Banning Handguns

[The Floyd]

I've put a quite a bit of thought into this. I don't like guns personally so I don't really like the thought, nor do I see the point, of people having them.

That being said, Paul Martin's expectations of banning handguns is to reduce gun crimes in the city. The problem is that most gun crimes in Toronto have been committed with illegal weapons.

NOT MUCH to say 'cause I gotta go to class, and I don't wanna ramble on, but basically:

If most gun crimes are being committed with illegal and unlicensed weapons, what is the real benefit in banning handguns other than it looking good? What do you think would be a better solution to controlling even illegal weapons, because I believe it's possible.

Shine on

[Bannockburn]

Martin is out of his head. Its the same with the gun registery a couple of years ago. It won't do anything.

[Publius]

A communist who doesn't like guns? What about the revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it any wonder none's afraid of you guys?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:08 PM
A communist who doesn't like guns? What about the revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it any wonder none's afraid of you guys?
Well, he doesn't speak for me, that's for certain. I think every sane, law-abiding and responsible citizen should be allowed to own automatic weapons. No joke.

[Leif]

He certainly doesn't speak for me.

And I assure you, people are still afraid of us, we're out to kill christmas and poison people's pets.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by NoXion+Dec 9 2005, 12:43 PM--> (NoXion @ Dec 9 2005, 12:43 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 03:08 PM
A communist who doesn't like guns? What about the revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it any wonder none's afraid of you guys?
Well, he doesn't speak for me, that's for certain. I think every sane, law-abiding and responsible citizen should be allowed to own automatic weapons. No joke. [/b]
i agree

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:08 PM
A communist who doesn't like guns? What about the revolution?
A Pacifist Revolution :lol:

Recently San Fransico banned handguns, what a shame.

I think the idea of banning handguns would have Che Guevara rolling in his grave.

[Dark Exodus]

Everyone knows that guns creep out of houses at night and frame their owners for murder. They are evil! They should be banned alongside violence, sex and sharp edges on street signs.

[STI]

Great. Pretty soon we won't have any guns. Then guess who has all the guns. Yeah, the cops and the military. Then we're really screwed.

[rossith]

Welcome to a taste of life in Britain. :P

[Goatse]

The only time I ever saw some firearm was in London, out the gates to Downing Street, two Brownings and an MP5 being held by the black and white clad freedom fighters. The only person I know who has them other than the police (who don't flash them pver here often but I assume they'll have some in their fortress) is some rich snob, the Duke of Roxburgh, some tosser who was born into wealth and has not done a day's work in his life. (He manages to own a castle, however.) I know from a friend he has a room full of guns. Asshole.

[JKP]

I'm more pro-gun than most conservatives are.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I support the legislation. In society, minimizing violence should be a priority. Sometimes, I will admit, violence is necessary; however, if a revolution were to occur, I don't think it would be fought with handguns anyway. Realistically, the positive benefits outweight the negative benefits, from what I can see. I don't support the liberals, by any means, though - I just prefer them over the conservatives.

[bcbm]

if a revolution were to occur, I don't think it would be fought with handguns anyway.

No, but handguns are useful in acquiring larger arms and for urban guerrilla combat.

[Bannockburn]

and that is somehow going to stop soliders with night vision, tanks and my far better arms?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 10 2005, 02:06 AM
I support the legislation. In society, minimizing violence should be a priority.

Banning handguns doesn't minimise violence, it merely takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.


Sometimes, I will admit, violence is necessary; however, if a revolution were to occur, I don't think it would be fought with handguns anyway.

How else would it be fought then? How did you learn to predict the future anyway?


Realistically, the positive benefits outweight the negative benefits, from what I can see.

A tautology - but what do you actually mean?

[Simotix]

Realistically, the positive benefits outweight the negative benefits, from what I can see.

How does banning handguns have out weighing positive benefits? That is ridiculous, it is our right to own a gun.

[Vallegrande]

Banning handguns is like anything else that is banned. When it is banned, it has a higher demand. There will always be guns on the streets if the government decided to ban all guns.

