:
"the average voter should not be allowed to vote"
Why then call them voters 
ASLplease ASLplease:
"the average citizen can not be mandated the right to protect themselves"
Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
Protect themselves against what? And by the way, we normally capitalize Canadians. Do you guys not see the fundimental danger in allowing smug canadians to talk and think this way without someone challenging them?
Lemmy @ Mon May 10, 2010 11:56 am
Yawn. 
EyeBrock @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:02 pm
Lemmy, I think we can hit the century on this one......
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:09 pm
DeBoom DeBoom:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yer not advocating self-defense. Yer advocting the use of deadly force.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not advocating using deadly force in all circumstances but it does have it's place in self defense. If someone comes at you with a deadly weapon deadly force is often the most appropriate response. If a criminal is determiner to kill you the only options may be kill or be killed. In every set of military ROEs always have a provision that deadly force is always justified to protect your life or that of a fellow soldier. I don't see why it is unreasonable to apply the same rules to everybody. Besides deadly force is already allowed by Canadian law provided one's life is in danger.
If you consider it morally superior to be killed rather than using deadly force, fine that's your choice to make and I wont stop you. All I ask is that you don't stop us from using deadly force to save our own lives.
$1:
Actually you don't. And you obviously know nothing about odds. Here's the funny thing, that 1% of the pop that gets an ATC is actually about the same percentage of the population that will be victims of violent crime.
DeBoom DeBoom:
[If you don't mind I'd like to see the sources of those numbers. And are those ATC 3 or all ATCs?
Was responding to uwish's comment so you'll have to ask him for the specifics.
As for the numbers, see below. Those are from Stats Can.
$1:
In 2008 there were approx 442,000 violent crimes reported nationwide. Keep in mind that in Canada, ALL forms of assault are considered violent crime, including getting punched in a bar. Total number of offenses that involved a firearm? 1506.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
DeBoom DeBoom:
First we are not advocating arming the population, merely giving trained civilians the opportunity to carry a gun if the chose.
Uh huh, and what exactly is your definition of "trained"?
DeBoom DeBoom:
Even if the numbers are lower side that is still not a reason to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms. In a free society the government should have to prove why it is necessary to limit what the citizens can do not the other way around.
As for paranoia I refer you to my previous post that still has not received a satisfactory counter argument:
It has also been suggested that wanting to carrying a firearm for protection is a sign of paranoia. This simply isn't true. I realize that there is a good chance that I could go through life never being a victim of a violent crime. Just as I realize that I will probably never be in a potentially fatal fire, be a risk for drowning or be in a potentially fatal car crash. What I do realize is that even though the chances are small I should still take measure to mitigate my risk. I find it weird that someone is considered prudent if they have a fire alarm and extinguisher but is paranoid if they also own a gun for protection. In 2008 213 people will killed by fire and 576 were murdered. In 2002 there were 235,270 assaults and 22186 residential property fires. If you acquire equipment to deal with the former you are considered paranoid but doing the same for the later is responsible yet it only is a tenth as likely to happen. This is clearly a double standard.
As for paranoia I refer you to my previous post that still has not received a satisfactory counter argument:
It has also been suggested that wanting to carrying a firearm for protection is a sign of paranoia. This simply isn't true. I realize that there is a good chance that I could go through life never being a victim of a violent crime. Just as I realize that I will probably never be in a potentially fatal fire, be a risk for drowning or be in a potentially fatal car crash. What I do realize is that even though the chances are small I should still take measure to mitigate my risk. I find it weird that someone is considered prudent if they have a fire alarm and extinguisher but is paranoid if they also own a gun for protection. In 2008 213 people will killed by fire and 576 were murdered. In 2002 there were 235,270 assaults and 22186 residential property fires. If you acquire equipment to deal with the former you are considered paranoid but doing the same for the later is responsible yet it only is a tenth as likely to happen. This is clearly a double standard.
576 divided by 33,000,000. Your odds of being murdered in Canada are so infinitesimally small that even my scientific calculator is giving me an error message. Now, let's go with Stats Can's 2008 figure of 442,000 violent crimes which includes ALL forms of assault and not including murder. Of those, 1506 used a firearm of some sort, which is still so low that I still get an error message on my calculator.
