Armed and Hoserous
Remember, folks. Only in gun-crazy America do kids have AK-47s in their room. Up in Canada, their draconian gun control laws are designed to make sure that that never happens.
The wall of silence that Toronto police usually run into when investigating weapons offences crumbled in an unexpected way Tuesday, when a mother turned in her son after finding a loaded assault rifle in his bedroom.
The woman turned the AK-47 over to police immediately after finding it. Her son, who was known to police, was not home at the time. The police searched the home for other weapons.
The 17-year old suspect was then arrested Tuesday evening when he returned home with a friend. Both were taken into custody without incident.
The suspect, who was known to police, was charged with 13 offences, including weapons charges and possession of cocaine. He was also charged with failure to comply with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, after being placed on a one-year probation in 2005 on another weapons charge, according to police sources.
Okay, so obviously the kid has a fascination with guns. (Perhaps his father was American.) Doesn’t this just show the futility of gun control as a means of preventing gun crime? I mean, if a kid who wants an AK-47 can get ahold of one, why would anyone think that a professional criminal, whose livelihood depends on being armed, would be any different? Note the following, found at the end of the article.
Meanwhile, in Toronto Wednesday, police raided an apartment and seized a number of weapons, including a grenade launcher.
Nigel Jack of Toronto, Troy Bennett of Brampton, and Matthew Allen of Toronto face two dozen charges, including unauthorized possession of a firearm. Authorities found eight firearms, including two imitation Uzi submachine-guns.
They also seized a quantity of cocaine, marijuana and cash as proceeds of crime.
Several rounds of ammunition were also found in the search.
A grenade launcher? In Canada? But, Michael Moore told me that Canada was a pastoral place where everyone loved each other, and people walk around with rainbows shooting out of their assholes singing Celine Dion songs. Why would anyone want a grenade launcher, or an Uzi? Could it be that, despite the rhetoric, there is a criminal underclass in Canada that requires firearms and other weapons as an essential element in conducting its business? Could it also be that criminals, by their very definition, do not obey the law, and thus additional gun control laws won’t have any effect on them whatsoever?
Note that the police also seized cocaine and marijuana. Funny, isn’t it, that Canada’s drug control laws didn’t prevent the drugs from entering their country, yet they seem to think that disarming law-abiding citizens is going to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.
Comments
Quite wrong, the laws make sure its illegal. An endeavor in which they succed perfectly.
It’s illegal in America too. Funny how that works.
Certainly not, it show how effective it has been in removing this particular gun
But it didn’t remove that particular gun, that’s the point.
urthermore, does the presence of illegal drugs on American territory proves “the futility” of the war on drugs ? I think not.
Absolutely. The war on drugs is a monumental failures. It is a huge waste of resources, and has provided justification for massive expansions of government power and abrogation of privacy and civil rights. The war on drugs has done nothing more than ensure that criminals will always have a lucrative source of income.
Oh, Canada...what the hell happened? The truth is, we’re starting to wake up and see that problems are our own faults. Well, smart Canadians are starting to realize that. We still got these big morons that insist it’s ‘Amerikkka’s’ fault. The truth is, 2006 is probably going to be the year of the gun just like 2005 was.
A few points....
Swiss-Boy, I think you fail to understand that Canada, despite having some of the strictest handgun laws in the world, still has problems with illegal gun use. Obviously, the laws in place aren’t working to address these problems. A new, and tougher, approach is needed.
The boy’s father is American? Try he has no father at all. Say whatever you like, children who come from stable families with functioning mothers and fathers tend to do better than children who come from broken homes. I realise some people live under circumstances beyond their control but nevertheless.
The Young Offender’s Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written. More serious crimes have been and still are committed by the under-aged and the public at large will never know the identity of a murderer until he is eighteen.
Where is Moore now? Where is his cover story for all of this?
I want a grenade launcher :)
I wanted an AK-47 for Christmas but all I got was a stupid freakin’ Uzi. Gee, thanks Mom and Dad. God, they don’t love me!
Okay, so obviously the kid has a fascination with guns.