[JKP]

All the evidence over the past decade has shown that gun control has zero effect on reducing crime; in fact, the areas with less regulation are safer.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:08 PM
A communist who doesn't like guns? What about the revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is it any wonder none's afraid of you guys?
Oh believe me.

The government trembles at communist guerrillas in south america.

[Eoin Dubh]

Gun control is out of control in Canada.
You cannot even get a crossbow or 22.cal pellet gun without a licence.

Check out this site:

http://www.jpfo.org/

[The Floyd]

It's not that I have something against licensed weapons, in fact that was one of the arguments that was made in the broadcast I saw yesterday afternoon. The owner felt that it would only hurt honest gun-owners. Which is true.

I don't think they should ban handguns, but more control on illegal weapons. (I know it sound stupid but I think it could be done)

Besides, I'm really a man of peace, once the government is overthrown, we should minimize the amount of weapons in society. Oh well.

[Ownthink]

If there is ONE good thing about America, it is our right to own pretty much whatever the fuck we want in terms of guns.

Automatic weapons (Including LMG's) are legal in a few states, and so are silencers, albeit both with an FFL license.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Personally, law-abiding is hardly a word I'd use to describe the average gun-buyer. Some are law-abiding, but many are irresponsible, and, as a result, children or family members get hurt. I realize that most crimes are committed with unregistered guns; however, some crime would decrease, in my opinion, if handguns were banned.

Saying a revolution won't be commited with handguns isn't predicting the future. They would be used (I didn't mean to say they wouldn't), but I don't see them playing a major role against machine guns and heavy artillery. Furthermore, you are assuming a mass-scale violent revolution is needed.

You might want to take into account that I am Canadian. I don't view guns as important as others might. Furthermore, supporting the legislation does not mean I support the party, nor does it mean I think the legislation is a great legislation. I merely support it - I disagree with it being used politically when it does little for the average person.

Furthermore, I am extremely hesitant to share a belief that the right-wing adopts, which is being pro-gun. When conservatives are usually wrong, one should examine carefully before siding with them on any issue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally, law-abiding is hardly a word I'd use to describe the average gun-buyer. Some are law-abiding, but many are irresponsible, and, as a result, children or family members get hurt.

And some people who own cars drink and drive. People who handle guns irresponsibly should be penalised, not all gun owners. Would it be reasonable to ban cars because a minority drink and drive?

But first, please prove that the "average" gun buyer is irresponsible.


I realize that most crimes are committed with unregistered guns; however, some crime would decrease, in my opinion, if handguns were banned.

You contradict yourself here. Since most crimes are committed with unregistered weapons, you want to ban weapons for all? This merely gives a free reign to those who don't care about the law, ie the criminals.


Saying a revolution won't be commited with handguns isn't predicting the future. They would be used (I didn't mean to say they wouldn't), but I don't see them playing a major role against machine guns and heavy artillery. Furthermore, you are assuming a mass-scale violent revolution is needed.

Once machineguns and artillery are dragged out, it's no longer a revolution but a civil war.


You might want to take into account that I am Canadian. I don't view guns as important as others might.

And I live in the UK, one of the most knee-jerk clutch-throat wishy-washy pussy countries when it comes to private firearms ownership.


Furthermore, supporting the legislation does not mean I support the party, nor does it mean I think the legislation is a great legislation. I merely support it - I disagree with it being used politically when it does little for the average person.

It's liberal crap.


Furthermore, I am extremely hesitant to share a belief that the right-wing adopts, which is being pro-gun. When conservatives are usually wrong, one should examine carefully before siding with them on any issue.

Private firearms ownership is a matter of social not economic freedom.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I see your point. You can't penalize everyone for a select minority, and I can't prove the average gun buyer is irresponsble. I could make an argument suggesting that they are, however. I mean, it seems far more likely that most gun-owners are capitalists afraid of terrorists than revolutionaries. I might be wrong.