Once again, no one here is saying you can't defend your home. But as has been pointed out ad nauseum now, a shotgun is a far more effective close range home defense weapon. And if the intruder is only armed with a knife, a shotgun is still plenty long enough to give you lots of reach advantage to pummel the shit out of him. No need to commit murder.
And Bart, I've not once said you don't have the right to carry a gun in YOUR country, no matter how grossly the meaning and context of the 2nd ammendment is misintrepreted, it's nonetheless your right as an American to do so IN AMERICA!
I might have questioned the wisdom of it, but never told you you don't have the right.
In Canada, I'd hardly call a percentage so tiny it won't even register, as an alarming portent of the need to carry handguns around in public. Wanna defend your home, get a nice, solid shotgun. Wanna defend yourself on the "street", learn some form of unarmed combat, cuz yer "need" for carrying a handgun in Canada equals 3/5ths of fuck all on a statistical level.
fifeboy @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:11 pm
DeBoom DeBoom:
Agreed. I think the fundamental problem is that we in the Canada, Europe and to a lesser extent the US have substituted government intervention for personal responsibility.
DeBoom DeBoom:
The issue with handguns is just a symptom of this. Large chunks of the Canadian population feel its the government's job protect people themselves and others. Consequently these people don't understand why someone would want a gun to protect themselves and distrust those who do. That coupled with news report after news report of gun violence leads them seeing the gun itself as the problem rather than the user.
If you want to join the Bald Knobbers, again, you are in the wrong local. DeBoom DeBoom:
Removing responsibility for self defense from individuals is dangerous. The Police can't be everywhere so citizens need the ability to defend themselves when police are absent.
Yep, our streets are just full of muggers and murderers lurking for unsuspecting non carriers. Guys like you, armed to the teeth, will really make a difference in our crime stats.
DerbyX @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:17 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
DeBoom DeBoom:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yer not advocating self-defense. Yer advocting the use of deadly force.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not advocating using deadly force in all circumstances but it does have it's place in self defense. If someone comes at you with a deadly weapon deadly force is often the most appropriate response. If a criminal is determiner to kill you the only options may be kill or be killed. In every set of military ROEs always have a provision that deadly force is always justified to protect your life or that of a fellow soldier. I don't see why it is unreasonable to apply the same rules to everybody. Besides deadly force is already allowed by Canadian law provided one's life is in danger.
If you consider it morally superior to be killed rather than using deadly force, fine that's your choice to make and I wont stop you. All I ask is that you don't stop us from using deadly force to save our own lives.
$1:
Actually you don't. And you obviously know nothing about odds. Here's the funny thing, that 1% of the pop that gets an ATC is actually about the same percentage of the population that will be victims of violent crime.
DeBoom DeBoom:
[If you don't mind I'd like to see the sources of those numbers. And are those ATC 3 or all ATCs?
Was responding to uwish's comment so you'll have to ask him for the specifics.
As for the numbers, see below. Those are from Stats Can.
$1:
In 2008 there were approx 442,000 violent crimes reported nationwide. Keep in mind that in Canada, ALL forms of assault are considered violent crime, including getting punched in a bar. Total number of offenses that involved a firearm? 1506.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
You pinheads are seriously advocating arming the population over 1500 uses of a gun for crime across an entire nation for a year?
I'm not sure what's worse, your delusions or your paranoia.
DeBoom DeBoom:
First we are not advocating arming the population, merely giving trained civilians the opportunity to carry a gun if the chose.
Uh huh, and what exactly is your definition of "trained"?
DeBoom DeBoom:
Even if the numbers are lower side that is still not a reason to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms. In a free society the government should have to prove why it is necessary to limit what the citizens can do not the other way around.
