How are guns and drugs different?

[Birdy]

You've changed.

The police don't get the final say. Courts do.

[Birdy]

Now that i think about it, if the only thing we can agree on is the effectiveness of the gun registry as a police aid, is it really worth the billion or so dollars it has cost to implement and run it, if it's not serving as a crime deterrent and/or significantly reducing crime?

[Thorgnor]

Inefficient execution of an idea doesn't make the idea itself incorrect, sometimes it's the engineer's fault.

Whatever happened to the old Conservative battle cry "anything that makes the police safer"?

Edited April 25, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

education, medicine, police, military, science, political parties, architecture... they're all forms of social control.

Dude, they're AVENUES for social control.

Anyway, the real gun control that's needed is getting the guns out of the hands of those using them for crime. I hate you dead horse.

Law-abiding gun owners have to alert police every time a gun leaves their residence and it must be kept in a lockbox. Just enough hassle to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that would be annoyed, and the perfect excuse for a police officer to stop by your place to make sure s/he got home with the weapon safely and on time. Add to this the fact that Canadians have no explicit right to bear arms - truly awkward and unfortunate, though most people think nothing of it.

"anything that makes the police safer" is a great idea, but should really also make them safer for the general public.

The concept 'To Serve and Protect' used to be a lot broader in scope than merely propping up laws.

for example (please help me not hijack this thread, folks) I remember a time when if a driver was caught drinking and driving, under discretion, a police officer could suspend the licence for 12 hours (long enough for someone to sober up) and drive the driver home to make sure s/he'd be safe and get that person off the road.

Now laws have changed and there's even more distance between the public and our police force.

now - Less helping a guy with a chance and some sympathy (which really could be enough of a wake up call to work though immeasurable), more punishment and accountability out of pocket and in criminal charges.

any added 'Gun control' serves to add more regulation into the mix when there could be far more opportunity for the public to be educated about guns.

Could it be worthwhile to have more people learn to shoot and respect firearms instead of being put in a position of fear?

How can we move away from this current trend of finding ways to punish for/deter from less than perfect choices and mistakes made?

Of course drinking and driving and firearms infractions tend to be really big, since drugs are so often linked to guns (subject of this thread) then that concept is one to at least take note of if you haven't.

Compassion. For gun owners? Drug users?

[SaggyBalls]

Interesting how the same segment of society that wants to outlaw drugs, also wants to protect guns from control or regulation. And the people who want to leagalize drugs are among the many who want to control gun sales and availability.

This just shows how dogmatic our beliefs are, and how inconsistent our true values are.

I think that, to an extent, those are the polarized stereotypes of the 'groups' we see through the mind of the media.

It seems that the people that want to 'outlaw drugs' only want to protect us from FURTHER regulation of guns rather than to deregulate which would be the opposite of having gun control.

Those are the same people that would (sterotypically) like to have penalties be harsher for criminals and life to be generally simpler. Maybe they're the same people that listen to AM talk radio and think that Global Warming is a hoax...but I find it really easy to paint those pictures of groups of people in my head and it's not very fair.

...It also seems that the majority of the people that are looking for 'legalized drugs' are mostly only talking about Cannabis and (maybe) psychedelics.

I'm speculating here, but I wouldn't presume that many people are calling for a full decriminalization of all drugs. Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, GHB, Ketamine, LSD, MDMA, and Pharmeceuticals? That's obviously not an 'all drugs' list, but if one were to go into a crowd asking people if they'd want to legalize Heroin I bet the answer would most often be 'why not just legalize pot?'.

So the concept of 'legalizing drugs' is then reduced to allowing people to take something that furthers their pacifism. Gun control really fits with that.

One side wants more order, the other side wants to be free of hassles (like being carjacked or to have to deal with a buzz-killing armed robbery when at the 7/11)

If life's issues weren't all divided to drive us to choose which side to be on, then we wouldn't be as able to stereotype people as readily and look for the quick fix.

IMO The problem's not guns and drugs.

It's that people kill other people and the preference to be high.

supply doesn't drive demand as much as demand drives supply in these cases. Too bad logic makes the current approach seem like the easiest way to 'fix' our woes, cause it sure isn't leading us to a real solution.

[M.O.B.E]

too funny...I just came across this article from the other day. Its American but still somewhat relevant. Author unknown.

Why Americans Carry Guns

4-23-9

PEOPLE ASK WHY

Why I Carry a Gun

I don't carry a gun to kill people.

I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.

I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.

I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.

I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the

world and the necessity to protect myself from it.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.

I carry a gun because I understand the constitutional limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.