Thats an assumption. Based on what though? He just left it on his bed where his mother could find it while he was out so that maybe his mom would let him keep it?
Im not sure what your point is though with this story and Canadas “draconian” gun laws. Do you think this kid should have been able to obtain this gun legally?
We still got these big morons that insist it’s ‘Amerikkka’s’ fault.
There are a few. But I think most realize its a localized gang problem. Guns coming in from the US doesnt help, but its not the cause. The number out there is that about 50% of the guns seized have come over the border. Most of the other 50% are guns stolen from legit gun owners in Canada. Reducing both numbers wouldnt be a bad idea.
Authorities found eight firearms, including two imitation Uzi submachine-guns.
Imitation??? What the hell… are they Canadian Maple Sugar Candies shaped like UZI’s???
I wouldn’t be a bit suprized to find out they are ‘Air-Soft’ guns and aren’t even real. Something else the BANNERS would like to make illegal
Im not sure what your point is though with this story and Canadas “draconian” gun laws
the point i believe, for all the gun laws in canda a 17 year old has a AK-47, all the innocent people have been stripped of weapons but some teen crook is walking around buying Ak’s..so what good are the gun laws? taking them away from people who won’t be using them in their drug deals won’t stop little drug addicts like this, who have records even, from getting them.
but i guess some people are happy knowing this druggie can walk into their home, shoot them and take the money and the home owner never have an option of using a gun in defense.
Im not sure what your point is though with this story and Canadas “draconian” gun laws
Up4,
As Wally said:
the point i believe, for all the gun laws in canda a 17 year old has a AK-47, all the innocent people have been stripped of weapons but some teen crook is walking around buying Ak’s..so what good are the gun laws?
Maybe I can add to that. This is the 2nd time this kid has been arrested for breaking firearm laws. He was probably still on probation when his mother, much to her credit, turned him in. Cocaine was found in his room.
Here’s some food for thought. Gun laws are one thing. Law enforcement is another. Then, there are penalties for breaking those laws. But, no matter how draconian those gun laws may be, no matter how effective enforcement is, or how many mothers call the cops on their kid, if the penalty for breaking those gun laws is mere probation, then how effective is government in protecting citizens?
It’s illegal in America too. Funny how that works.
Is it ? I’m pretty sure it must be legal to own an AK in some parts of the US.
But it didn’t remove that particular gun, that’s the point.
Re-read the whole thing, I’m pretty sure he ain’t keeping his AK.
The war on drugs is a monumental failures. It is a huge waste of resources, and has provided justification for massive expansions of government power and abrogation of privacy and civil rights
Are we talking about Iraq ?
no matter how effective enforcement is, or how many mothers call the cops on their kid, if the penalty for breaking those gun laws is mere probation, then how effective is government in protecting citizens?
I agree with that at 200 %. It should be prison.
Lee,
I have been disagreeing with your views a lot (constantly) on the last few posts and on this one as well, It is not my goal to be provocative or to attack your personal views.
I have a strong dislike for firearms since a person I did business with got shoot during riot in Mombasa 4 years ago, lost bullet, I was inches away on the back seat of a car.
Not a friend of mine, I had only met him two days before but still, its very shocking. I sincerly believe that once you go through something like that you understand the real danger of a weapon.
Hoping you wont resent my constant attacks of your pro-armes posts as much now that I clarifed my reasons.
I agree with that at 200 %. It should be prison.
Swissboy,
Many will agree with you. Let me ask this question. In Canada, how long should a 17 year old be locked up for possession of an illegal firearm?
In Canada, how long should a 17 year old be locked up for possession of an illegal firearm?
Or anywhere else… Though one.
Thats for juges to decide upon looking at every particular case I guess.
But I this case, I’ll spoil you with an answer. He should spend at least a year in prison I my oppinion, at least…
Swissboy:
Lee:
Remember, folks. Only in gun-crazy America do kids have AK-47s in their room. Up in Canada, their draconian gun control laws are designed to make sure that that never happens.
Quite wrong, the laws make sure its illegal. An endeavor in which they succed perfectly. ... (I)t show how effective it has been in removing this particular gun(.)
