Whats going on in Canada?

[Thrawn]

For those of you that missed it, the thread title is "Whats going on in Canada?"

[HugeHead]

Thrawn,

Indeed. However, it is a stimulating discussion overall.

Lasz,

You are operating perhaps under a misconception in regards to my country. The right to bear arms was not guaranteed at any time that I at least am aware of in Canada. Perhaps a countryman will correct me here if I am wrong.

Most certainly I am not offering any POV on US issues or concerns. I simply have been stating the facts and my opinions regarding Canada.

I said: "You are confusing an opinion shared by the lawful majority with a coerced one."

Indeed, I believe this is your perception is it not? You believe even 85 percent of the people here in Canada should not be able to decide what is lawful here regarding handguns? Should we maintain that handguns should not be legal to carry, you feel we are imposing our will on 15 percent unlawfully?

In the context of Canada at least, as of this moment the last statement of my previous post remains factual: "The only legitimate exception you can really take is that you feel that majority opinion is not informed. "

Regards,
HH

[lazs2]

HH... yes, I understand that human rights like the right to defend yourself are not constitutionaly defended in your country.  It apears that since they are not that the oversight is now going to cost millions of your people their property and or liberty and loss of their human rights.

I maintain  that, even tho not called out and protected by your obviously flawed constitution, they are a human right and..... that no democracy (or any other form of government) can take precidence over human rights.

I am also saying that yes.... if indeed you have 85% of the population that thinks there should be no handguns in the country then... I say that there is a simple solution.   Those 85% should not be forced to own handguns.

If, on the other hand they tell the others (the other 15%) that they should not own handguns that is fine also...  so long as that is as far as it goes... it would also be fine to make the handguns illegal so long as there were no penalties or restrictions involved...

The coercion comes when you wish to confiscate property and or imprison people (millions of them) for simply owning an object that they can use to defend themselves.   They would not give up their rights without coercion.

  You are not asking them to see reason and voluntarily give up their rights... You are imposing the might of the government and armed troops to do it.   You will even have said troops shoot and kill anyone who refuses to be coerced.

How can we reconcile these "differences of opinion" ?

How do you have a sensible discussion with those you would have government troops kill?

lazs

[HugeHead]

You are taking what I consider a moderate view and going to the absolute extreme with it. Certainly I know you are not atributing the points you included in your last post to me.

If you keep the issue within reasonable limits then it would seem you and I both agree making handguns illegal in my country is just fine should the majority support it. However, we differ in the penalty issue. I've no desire to toss some guy in Manitoba in jail just becuase he still has Dad's service revolver. However, I very much do want much stronger laws and penalties for anyone carrying a concealed weapon or in possesion of an unregistered weapon.

Let me just clarify my point regarding "registered". For those in the know, I absolutely do not support that idiotic gun registry. I do support background checks and permits, even for grandpappy's trophy luger.

Fundementally (and not in regards to the current Canadian issues) you and I differ where those sacred basic human rights intersect. Those being your right to carry a gun and my right to personal safety. You see your right as being a positive while I honestly see concealed weapons as a threat in and of themselves.

Regards,
HH

[lazs2]

HH no, we are not understanding each other.   I do not agree that it is the right of the majority to take away the minorities human rights.

You claim that your security is good enough reason.   You offer no proof that you would be safer tho and certainly.... no proof that everyone would be safer..   If one person is killed because he/she was denied the right to arm themselves then your unproven security has just caused someone their life.... you have removed their rights for no reason.

I maintain that a handgun ban or concealled carry ban makes you less safe not more.   You are advocating not only taking away peoples rights and putting them in mkortal danger but.... you are even making things worse for your family... england and australias crime rates for violent crime are going up.... scotland is the most violent of civilized countries with laughable knife bans now being propossed.

I would suggest that you do some study on the subject.

"The Seven Myths of Gun Control" is a good place to start... It is well documented and draws on the work of much more dry tomes and studies.   It is very easy to read tho and entertaining.  

You could have anyone here suggest anti gun works but..... there are none that have any real data or don't appeal to the emotional.