I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating

myself for failing to be prepared to protect my family and property.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.

I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and

not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun just because I'm constitutionally guaranteed this right.

I carry a gun because history has proven it to be the final defense against

a tyrannical, oppressive, police state-type of government.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a superior person.

I carry a gun because only those prepared know how to take care

of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.

I carry a gun because being unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am

inadequate and probably get killed.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.

I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful

to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the

crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to give up my liberty and freedom.

.....author unknown

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million peaceful citizens who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 innocents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

With guns, we are "free"! Without them, we are "slaves"!

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! Now, because the U.S. government and DHS are so fearful

of 90-million, well-armed, law-abiding American citizens, they haven't declared martial law.

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory being defenseless. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else

is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES a gun to EVERY HOUSEHOLD and provides training! SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

IT'S A NO-BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.

[Esau.]

too funny...I just came across this article from the other day. Its American but still somewhat relevant.

No offence, but I don't see the relevance to be honest, what your quoted pertains to handguns, which in Canada are restricted weapons, and have been required to be registered since the 1930s and have pretty much always been strictly controlled.

The issues are from bill C-68 (est.1995) that require owners of non-restricted firearms or "long guns" (eg: rifles & shotguns) to regsiter their firearms. Which in may 2009, people who have not regsitered their rifles/shotguns will no longer be protected from prosecution for possession of unregistered rifles or shotguns.

Thankfully, in Canada we've never had to deal with something as vague and misunderstood as the 2nd amendment.

But, thats a whole other topic.

Here's some info about Canada and handguns.

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns.17,18 Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few people (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that his or her life is in danger and the police cannot protect the person. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. Although there are other factors affecting rates of murder, suicide and unintentional injury, a comparison of data in Canada with US data suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate (Table 1).

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html

[Thorgnor]

education' date=' medicine, police, military, science, political parties, architecture... they're all forms of social control.[/quote']

Dude, they're AVENUES for social control.

Point?

Architecture may design a path, or avenue, but that avenue is a form of design, no?

semantic bullshit

I hate you dead horse.

[SaggyBalls]

No they're media for the 'social control' not the actual social controls. The actual form of design is the building, not the activity of the design and construction which is what Architecture is. The plans and printouts and prints are just tools to help bring the idea into form. Aren't you a University grad?

Anyway, One can USE these things for their aims. These things are not the end goal or form.

All too often, precision counts for so little while it makes a huge difference in personal understanding - just as discussions on drugs and guns rarely get finished while glazing over details & smoothing over edges because people tire of lazy communicators.

Glad your heart seems to be in the right place, T.

I hope we never have to 'deal with' something as vague as America's 2nd ammendment. It'd be a shame to have a reason to fight a tyrannical government.

Thanks, M.O.B.E. - I almost forgot about the Armenian Holocaust (genocide)

Edited April 26, 2009 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

The plans and forms and prints are just tools to help bring the idea into form.

awesome, thanks for clearing that up.

so, the "forms" are what help bring the "idea into form" but is the chicken before or after the egg?

don't people fill out forms? words have more meanings than you might wish them to, accuracy is a matter of aim.

semantic bullshit indeed

and self-thread-hijacking taboot

[Esau.]

You know, that Swiss capped part sparked my curiosity. So I did some reading about that. Thanks for bringing it to attention M.O.B.E, it sorta backs up what I said about the 2nd ammendment.

Funny how some US folks like the original poster of M.O.B.E's quote throw half truths out there for their arguement for having handguns.

Its a shame that so many American's feel so threatened that they need to carry a handgun.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES a gun to EVERY HOUSEHOLD and provides training! SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

Not quite, they arm their miltia/military and at the age of 19 males must attend military training and service after which they remain part of the military until the age of 31. For women, military service is voluntary. The firearm (usually a rifle) is then open to gov't inspection at anytime. After the age of 31, if the male decides to finish his term of service, the guns are turned into the gov't and dismantled or made into single action (not semi or fully auto) and returned to the male, if they choose.

Sorta sounds like the 2nd ammendment doesn't it?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Imagine what would happen in the US if able bodied males by the age of 19 were required by law to attend military training and/or boot camps.

The Swiss also don't have a military like the US, or even Canada. For example Swiss Military services

The Swiss go'vt also sponsors proper training (rifles) for adolences to promote proper firearms education and care. Also have a yearly mandatory training for firearms owners. Unlike the US.

They also have strict control of transporting firearms, much like Canada (permit required, only from point A to B etc), only for the purpose of hunting, use at shooting ranges etc, they may not conceal or publically carry their firearm, again unlike the US.