I have to go with Lee on this one. The law on the books did little to stop the presence of the gun. FORTUNEATLEY, Canadian law enforcement was, this time, effective in securing the weapon before anything bad happened (I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that there may be a correlation between the presence of guns and the presence of the coke).
Having said that, for them to get “this particular gun” while failing to get the others responsible in the recent shootings demonstrates the laws ineffectiveness. They got this guy because he was underage and living at home--his parent cooperated, so he was cooked the second the police showed up. Aside from the light the boy’s possession of these guns puts the Canadian gun laws in, the fact is that this seems to be the extent of the gun bans effectiveness.
Again, Canadians are free to enact as much virtually useless legislation as they want--we in Ohio do it all the time. However, the fact is that this all demonstrates Canada isn’t the utopia Moore makes it out to be.
Lee:
Swissboy:
Furthermore, does the presence of illegal drugs on American territory proves “the futility” of the war on drugs ? I think not.
Absolutely. The war on drugs is a monumental failures. It is a huge waste of resources, and has provided justification for massive expansions of government power and abrogation of privacy and civil rights. The war on drugs has done nothing more than ensure that criminals will always have a lucrative source of income.
My Populist self has to go with the (French?) Swissboy here Lee. The only reason that “(t)he war on drugs is a monumental failure()” in any sense is because we don’t wipe out drugs use by doing it. Having said that, I wouldn’t use that rationale to try to justify ending the vast amount of resources we use to fight the War on Rape or the War on Murder--things that by their nature abrogate privacy and civil rights.
This is especially true given that, were drugs legalized tomorrow, we’d be spending (I argue more) resources than we do now to handle its costs: regulation, health problems, etc. etc.
And, unlike guns, used to preserve freedom and personal bodily integrity to the end of the human right of self-defense, drugs serve a strictly carnal purpose. Granted, certain drugs have health effects that are, at the lower end, similar to alcohol dependency--however, drugs have more drastic effects in a shorter span of time than alcohol.
Whether you agree we SHOULD outlaw drugs or not is fine Lee. I argue, however, that given the drastic effects that drugs demonstrably have, that--morality aside--: outlawing the drugs is:
a) Not a failure (at the very least, being more cost-effective in the long run); AND
b) doesn’t really infringe on a human/Constitutional right the way gun control does.
My brief tangent, as well as the main gun argument, can synthesized, I believe, into one main dilemma:
Minus some great spiritual change/genetic manipulation, no human society can ever completely deny access to its people those actions/things that people want, regardless of legality: Prostitution will happen. Weapons (including guns) will get to people. Rape will happen. People will get their hands on intoxicants (drugs). Murder will happen.
The issues, however, are two fold and MUST be faced: 1. What do we allow/prohibit? and 2. Since you can never 100% stop anything, is it worth the cost to enforce?
Prohibition in America, for example, worked statistically: Overall, the effects of alcohol went down such than only an underclass of addicts kept going for the stuff--and criminals supplied it. Crime went up somewhat, and Booze Barons (like the Kennedy’s) made quite a bit. Overall, according to the numbers, America benefited more economically from Prohibition than enforcement cost it.
However, given the desirability of alcohol and its place in society (for thousands of years), people got sick of going without it: It was Miller time dammit, and they wanted a drink. The desire for alcohol outweighed any benefit--economic or moral--that forbidding it provided.
The difference between this and the argument with the Left with guns today, however, is very distinct: people against Prohibition damn well knew the costs and accepted them. They didn’t sugar coat it then any more than we do the effects of alcohol now. Even now, Lee and I could have a 4 hour debate on whether drugs are good or not, and (assuming we were both true to form) we’d weigh everything in a cost-benefit analysis and we’d both probably find different places to draw the line.
The Left, however, ignores the reality of its decisions: Removing guns is a guaranteed quick fix. Violence will end when guns end. Guns are bad, they make people kill people. Nothing bad will happen when guns are removed. It’s the only right decision to make. There is no downside. You’re stupid if you think otherwise.