I don't believe I am extreme in the least.   I belive that people should have the right to own and carry firearms until such time as they commit a crime with them.  and then... they should be charged and punished.

If half the effort to ban guns was spent to hunt down these gangsters and bring them to justice then the public would be infinetly better served.

If on the other hand you are projecting your lack of contro onto your fellow man then I simply feel sorry for you.

I do not believe that is the case with you tho.  I think you are simply missinformed/uninformed and going on the media bias that you are not even aware that you have bought into.

Prove me right and read up a little on the subject.

If you are the type who likes more dry works that are footnoted every sentace and rife with charts and graphs....  "More Guns, Less Crime" by Lott is good  as is Kopels study.

lazs

[HugeHead]

I'm quite well read and educated (even on this subject) thank you. I'm also intelligent to know that quoting facts to someone who is as fanatically dogmatic as you is not going to solve anything.  

As for Minority human rights. Well you should read about your history and that of the world. It's not new that the majority dictates rights to the minority. Sometimes it's in the best interests of the community and sometimes it is not. Ufortunately the world is not black and white as you like to believe it is. Nor is it only populated with those who share your views. So, get used to the frustration of believing you are right even when the majority does not agree. I perceive that as one of the major life frustrations which drives you based on what I've read here.

Based on your passionate comments here...one has to wonder if you jump off your couch every time a minority is subjected to what could be percieved as injustice and denial of basic human rights in the interest of the majority but, I'm betting you are a one trick pony.

Send me those photos of you with Habitat for Humanity or perhaps you at this years food drive stuffing bags. I can't imagine a more basic human right than the right to shelter and food. I would expect a true champion of human rights to fight for all of them. Not just the ones which suit his dogmatic view of reality but, in the end that's the real problem with dogma isn't it? It doesn't allow one to percieve the shades of gray which make up our reality.
 
Where your rights put my life in danger you and I have a difference of opinion which will not be resolved here. I simply do not wish (as does the majority of my countrymen) to have people (even self proclaimed experts such as you) wielding concealed weapons on the streets where I live. Shooting cans off your fence on the farm is one thing but, carrying weapons in public is another kettle of fish in Canada and thank God that won't change anytime soon. What the US does within it's boarders is it's own affair.

I don't want you defending my family. I didn't hire you with my taxes to do this. A basic human right of mine is to decide this and not have you force your viewpoint on me or take it upon yourself to wield a weapon in a situation where someone I love could be injured by your actions either directly or indirectly.  I will thank you for not imposing on it as you would thank me for not imposing on yours.

I find it curious that it seems the very same people who yell for the right to carry guns also are among the first to yelp when someone suggests we raise taxes for more police. Perhaps if all the special interest lobby money  spent on gun rights were spent on supporting police we wouldn't have a problem. Right back at you sunshine;).

I suggest you sir, read up on my country's history before you deem to impose your own views on our citizens. Since you seem so concerned about the rights of the individual I would think you would see the hyprocracy in this.

I find it tiring sometimes to listen to people pontificate on Canadian issues when they have made no effort to aquaint themselves with the Canadian frame of reference and insist on shoe-horning us into an American boot.

Where those extreme views relate to your own country I could care less but, when you try to prove that your way is right for any community including the one I live in (and you don't)...well...being polite I could only call that poor form ol' chum.

You are looking for a fight while I'm simply stating facts and a few personal observations as they relate to the country I live in. This thread was at one point about events in Canada. I felt the need to comment since I live all of 20 minutes from where the shooting took place. Aside from an opportunity to leap on your soapboax and spew dogma...What's your excuse?

Regards,
HH

[Ripper29]

^

[HugeHead]

Originally posted by Ripper29
^

'You sleep well in your bed at night only because a few rough men are willing to do violent things on your behalf´

George Orwell.
 

Rough men in uniform such as my Father, Uncle, Great uncles etc who served....all the way back to the war of 1812. Men in Uniform with public mandates to protect.

Exactly my point Ripper;)

Regards,
HH

[fartwinkle]

Idiots know no boundries and are all over this world.
I personaly wish guns had never been invented but seeing as there are
any and all citizens should carry a weapon to protect themselves against the oxegen thieves who pray apon the  unarmed.