A lot of the rules have also changed as of 2008 when Switzerland signed the Schengen agreement.

In short & pertaining to firearms, all firearms must be regsitered, only one firearm may be purchased per aqusition permit, you must meet the requirements regualted by the gov't to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm, weapons purchased in the last decade before the agreement must be regsitered and if not possession is subject to criminal charges.

They do have a more laxed view toward firearms then Canada, but their gov't takes a much more active role in proper firearms education and regulation.

As for the "lowest gun related crime rate in the civilized world" part, again not quite accurate considering the population is only 7.5 million and from the wiki stats I checked and doing some napkin math the gun crimes would be around par with Canada, perhaps a bit lower and of course extremely lower then the US.

I'd say in reponse to the quoted person in M.O.B.E's post, if your American and value your freedom join the military, thats what the Swiss do.

[Birdy]

Scary!

I think a lot of the reason why things like this work in say, Switzerland, and scare the shit out of me if they were to be attempted in say, America has to do with national identities and the social will of the people. Switzerland has a long past of neutrality and peace-keeping and so it's people have been bred a peaceful lot. America has a long past of civil war, and by god, it's black or white and there is no grey, and so it's people have been bred to keep one eye open on the neighbour. What works in one country, doesn't necessarily work in another. I, for one, cringe and really don't understand those Americans who rally behind M.O.B.E.'s post, nor do I want to ever get to a point where I begin to understand. In a way it spells out that gun reform needs to come in from sooo many different sources, even those that have absolutely nothing to do with guns. Schools, families, media, etc.- all of these things create and form social attitudes. So really, all we need is a quick total upheaval of society and we're all set.

So hard as that is, i'm still thinking the gun registry isn't necessarily the wrong approach, it's just the implementation of it blows. As a person who values individual liberties, i reconcile it in that if a person *chooses* to own a gun, he chooses to accept the responsibility of ownership.

[Thorgnor]

In a way it spells out that gun reform needs to come in from sooo many different sources, even those that have absolutely nothing to do with guns. Schools, families, media, etc.- all of these things create and form social attitudes. So really, all we need is a quick total upheaval of society and we're all set.

So hard as that is, i'm still thinking the gun registry isn't necessarily the wrong approach, it's just the implementation of it blows. As a person who values individual liberties, i reconcile it in that if a person *chooses* to own a gun, he chooses to accept the responsibility of ownership.

You've changed

and now I'm with you.

[Birdy]

Should i pinch myself?

[M.O.B.E]

I lived in the US for a few years and become a Naturalized US Citizen through marriage. My ex-father-law was a gun enthusaist. Mostly hand-guns. I got into guns also, and got a Federal Firearms Permit which even allows me to carry concealed guns, where State law applys. I even went as far as getting myself a .380 Tarrus just like James Bond had. Then I got into reloading brass, grain measurements, seating primers the whole deal. We even made parts and pieces for guns we owned. I learned to machine firing pins for all kinds of pistols. I love guns and everything about them and when used safely and properly by responsible people, they can provide hours of entertainment.

The 2nd Ammendmant is very vague but exists for a reason. That reason ties in to the reasons for declaring Marshall Law and even now invoking the Patriot Act.

All that being said, I sure do love drugs too!

[Birdy]

The 2nd Ammendmant is very vague but exists for a reason. That reason ties in to the reasons for declaring Marshall Law and even now invoking the Patriot Act.

So if the 2nd Amendment implies a civic duty to protect should such a situation occur where Martial law or the Patriot Act be invoked, should there really be an objection if ownership of guns were to be state-regulated? And because of this, is the 2nd Amendment even a 'right', or is it an 'obligation' of citizens?

Hmmmm. Historical text is troublesome because times change. I honestly wonder how many Americans would round themselves up and form a militia to protect the Union against attack should need be. I'm sure Indiana on down would form a nice little strong-hold, but jesus, NY and CA would leave the whole country exposed and vulnerable to attack by sea, or so i should think.

I personally think the 2nd Amendment existED for a reason. A reason i don't think necessarily applies today - maybe because i don't think the bulk of American people would actually stand up and come to America's defense, and maybe because the amendment itself is so poorly worded that it's interpretation is muddied and noone is certain what it means, nor do they really care to get to the bottom of it.

All that said, i'm a Canadian and i don't really know. Maybe i'd be totally surprised and New Yorkers would hold private meetings in church basements and plan the overthrow of their attackers should the situation ever arise. Seems strange, but it could happen.