While I support the right of a country to make whatever choice it wishes, what I have found--and continue to find--reprehensible about the Left’s approach to the gun (and other) debate(s) is that it sees things in absolutist terms (an accusation they throw at the Right): The Left takes their utopiac vision and forces it onto reality regardless of the consequences, and anyone who opposes it is wrong regardless of how many facts and how much reality contradicts the Liberal DreamWorld. And if, IF it doesn’t work out, it’s the gun’s fault. It’s the Right’s fault. It’s the corporations’ faults. It’s America’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s anyone’s fault but the criminal’s, or the policy’s, or the Liberals in charge.
How this relates back to Moore is that, while this Canada-gun thing may seem like it’s running on and on, this is simply exposing another Moore lie: another supporting myth pulled from his palace of cards. Canada is not some utopoia because it regulates guns. Gun control is not the quick fix he makes it, and to hide the costs of such a policy goes beyond dishonesty.
But Swissboy, he was caught for the second time with an illegal firearm and this time had cocaine. Are you going to give him only a year in jail?
Of course, you understand the next question: But Swissboy, he’s only 17 . . . he’s just a minor. Why ruin a poor misguided kid’s life with a criminal record for mere possession of a firearm? People commit man-slaughter and get less time than that.
And so it goes . . . trying to hand out fair and balanced justice presents problems. But here’s the rub. No matter the punishment, sooner or later Canada will have to risk releasing this kid back into society. No doubt he will then be on probation again. So my real question is what will Canada have done to protect it’s citizens from firearms? What guarantee does the government of Canada offer that this kid won’t possess an AK-47 one week after he’s released?
He doesnt need jail,but atleast someone who follows him,and that he have to go to some place and report how is doing etc and write of his weeks what he done,and take drugs test.
ALso doing community service for months,that would have happend in sweden atleast…
Not a friend of mine, I had only met him two days before but still, its very shocking. I sincerly believe that once you go through something like that you understand the real danger of a weapon.
Nobody here questions the power or weighty responsibility of a firearm. That’s not the issue. It’s about the response to that power. Having the federal government forcibly remove them from the populace, in the opinion of many of us, is not only the wrong response, but news articles like this also question the EFFECTIVENESS of such measures. Does a rabble of drug-addicted owners of illegal guns, plus a populace not adequately equipped to defend themselves against this, make a good combination? I say no. So what then is the point of depriving innocent civilians of their liberties, at no benefit to their safety?
I am trying to get something straight in my head, just wondering if anyone can help me out....
Does anyone believe that this kids story, or the 50 gun murders last year in Toronto were a result of Canadas gun laws?
Or is the argument simply, people break the law, therefore the law is useless. Like speeding.
Im pretty sure there should be a ‘?’ in the second part of that last post somewhere. Stupid engrish.
Does anyone believe that this kids story, or the 50 gun murders last year in Toronto were a result of Canadas gun laws?
No, but rather, in spite of them. Nobody is stupid enough to suggest that criminalizing an action actually causes crime, other than the obvious fact that some people don’t let legality affect their judgement. So I don’t know why you would even ask this.
Or is the argument simply, people break the law, therefore the law is useless.
No, it’s a cost/benefit analysis. If the laws are not effective in disarming the criminal element, then you have to question the wisdom in depriving those liberties in the first place. Trading liberty for security is a controversial discussion unto itself, but trading liberty for no discernible impact?
No, it’s a cost/benefit analysis.
Pretty scary, no moral component ?
Nobody is stupid enough to suggest that criminalizing an action actually causes crime, other than the obvious fact that some people don’t let legality affect their judgement. So I don’t know why you would even ask this.
Thanks w0rf. I asked because I was trying to figure out if anyone actually believed that having more legal guns would have prevented any of these shootings.
Pretty scary, no moral component ?
If you want morals, try going to Church you f__kin hippy!!!
:)
I have to go with Lee on this one. The law on the books did little to stop the presence of the gun.
The Law will always just be that, a rule, I cannnot prevent a physical object from getting into someone’s hands.
