Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 16,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc
The term "archaic" is entirely appropriate with regard to the position that private possession of hand guns is either necessary or desirable. Handguns may have been of some legitimate value to the denizens of the wild west in the 1800's... now, not so much. If one objects to having their archaic values described as such, they might do well to take not of the fact that it's the 21st century, not the 19th.
Your post more than proves my point and in fact only further adds to it...
It is not necessary... for many completely lawful and responsible people it is desirable...
That is the fact that you and MacDoc seem to have trouble getting your heads around becuase of... well... let's say your personal proclivities/ideology which are/is of utmost importance to you, even if they/it deprive others of their freedom, due to what I would argue comes from a sense of ethical/moral superiority and thus why you feel the need to dictate to others what they should or should not be able to do/own in a safe and responsible manner.
That is the fact that you and MacDoc seem to have trouble getting your heads around becuase of... well... let's say your personal proclivities/ideology which are/is of utmost importance to you, even if they/it deprive others of their freedom, due to what I would argue comes from a sense of ethical/moral superiority and thus why you feel the need to dictate to others what they should or should not be able to do/own
I was not aware that I had any power to dictate anything to anyone. I thought this is/was a discussion; I'm laying out my position as clearly as I can, and I hope and expect people who disagree to explain why. Your assertion that I'm being dictatorial out of some sort of sense of elitism is completely unfounded and, I would add, rather insulting.
As we have already agreed society demands well all relinquish some freedoms, and I do see that as a cost. The question is does the benefit justify the cost. You say no, I say probably (I can't say "yes" for certain, because we haven't tried it, so we don't really know what the costs or benefits would be).
I have explained as clearly as I can why I think the social costs of handgun ownership outweigh the benefits. The only rational arguments I have seen presented for the contrary are:
1) SINC's point about the benefits of target shooting
2) Your arguments about personal freedom
3) My own point about the potential value of handguns in certain edge-cases of self defence.
I have refuted point 1 by saying that target shooting does not require ownership of lethal handguns; any of a number of less dangerous tools could be employed by target-shooting enthusiasts. I have responded to 2 by saying that we give up some freedom by being members of a society, and that the costs of permitting private citizens to own handguns outweighs the value of this particular freedom (I infer from your comments that this is the primary point where we disagree, but I have yet to see any argument from you or anyone else as to why the freedom to own handguns is so important, but freedom to own fully automatic assault rifles is not). And I have addressed point 3 by saying that, fortunately, the sorts of scenarios in which having a handgun in the house is of any utility are so vanishingly rare that they are far outweighed by the risks associated with having a handgun in the house.
__________________
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Please help fight Cancer -Donate or volunteer to the Canadian Cancer Society
--------------- MOΛΩN ΛABE
Yep, the uninformed strike again. And some hunters have been known to carry and use hand guns. Self protection in a tent from a bear comes to mind. One does not easily wield a rifle under attack in the middle of the night.
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these ad links. Don't click on them.
Yep, the uninformed strike again. And some hunters have been known to carry and use hand guns. Self protection in a tent from a bear comes to mind. One does not easily wield a rifle under attack in the middle of the night.
I must have mentioned it about a half dozen times already in this thread alone, I really don't understand why it doesn't sink in his head. Only a few posts above I discussed how UK Olympic shooter's have to train outside the country due to the handgun ban.
Unfortunately, SINC, what you mention is no longer allowed. You need an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is nearly impossible to get for mere mortals. Even trappers working a registered trap line have to take a separate course to get an ATC to work their line. Some scientists (hear that bryanc?) and naturalists, conservation workers may be issued an ATC in Polar bear country, but again, most just carry a short barrelled 12g a w/ slugs. Lot less hassle.
__________________
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Please help fight Cancer -Donate or volunteer to the Canadian Cancer Society
--------------- MOΛΩN ΛABE
Okay, I didn't know that hand guns were used in the olympics. Any reason they need to be lethal weapons for target shooting? Is it too easy to hit a target with a paint ball?
As for scientists working with polar bears; I know several. None of them use hand guns. They'll usually cary a rifle with them, but none I know have ever had to use one. Nevertheless, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of wildlife control officers carrying guns (even hand guns). I just don't see why private citizens need them.
okay, i didn't know that hand guns were used in the olympics. Any reason they need to be lethal weapons for target shooting? Is it too easy to hit a target with a paint ball?
As for scientists working with polar bears; i know several. None of them use hand guns. They'll usually cary a rifle with them, but none i know have ever had to use one. Nevertheless, i'm perfectly happy with the idea of wildlife control officers carrying guns (even hand guns). I just don't see why private citizens need them.
Unfortunately, SINC, what you mention is no longer allowed. You need an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is nearly impossible to get for mere mortals. Even trappers working a registered trap line have to take a separate course to get an ATC to work their line. Some scientists (hear that bryanc?) and naturalists, conservation workers may be issued an ATC in Polar bear country, but again, most just carry a short barrelled 12g a w/ slugs. Lot less hassle.
I was thinking in broader terms kps, as in 20 minutes south of the border in wilderness areas used by U.S. hunters in the west where grizzlies roam. The social benefit of guns is not entirely restricted to Canada.
As for bryanc, he will never change his ideals of what HE believes society should be like i.e.: gunless for the most part. What he misses is that the vast majority in North America outside Canada live by the gun and forever will. With the U.S. next door, it's as good as its ever going to get here in Canada right now.
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these ad links. Don't click on them.
Linear Mode