[lazs2]

HH... Ok so you have read some works on gun control?  mind if I ask which ones?

You made a very long speech and seem to be angry that I would inject data but.... you claim that I am unabled to digest your data.  So far as I see... in this whole thread... you have injected nothing but emotion with no factual data at all.  

You say that historicaly the majority rules.  Is this a good thing? is that what you are saying?  I say no.  I say that before the U.S. constitution and the shot heard round the world..... all countries were run by kings with no guarentee of human rights.

I say that democracy can only work when it guarentees human rights...  3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner is democracy....  the same group voting on it with a constitution that points out that no person shall be eaten is a democracy with a bill of rights.

As for if I and millions of others are "right" when the majority doesn't agree...  maybe maybe not... who knows?  sometimes the majority is wrong you would agree?   In this particular case...  in the U.S. we have been told that it may happen that a government may wish to disarm it't people and therefore we needed to gurarnetee the right to keep and bear arms.

I am also telling you that you are safer with people in your population with concealled carry permits.   I am saying that no more than 1-5% of your population would apply and that they would cause little or no harm for all the good they would do.... you tell me I am wrong but you base it on nothing but..... what?  how you feel about it?   the un named books you have read?

I also notice that when we started out you felt that you could prove your point with little or no work and were amiable and liberal smiley.... now when challenged....you become accusatory and preachy and angry...  

You have no case so you attack me.   that is fine but it gets us nowhere.

lazs

[lazs2]

And.... as for "everyone deserves a house"  No... if you are unwilling to work for one or do not want one that is your business... I owe no one a house.

My dad was very high in the southern area of habitat for humanities... I worked for free on several homes.   They were by no means "given" to the people... I can only conclude that you have as little idea of what habitat is as you do about gun control.... that is.... you only claim to.

Habtiat works like this.... it is a purely non governmet program (or was) and the rules were.... if you wanted a house then they would sell it to you but.... at a very low rate based on the fact that you would put in 2000 hours of labor...you had to be married and at least one of you had to have a full time job... often the land and materials were donated and the labor was donated or done by other habitat owners who still owed time.

This is far from a group that believes that every person has a "right" to a home no matter how little they are willing to do for it.

If these people defaulted on the (addmitedly) low payments.... they were out on the street again...

The houses have been well maintained and pride is evident...not because they were given them as a "right" but because these people felt that they had a large part in earning them.

Government housing projects on the other hand are.... well... even you know what they are... even tho they were free and were extrememly nice to start.

The right to defend yourself is a real right.   the "right" to a home is silly and counterproductive.

I give a substantial amount to charity (and have taxes extorted from me)... the taxes are all wasted of course but the charities I pick are ones that take little and do a lot with it.   I don't know but I would guess that I have done more to help people help themselves over the years than you might have.

I found your insinuation that I don't help people in need to be insulting.   I expected it but was still.... somehow.... disapointed...

My guess is that you have coopted any real charity and have justified it by voting for more social programs.   You want the government to sooth your concience.

Self defense is taking control of your own defense.  I have nothing against police and work with and help them more than you do probly...  I have never met a cop who did not believe that it was a right for civilians to own firearms.

lazs

[lazs2]

and... to disect your speech a little more...  You do not want me to protect you... you want more police that you pay... fine.  I am not here to protect you or your family but... you should know that police shoot more innocent people that concealed carry people do.

I don't know how it is in canada but I suspect that it is the same as here and everywhere else that I know of...

The police have no duty to protect individual citizens.  The people you give your taxes to do not have a duty to protect you or your family... they have a duty to take reports after you are victimized.

How does this work in real life?   Ok... let's say that you..no... your daughter.. has a bad relationship and here former husband/boyfriend calls her up and tells here that some nite when she is getting off work in that lonely parking lot he will be waiting and beat her to death.

No problem ritht?  you have an entire police force to "protect" her.... heck... you can even get a restraining order.   He wouldn't dare violate that peice of paper right?  and if he did.... he would be in trouble if you could prove it right?

