This time from Canada: Gun control measures do not reduce crime

Unfinished cont'd...

Now I'm all worked up again, thanks to this gun law shit...

I just wanted to provide some examples of how bill c-68 is ineffective in reducing crimes... Again, don't misunderstand me, gun laws work - ineffective gun laws don't. Bill c-68 is an ineffective gun law... To demonstate this read the following;

C-68 is a dual registration system whereby the firearm and its owner are registered in a data-base in order to enable police the ability to keep track of who has what.. Proponents of c-68 argued that this would be valuable information for police entering a volatile situation at a household - particularly domestic disputes which are statistically proven to be the most volatile type of police dispatch. I agree with that assesment. I mean, if I were a cop responding to a domestic where some fuck-up was beatin' his wife because his steak was overcooked I'd like to know whether or not the said fuck-up has a firearm in there.. Wait a minute....The FAC screening system would have rejected this fuck-up ownership of a firearm through its comprehensive back-ground check... But, never the less this argument was valid..

In addition to the above argument put forth by proponents of c-68 they also argued that police could track stolen firearms through the dual registration system... Hmmmm, think about this one people... I mean, to what degree could you track a stolen firearm if the only info. you had were the serial number of the firearm and the legal owners name?? Once it's stolen, tracking that firearm essentially ends, until it's used in some crime then, and only then, would more info. on the gun become available.. I mean, once they dig the bullet out of some poor bastards skull and determine the guage etc. etc. lawmakers and lawenforcers would know that the stolen gun taken from a particular household was used to commit that particular crime.. Okay, good work Sherlock - but the question remains....How the fuck did that info. reduce a crime committed with a firearm???? It's pretty obvious it doesn't..

The problem is, there are fuck-ups in society... And lawmakers should do anything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those fuck-ups.. The most effective way to do that is a comprehensive screening process and, to answer the question of accidental gun deaths, institute a mandatory government regulated training program on the safe handling of guns.. Following that, if a legal gun owner has a moment of "Fuck-upness" then so be it, charge his/her ass and send them to prison - if appropriate.

Ohh man, this topic really pisses me off!
 
We can do whatever we want to restrict guns, but that won't solve the problem, just might reduce it temporarily. The problem doesn't lie within our millitary, or politics, but rather our belief systems. If one believe it's ok to hurt someone with a gun, they will. So may be it's time educate people not to hurt others.
 
Originally posted by Hevene
We can do whatever we want to restrict guns, but that won't solve the problem, just might reduce it temporarily. The problem doesn't lie within our millitary, or politics, but rather our belief systems. If one believe it's ok to hurt someone with a gun, they will. So may be it's time educate people not to hurt others.
Click to expand...
applause.gif


Big ups to you for pegging the causality.
 
Thank you Stokes Pennwalt.

Dr Lou Natic
Unlike humans, other animals only have it's natural instinct, without consiousness. We as humans have the ability to choose what we want, and if we want peace and unity, we shouls start from altering faulty beliefs.
 
Hevene

we shouls start from altering faulty beliefs.
Click to expand...

Boy oh boy what a concept. Ummm, you may have a problem there Hevene: I mean who is to decide what beliefs are right and wrong?? Maybe in a totalitarian regime you "MAY" be able to determine and control beliefs but, in a free and democratic country we are granted the freedom to believe whatever we want -- we control the rammifications of those beliefs through laws.
 
I should've stated that clearer. There are no right or wrong beliefs, but what works and what doesn't given what we want to do with the world. Many of our beliefs just doesn't work to create a peaceful and loving world and it is those beliefs that had created war and starvation, indifference etc.
 
Originally posted by Hevene
Thank you Stokes Pennwalt.

Dr Lou Natic
Unlike humans, other animals only have it's natural instinct, without consiousness. We as humans have the ability to choose what we want, and if we want peace and unity, we shouls start from altering faulty beliefs.
Click to expand...

haha...where did you read that?

We are governed by instinct more than you realize. Especially in moments when you think you might need a gun.
 
Originally posted by Hevene
If one believe it's ok to hurt someone with a gun, they will.
Click to expand...
Well, there have been times when I've wanted to hurt someone with a gun (in situations where most people would do so to defend themselves). Fortunately I don't have one.

People argue. People fight. People do this using whatever means they have. Limiting the guns in circulation limit the number of people/criminas that will have them, therefore limiting the amount of damage which can be done. The issue here is not gun control, but a law that fails to limit the number of guns in circulation.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
haha...where did you read that?

We are governed by instinct more than you realize. Especially in moments when you think you might need a gun.
Click to expand...
You're both right. His point was that, unlike other animals, humans have natural inhibitors on their instinctual actions, brought about chiefly by things like rationality, conscience, and compassion.
 
i know quite a few people though who when angered seem much more like animals than humans and they anger rather easily. it wouldnt be wise to give these people guns, especially if they have a tendency to drink
 
Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
humans have natural inhibitors on their instinctual actions, brought about chiefly by things like rationality, conscience, and compassion.
Click to expand...
Most of which drop out when one is in a situation where a gun or other weapon could be used.
 
Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
His point was that...
Click to expand...
Not his, her!

To spuriousmonkey
Our instinctual actions are not to hurt others, but to love each other. The only reason why we are hurting eachothers now is that we now see each other as separate, taught by most organised religions. When we react, that is "re-act" to certain situations, it is not an act with originality, but simply a carbon copy of what we did before and that's why histories are repeating itself. It's not that we don't know the consequences of the act of hurting others, but we live in denial of that and you call that instinct, but it's nothing more than just beliefs that doesn't work if we want a peaceful world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top