I don't see why anyone needs a handgun to protect themselves from criminals. Criminals are the victim of social conditions, for the most part, and not evil. Why would anyone own a handgun out of fear? They should be owned out of a desire for social justice through revolution, not because of fear. According to capitalists, criminals will be the ones starting the revolution. If that is the case, why do we want to give guns to non-military bourgeosie capitalists who want to protect themselves from those "evil criminals"?

Because I cannot come up with a decent counterargument, I have changed my mind on this issue. I feel someone has the right to own a handgun, but I still think most people buying them are doing so for incorrect reasons, and I am hestitant as to whether allowing them (at this period of time) really helps the leftist cause.

[middleman]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2005, 02:28 PM
I've put a quite a bit of thought into this. I don't like guns personally so I don't really like the thought, nor do I see the point, of people having them.

That being said, Paul Martin's expectations of banning handguns is to reduce gun crimes in the city. The problem is that most gun crimes in Toronto have been committed with illegal weapons.

NOT MUCH to say 'cause I gotta go to class, and I don't wanna ramble on, but basically:

If most gun crimes are being committed with illegal and unlicensed weapons, what is the real benefit in banning handguns other than it looking good? What do you think would be a better solution to controlling even illegal weapons, because I believe it's possible.

Shine on
my friend i promise you this...

if a person is that determined to take anouther ones life, then they will do so... it has happend before... people strangle others with neck ties, wire and so on, also they have killed with arrows and knifes as well... broken glass, beer bottles and a can of Ax with a lighter has killed someone before. (Ax is a deoderant for men, if you hold it up to a lighter and spray, you then have a flame thrower...)

the best way to controle gun violance is not by banning guns, you create more complicated murders that way, you instead make it worth while to give the gun to local authorities. meaning the local authorities will buy the gun from you, be it leagal or not, no questions asked. you walk away with cash and thats one less gun on the street.

trust me, if some one is determined to kill, they will kill. the only way to prevent it is by taking the person out of the socity, and because thats not always so easly done, then we get murders...

[The Floyd]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 10 2005, 05:57 PM
Saying a revolution won't be commited with handguns isn't predicting the future. They would be used (I didn't mean to say they wouldn't), but I don't see them playing a major role against machine guns and heavy artillery. Furthermore, you are assuming a mass-scale violent revolution is needed.
I'd have to agree with you. What I understood from what you said, basically it is: Why does the Revolution have to be violent?

This is what I was thinking when people started saying "How can there be revolution without guns" and "what are we gonna fight with: sticks and stones?"

[The Floyd]

Originally posted by middleman+Dec 11 2005, 04:37 AM--> (middleman @ Dec 11 2005, 04:37 AM)
The [email protected] 9 2005, 02:28 PM
I've put a quite a bit of thought into this. I don't like guns personally so I don't really like the thought, nor do I see the point, of people having them.

That being said, Paul Martin's expectations of banning handguns is to reduce gun crimes in the city. The problem is that most gun crimes in Toronto have been committed with illegal weapons.

NOT MUCH to say 'cause I gotta go to class, and I don't wanna ramble on, but basically:

If most gun crimes are being committed with illegal and unlicensed weapons, what is the real benefit in banning handguns other than it looking good? What do you think would be a better solution to controlling even illegal weapons, because I believe it's possible.

Shine on
my friend i promise you this...

if a person is that determined to take anouther ones life, then they will do so... it has happend before... people strangle others with neck ties, wire and so on, also they have killed with arrows and knifes as well... broken glass, beer bottles and a can of Ax with a lighter has killed someone before. (Ax is a deoderant for men, if you hold it up to a lighter and spray, you then have a flame thrower...)

the best way to controle gun violance is not by banning guns, you create more complicated murders that way, you instead make it worth while to give the gun to local authorities. meaning the local authorities will buy the gun from you, be it leagal or not, no questions asked. you walk away with cash and thats one less gun on the street.

trust me, if some one is determined to kill, they will kill. the only way to prevent it is by taking the person out of the socity, and because thats not always so easly done, then we get murders... [/b]
I partly agree, but this is what I disagree with:

Sometimes murders are committed in the heat of the moment... A gun is kinda like *pull, snap, DEAD* where as a broken bottle or a spray can of axe body spray with a lighter is a little more thought out. you almost have time to decide, "do i really wanna run up to this guy and stab him in the throat repeatedly with this broken vodka bottle?"