Its purpose is to allow enforcement to to do just that, prevent or if that fail remove an illegal physical object from the wrong persons’s hands.
The question is, do you think its possible to do so or not. If you are convinced its not, like Lee, then the law is indeed pretty useless.
I on the other hand think it is possible, it cannot be perfect sure but better than nothing (nothing being here the american gun control laws).
Answering Buzz:
Same goes for a rapist, a student rapes another, do we shoot him ?
If we dont he’ll get out of jail eventualy then having wasted his life and given the fact that he wasn’t a very moral person to beggin with, chances are he’ll rape again ?
How do we explain that to the new victim ?
we don’t, criminals make society fail, violent criminals doubly so !
We will never be able to fully explain or prevent it. Often the cure is worst than the desease !
I am a pretty strong advocate of presonal rights, without criminials, it wouldn’t cross my mind to try to get guns away from people that like them.
Who am I to tell them what to do with their life ????
I never said, as stewart Hart proposed that it was painless or completly right to make guns illegal. Or even that it only had advantages. It ain’t true, I know that, yet it remains the best solution as long as we have violent people out there.
Swissboy:
The Law will always just be that, a rule, I cannnot prevent a physical object from getting into someone’s hands. Its purpose is to allow enforcement to to do just that, prevent or if that fail remove an illegal physical object from the wrong persons’s hands. The question is, do you think its possible to do so or not. If you are convinced its not, like Lee, then the law is indeed pretty useless. I on the other hand think it is possible, it cannot be perfect sure but better than nothing (nothing being here the american gun control laws).
Well, since the whole point of the gun laws is to prevent the distribution, if it can’t be stopped, they are, as you say, useless. As for whether it’s possible, well, anything’s possible: but given the high unlikelihood, and the fact that no such system has ever worked to the extent its proponents claim, I remain skeptical.
As for Canadian gun laws “(not being) perfect sure but better than nothing (nothing being here the american gun control laws)” I have to disagree 100%. Not only do American states have gun restricitons, but they are as demonstrably as effective as Canada’s in stopping illegal guns.
As I said before, I’m willing to give the Left the benefit of the doubt, but they have yet to come through ont heir promises on this. When they cna make it work, I’d love to see it.
As for better, I disagree. Statistically, gun-related deaths are highest in the U.S. where state and local gun restrictions exist (example: Wahsington D.C.). Again, according to the numbers, the solution to stop gun-related deaths is to increase legal gun ownership, as gun-related deaths drop significantly in areas as legal gun-ownership increases.
And, as for “better”, granted, this is a value judgement to an extent, but I must disagree. I believe that law-abiding citizens should not be punished for the actions of criminals by being denied the ability to defend themselves against those criminals. More improtantly, I disapprove of any slight-of-hand that would deny that ultimate check on government tyranny--granted, this may be my instilled democracy fanaticism from being raised in the oldest democracy in the world today, but I believe the government should not have the monopoly on force such that it can run rough-shod over the people.
You know, it crosses my mind that the people that run this web site could make money by publishing certain posts.
They could call it RED VS. BLUE enter the arena.
;)
Well, since the whole point of the gun laws is to prevent the distribution
Nope, to prevent the deaths, statisticaly it works, less deaths than in the US.
preventing distribution is a mean, it’s not the point of the law.
As for better, I disagree. Statistically, gun-related deaths are highest in the U.S. where state and local gun restrictions exist (example: Wahsington D.C.). Again, according to the numbers, the solution to stop gun-related deaths is to increase legal gun ownership, as gun-related deaths drop significantly in areas as legal gun-ownership increases.
Hehe, easy, lets take a larger frame, EU as less guns, more laws and less deaths.
Statisticaly, Gun laws work.
Statisticaly, Gun laws work.
Really?
Unless the gun satiation or murder rate has changed in Switzerland that statement is inaccurate.
Switzerland: Gun Ownership=High
Murder Rate=Low
So, your conclusion is inaccurate.
I have pointed this out to you before also but apparently you have a very short memory. Not everyone lives in a city in the US. There are still wild animals that pose a danger to people. Some people NEED a gun. Dig your head out and look outside of your very little world.