As for paranoia I refer you to my previous post that still has not received a satisfactory counter argument:
It has also been suggested that wanting to carrying a firearm for protection is a sign of paranoia. This simply isn't true. I realize that there is a good chance that I could go through life never being a victim of a violent crime. Just as I realize that I will probably never be in a potentially fatal fire, be a risk for drowning or be in a potentially fatal car crash. What I do realize is that even though the chances are small I should still take measure to mitigate my risk. I find it weird that someone is considered prudent if they have a fire alarm and extinguisher but is paranoid if they also own a gun for protection. In 2008 213 people will killed by fire and 576 were murdered. In 2002 there were 235,270 assaults and 22186 residential property fires. If you acquire equipment to deal with the former you are considered paranoid but doing the same for the later is responsible yet it only is a tenth as likely to happen. This is clearly a double standard.
As for paranoia I refer you to my previous post that still has not received a satisfactory counter argument:
It has also been suggested that wanting to carrying a firearm for protection is a sign of paranoia. This simply isn't true. I realize that there is a good chance that I could go through life never being a victim of a violent crime. Just as I realize that I will probably never be in a potentially fatal fire, be a risk for drowning or be in a potentially fatal car crash. What I do realize is that even though the chances are small I should still take measure to mitigate my risk. I find it weird that someone is considered prudent if they have a fire alarm and extinguisher but is paranoid if they also own a gun for protection. In 2008 213 people will killed by fire and 576 were murdered. In 2002 there were 235,270 assaults and 22186 residential property fires. If you acquire equipment to deal with the former you are considered paranoid but doing the same for the later is responsible yet it only is a tenth as likely to happen. This is clearly a double standard.
576 divided by 33,000,000. Your odds of being murdered in Canada are so infinitesimally small that even my scientific calculator is giving me an error message. Now, let's go with Stats Can's 2008 figure of 442,000 violent crimes which includes ALL forms of assault and not including murder. Of those, 1506 used a firearm of some sort, which is still so low that I still get an error message on my calculator.
Once again, no one here is saying you can't defend your home. But as has been pointed out ad nauseum now, a shotgun is a far more effective close range home defense weapon. And if the intruder is only armed with a knife, a shotgun is still plenty long enough to give you lots of reach advantage to pummel the shit out of him. No need to commit murder.
And Bart, I've not once said you don't have the right to carry a gun in YOUR country, no matter how grossly the meaning and context of the 2nd ammendment is misintrepreted, it's nonetheless your right as an American to do so IN AMERICA!
I might have questioned the wisdom of it, but never told you you don't have the right.
In Canada, I'd hardly call a percentage so tiny it won't even register, as an alarming portent of the need to carry handguns around in public. Wanna defend your home, get a nice, solid shotgun. Wanna defend yourself on the "street", learn some form of unarmed combat, cuz yer "need" for carrying a handgun in Canada equals 3/5ths of fuck all on a statistical level.
Get a better calculator.
fifeboy @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:26 pm
DeBoom DeBoom:
First we are not advocating arming the population, merely giving trained civilians the opportunity to carry a gun if the chose.
Even if the numbers are lower side that is still not a reason to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms. In a free society the government should have to prove why it is necessary to limit what the citizens can do not the other way around.
Even if the numbers are lower side that is still not a reason to deny citizens the ability to carry firearms. In a free society the government should have to prove why it is necessary to limit what the citizens can do not the other way around.
Ahh, you are not advocating arming the population, merely giving trained civilians the opportunity to carry a gun if the choose. Of course, trained civilians means you, right. Because you are trained.
Why not me, or the guy who lives next door to me and drinks that crappy light beer, can we join the elite?
fifeboy @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:30 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
Get a better calculator.The only way I can do it!
angler57 @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:35 pm
Gee Whiz!!!! It would appear another Topic is ready for Lockdown.
DerbyX has answered every question correctly.
Crossed every T.
Dotted every I.
Refuted every arguement.
Proven all to be wrong.
Proven each idea to be invalidly concieved.
With perfection and total knowledge of each point.
With Reason and fact.
All but DerbyX have been proven lacking.
Golly Gee.
Nothing more remains to be said.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon May 10, 2010 12:38 pm
fifeboy fifeboy:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Get a better calculator.The only way I can do it!
Well, when you put it THAT way, I better run out and weapon up for that trip to the grocery store Damn Windows calculator is useless
Previous 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 80 Next