The human mind works incredibly fast, believe it or not.

That is what they are targetting, they know people are still gonna die through murder, but people dont walk around with a crossbow in their pant pockets.

Yes people will kill, but gun related deaths, spontaneous murders, the kinda hot-headed events that change people's lives... those will be less frequent and far between if there is more control over legal AND illegal weapons.

[poster_child]

I don't see a need for anyone to own a handgun. If they are law-abiding honest people, then why do they need one? To protect their family? Most of the time a family member (quite often a child) is hurt by a household gun. Parents aren't always as responsible as they should be, and a lot of times guns are taken from parents. We haven't seen school shootings as often as we have in the past 10 years ever!

I do believe that the government should focus on cracking down on illegal handguns and focus on gun smuggling from the US. That would help things a lot.

In sum: I don't see a need for hand guns in the household of average people.
"It's our right" argument is just plain stupid. It's our right if we make it our right. I could be our right to hit people in the head with sledge hammers if we made it so.

[bcbm]

I'd have to agree with you. What I understood from what you said, basically it is: Why does the Revolution have to be violent?

It doesn't. But I'd rather not lose my right to own a weapon and then be forced into violent confrontation. Better to have the gun and not need it than vice versa.

-----------


I don't see a need for anyone to own a handgun. If they are law-abiding honest people, then why do they need one?

Perhaps they dislike the government? Perhaps they just like to collect guns? The reasons are really immaterial. I don't see a need to ban handguns from people's homes.


To protect their family? Most of the time a family member (quite often a child) is hurt by a household gun.

This isn't the gun's fault. You address the real problem in the next sentence:


Parents aren't always as responsible as they should be

This is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the problem of gun ownership.


We haven't seen school shootings as often as we have in the past 10 years ever!

And yet guns were much easier to acquire in the past. Perhaps the problem is not with guns and who has them, but with the society that is producing people who will shoot up their school?

[Bannockburn]

And yet guns were much easier to acquire in the past. Perhaps the problem is not with guns and who has them, but with the society that is producing people who will shoot up their school?

Bingo. Guns and violence is a reaction to the material conditions of society. Everytime there is a school shooting, there is a clear reason why it happened, how the school, community and various families failed to stop the conditions prior to any shooting.

9 times out of 10, the school realizes there is a problem, but fail to act accordingly.

[visceroid]

as soon as you make it a criminal offence to own a gun, only the criminals will own guns.

[Invader Zim]

Banning handguns doesn't minimise violence, it merely takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

A fallicy, where do you think that gun crime comes from? If the weapons did not exist then the gun crime would not exist.

The simple application of logic tells us this.

[Arendra]

If you take handguns out of stores, they will be sold illegally and imported from other countries. You aren't banning the problem, just making it more difficult to trace. The true murderers will still get their guns in some way.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:49 AM


Banning handguns doesn't minimise violence, it merely takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

A fallicy, where do you think that gun crime comes from? If the weapons did not exist then the gun crime would not exist.

The simple application of logic tells us this.
Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to make every single weapon in the world disappear.

In fact, that would probably be undesireable, as whoever could scratch-build a gun will have great power over others.

[Eastside Revolt]

Gun crimes are a direct result of the free market. Guns make money for gangs, so there are guns. It has very little to do with the law.

The only solution is revolution.

This little election ploy is typical of Canada's reactionary anti-gun culture. It will work very well for the political parties.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:34 PM
Great. Pretty soon we won't have any guns. Then guess who has all the guns. Yeah, the cops and the military. Then we're really screwed.
Agreed. Not having a gun won't protect you from the police, especially if you are black... you might still "reach for a gun."

Now the police not having guns is something I can get behind, people that predisposed to paranoia should not be allowed weapons. I think pigs should be diagnosed rather than armed.