Are you guys saying that Canada would be better off if it had more guns???
Switzerland: Gun Ownership=High
Common, we are required to have an assault rifle called Fass-90 in our basment after we do the “Militärdienstpflicht” which is mendatory for man.
it isn’t exactly the same as the US is it ?
And we do have guns laws, strics gun laws for that matter.
As for wild beast, you might want to read what I already said about that, lets repeat:
You do not need a handgun or an automatic rifle o life outdoors, a rifle is more than enough.
Nobody wants to ban hunting rifle despite what some paranoid people claimed here.
I love these americans,who was hunting wild animals like bears,and when the ywasn’t allowed that later they went out to a bear place with a rifle and killed the bear and said it was with self defense…
Are you guys saying that Canada would be better off if it had more guns???
Dead on, they are saying exactly that
Common, we are required to have an assault rifle called Fass-90 in our basment after we do the “Militärdienstpflicht” which is mendatory for man.
And he misses the point.
The point is that Switzerland has a very high ownership of firearms. As a matter of fact you are obligated by LAW to own one. Plus you can go out and purchase surplus military equipment from the Swiss military. You claimed that low gun ownership lowered firearm deaths. Yet the Swiss have a very high level of gun ownership and a low level of gun deaths. You basically supported the theory of higher gun ownership actually LOWERS firearm homicides.
You do not need a handgun ....o [for] life outdoors
Yes I do, unlike you (apparently) I am a fairly good shot with a handgun and I can hit the head of a rattlesnake with it. I use handguns for rattlers.
who was hunting wild animals like bears,and when the ywasn’t allowed that later they went out to a bear place
Who said anything about hunting? I am talking about my BACKYARD flathead. I killed a Mojave green (Google it) roughly six months ago. I do have bear and cougar as well. Figure it out.
higher gun ownership
I probably should have said universal
Plus you can go out and purchase surplus military equipment from the Swiss military
Yeah but not weapons, clothes, trucks, generators, rations, beds… nothing to do with the debate.
The point is that Switzerland has a very high ownership of firearms
A FASS-90 IS NOT A GUN !!!! it’s a large assault rifle for which nobody has bullets ! the government distribute them in case of national crisis.
The last time the munitions were distributed was around 1940 when Hitler menaced to invade Switzerland.
It is never use in self-defance, nobody got killed by a Fass-90 in Switzerland EVER !
And you cannot go out and purchase a gun. You need to take classes, have a permit and you still can’t load it. Just keep it at your house that’s all.
You cant even carry it UNLOADED in the street !
Even Swiss SOLDIERS don’t have guns sometimes, like in Kosovo for exemple ! Get that ! They don’t give guns to soldiers, regardless of the ridicule, I think it shows pretty well that Switzerland has a strong dislike for guns in general.
Yes I do, unlike you (apparently) I am a fairly good shot with a handgun and I can hit the head of a rattlesnake with it. I use handguns for rattlers.
That’s just fantastic Crocodile Dundee, problem is my point was that you dont need them. A rifle does just as well.
So ridicule, did you realy hope to justify a $1 trillion bussines with a ratlesnake ???
Are you guys saying that Canada would be better off if it had more guns???
No what i’m saying is it would be better of letting people choose if they want a gun or not, i like freedom, it’s a strange hang up of mine, and i feel it’s better to let people choose what they want to do (the left is always preaching choice strangly but only for what they choose), if you don’t want a gun, if your afraid it will jump out and start shooting people then don’t buy it. but please, don’t take away my hoice, my choice to protect myself and my family as i choose.
for me a gun is the best protection possible, i live out in the country so cops are little help with people or animals, alarms won’t do a thing, and i can protect my family well with a gun, it allows my father, a cripple, to stand up to some young thief he would otherwise lose to..even a girlscout could beat him.
but places like canda and the left want to take away my gun, a gun that has never killed any person, that has never caused an accident, that is correctly stored and taken care of...does that seem right?