So... he does just what he said he would do to your unarmed and helpless daughter... the cops come and take the report.

You claim that you don't want me to protect you but that is bull.... what you really want is for me to not harm you or yours.... That is understandable.   Concealed carry holders show much more restraint tho than the police.

If, your country had a liberal concealled carry program with say..5% of the population being armed.... might not the disgruntled boyfriend/exhusband not even take the chance?   Us having firearms rights is protection in itself...

Your daughter may even be armed so far as he knows.

Take burglary... do more cops prevent burglary?  no, of course not.  They take burglary reports.  Where citizens own guns... the burglars either don't exist or make damn sure no one is in the home to possibly shoot them...  

Would you rather your daughters home be burglarized when she is home or not home?  Again...  the mere fact that people own firearms is the deterent not police.

And how many police is enough?   Are you willing to have a police state?

in the case of the mall... I have been asked if more guns would not have made it worse.  I think I have made the case that more guns would probly have made the situation not even exist... the scum would do their shooting in their own hell hole of a ghetto.

I also disagree with the person who wished that guns had never been invented.   I say that guns have been used for evil but war does not require guns.... guns make the old and infirm as safe and protected as anyone.... no longer are we dependent on the strength of our biceps or the hand eye coordination and stamina needed to prevail in sword fight..

firearms have empowered the weak and allowed civilization to flourish where before the law of the strong sujugating the weak prevailed.

lazs

[Callisto]

There we go... Its Jan 1st and we have our first gun victim of 2006 in Toronto.

Who can police protect? maybe themselves, but certainly not the public...
What good is solving a crime if someoe i love is already dead.

Its easy for hugehead to talk about not wanting people to have guns, when his  family is already armed (father and grandfather being cops) and  can probabbly protect him anytime.

When your father and your granfather are willing to give me 24/7 protection, then i wont need a gun.

Until then..  I'm probably gonna get a gun for myself  this year, legal or not. I dont feel safe in this city. Its quite clear cops cant protect anyone....I'd rather go to jail for illegal weapon possesion then into a funeral home.


It is my most basic  right to defend my own life any way possible.

Cheers, and happy new year.

[lazs2]

calisto... you seem to feel (as do I) that you "would rather be exposed to the inconvieneces of too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it" (Jefferson)

In september 1990 catherine latta applied for a gun permit saying that her ex boyfriend was going to kill her.  The clerk at the sheriffs office told her that there would be a 2-4 week waiting period....

Like you, and unlike HH who could summon relatives to protect himself... she rightly deduced and said that she would be dead by then and promptly bough an illegal handgun that day off the street.  

Her boyfriend attacked her 5 hours later and she shot him dead.  The police took the report just as they would have if she had died instead and arrested her.   No charges were filed tho.    What would her fate have been in HH's world?   In england say?  even if she had obtained a gun and killed the attacker I recon that she would have been charged and still in prison today in such a draconian socialist society where the criminal has more rights than the victim.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
Self defense is taking control of your own defense.  I have nothing against police and work with and help them more than you do probly...  I have never met a cop who did not believe that it was a right for civilians to own firearms.

Sorry Lazs, but your last two posts sound like a couple of paranoid rants.

When you came to Britain, you told this board that even unarmed in a supposedly "high risk" area of London, you felt as threatened as you might have felt at a Church bingo night. That's as it should be. But how safe would you have felt if you knew that all the schmucks you passed along the way had easy access to guns, just as they do in your own country?

I always find it ironic that you felt completely safe unarmed in London, but feel so threatened within the security of your own home in the good ole USA that you need to sleep with a gun by the bed. The only only possible explanation is that in London, you knew that no-one you ran into would have a gun, whereas in your own country, any old schmuck can get a gun.

I enjoy the freedom of being able to go as I please and not feel threatened. I enjoy the "Church bingo night" feeling wherever I go. I don't want to lose that and that's why I wouldn't want to see a guns free for all here. I expect that Curval and HH feel much the same way about this.

"Self defence" does not mean having a gun. People have always needed to defend themselves - long before guns were invented.