That’s just fantastic Crocodile Dundee, problem is my point was that you dont need them. A rifle does just as well.
look you clearly know nothing about guns so take it from people who have guns, pistols can be better for things like this, i mean the ease of carrying it around is a big thing, holster the pistol and it’s rightthere and out of the way..ever tried to carry a rifle every where? for older people who can’t carry the weight of a rifle the pistol is a much better option as well, my grandmother had her pistol to the day she died, when she went outside she took her pistol with her...do you expect her to carry a rifle?
there are a lot of reasons, each gun owner has a reason, good reasons for each gun they own, like knives in a kitchen, you have more than one, each has their own task, handling.
Here’s a thought; maybe these hosers were pissed off about waiting for months for a doctor’s appointment under the free medical care program and were about to go mow down some Canadian Parliament members for keeping Canada so fucked up!
Just a theory mind you!
:)
Quez,
I love these americans,who was hunting wild animals like bears,and when the ywasn’t allowed that later they went out to a bear place with a rifle and killed the bear and said it was with self defense…
I’m sure you have link for this story...? If it isn’t a story but just an analogy please try again, I know this is a 5th language and I respect that, but it was hard to understand. Just like my french is hard to understand. (’cause I don’t speak it). Je ne pour pa souv vette mon. (If I am anywhere near a coherent sentence in that french please applaud me and explain to me what I said.)
Quite wrong, the laws make sure its illegal. An endeavor in which they succed perfectly.
You actually are making the argument that the purpose of a law is SOLELY to outlaw something? That laws are not intended to have an effect?
That’s a really really stupid position to take.
Pretty scary, no moral component ?
There is a moral component, swissboy. It is immoral to deprive people of liberties without evidence of a critical need to do so for the betterment of society.
I asked because I was trying to figure out if anyone actually believed that having more legal guns would have prevented any of these shootings.
Any? Almost certainly. All? Definitely not. The point is, let the people choose for themselves what is best to defend their homes and lives.
Its purpose is to allow enforcement to to do just that, prevent or if that fail remove an illegal physical object from the wrong persons’s hands.
um, swissboy, do you realize that by making the object in question illegal, then EVERYBODY’S hands are automatically the wrong hands? Suddenly everybody who even possesses a firearm is by default a criminal. Why?
I on the other hand think it is possible, it cannot be perfect sure but better than nothing (nothing being here the american gun control laws).
Idiotic statement. The nation has approximately 20,000 different laws regulating the sale and use of firearms.
It ain’t true, I know that, yet it remains the best solution as long as we have violent people out there.
How about we just cut everybody’s dicks off, to keep the bad people from raping others? I’m sure 150 million American men won’t mind being deprived of that liberty to prevent a few thousand criminal acts, often perpetrated by the same small core group of criminals.
A FASS-90 IS NOT A GUN !!!!
An assault rifle is not a gun? That’s funny, I thought if you could put bullets in it, and shoot people with it, that would fit the definition of a gun.
nobody got killed by a Fass-90 in Switzerland EVER
So you agree that the presence of guns in a society does not in fact directly affect the murder rate.
Well, since the whole point of the gun laws is to prevent the distribution, if it can’t be stopped, they are, as you say, useless.
The law being broken is not a reason to take the law off the books. A law itself is not a deterent. If it were, neither of our countries would have prisons. Speeding law attempt to prevent morons from bobbing and weaving through traffic a 200 km/h. Drug laws say that if you sell drugs to kids at a high school, you are going to jail. These things still happen. It doesnt mean the laws are completly ‘useless’.
but places like canda and the left want to take away my gun,
Fear not Wally, Im from Canada, and have no desire at all to take your gun away. Do your best to make sure it doesnt fall into the wrong hands, and dont bring it with you shopping in any Canadian cities. Other than that, enjoy the country life! Man, what I wouldnt do for a few acres and still be able to walk to the store.
RSS (Subscribe)
Quite wrong, the laws make sure its illegal. An endeavor in which they succed perfectly.
Certainly not, it show how effective it has been in removing this particular gun, furthermore, does the presence of illegal drugs on American territory proves “the futility” of the war on drugs ? I think not.