[Thorgnor]

You could count on at least a couple strongholds of Black America in NY and CA, not to mention Mexican gangs out west and Asian American gangs as well. They're American too, just not in the traditional sense. I bet there'd be some Italian resistance in NY too.

"CAN YOU DIG IT?"

ps. First Nations would continue to defend themselves against colonisation, imo. as well... I wonder how much of the 2nd was intended to ease westward expansion, and since "Indians" didn't have any "concept of ownership" in the eyes of the settlers, the colonists felt legit in their defence of "property".

Edited April 26, 2009 by Guest

[Birdy]

See, that's why i'd consider you for the position of military strategist in my SWO militia chapter. I didn't even consider rallying all the little Italies out there. The real trick though - is how do we make the little Italies work with the Koreans and the Koreans work with the Mexicans, etc.? Do you think they'd come together... like, enough to stop the Jihadists in their tracks? Especially if the insurgents completely surround LA and it all comes down to one great city battle? I hope your orating skills are decent.

Hahaha. I've been watching Rome pretty solidly the past few days.

Furthermore, what about weapon supplies? Your little concealed hand-gun isn't going to do much against those missiles the Americans themselves have been secretly selling to the insurgents over the past four or so decades. That tank will crush your Ford Explorer any day of the week. It's not like 'the right to bear arms' allows 'the right to research biological warfare'.

I think the effort's doomed and kinda ludicrous.

But if ya wanna go down fighting, i'm in.

[Thorgnor]

LA would unfortunately not be the last stronghold at all... too many Persians

The places where resistance would be highest would be in the places where the resistance to opprtession is already highest...

Middle American bibal belt gun owners,

Louisiana, Mississippi, Some areas of northern Florida where there's lots of mixed communities from Hispanic to Caribean to American Black/White/First Peoples, and the hills and mountains where people can hide...

It'd look like Kashmir-Americana style...

SWO would be an entirely different matter...

Hiliburton is where I'd make my stand, so many hills, lakes and caves, lots of canopy cover, good ganja...

Bramladesh might get hot quick

this is fun, even if it is a little silly.

I think getting people to work together wouldn't be all that tough... my enemy's enemy is my man...

protect your enclave by sharing defence amongst allies with common interests. Toronto is a sitting duck, Montreal would be Baghdad.

Vancouver is the move for sure, gets too crazy keep heading north until you invade Alaska

Let's work on the movie script... "Jihadi's in the Midst"

It'll start with a nuclear attack on Calgary

ps. I apologize for the bad taste. purple font where necesary.

[Birdy]

I think i'll stick it out down here in Chatham-Kent and do as my forefathers did with a Battle at Tecumseh... block the Thames and protect the lakes. Maybe backbacon would let me borrow his canoe for a stakeout. The Natives to the north at Walpole Island and to the south at Moraviantown would surely help me out, and so i'm confident we can keep the waterways under control. You cover Haliburton with your pack, keep the 400 clear and this thing could be won.

We could be the Republic of SoOn and the lords of the fresh waters.

Too bad we didn't spring for the nuclear defense shield though. Hindsight's always 20/20.

"Jihadi's in the Midst" - HAHAHA

The Passionate Eye presents...

But before you go nuking Calgary, my bro lives there. Give me a chance to spring him out on a West Jet flight first... s'il vous plait.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

Battle at Tecumseh... block the Thames and protect the lakes. The Natives to the north at Walpole Island and to the south at Moraviantown would surely help me out

after what happened/was done to Tecumseh I wouldn't count on any help from Native Peoples for any of "us colonisers"...

and I still think the 401/403 corridor would be a write off through Bramladesh and Muslimsauga

and don't forget the "Osha-Wahabbi's"...

get your brother out of dodge

it's a plan lol

[Birdy]

Ahh, but we'd be on the same side as the Natives now... we'd be fighting off the new colonisers. We're the 'savages' this time around. This could actually be the key in relations with Native peoples-- working together and setting up the new Republic.

I say the border line follows south-west from Haliburton on down to Simcoe - everything east remains enemy grounds and we keep this thing SwoOn-ish. They can have Lake Ontario for all I care. That place is a cesspool anyway. The GTA is just going to be a bunch of bombed out buildings once of all of it's inhabitants run scared, and the few remaining sects of gangs... well, good luck to ya! Maybe we can sell them weapons... Industry!

How did i know your first order of business would be nuking the Albertans?

I just want to grow our own vegetables.

[Thorgnor]

How did i know your first order of business would be nuking the Albertans?

It's my "Leftist" plot... or anarchist? This is getting confusing.

[Birdy]

Anarchist.

This is the utopian society you've always dreamed of! Well, minus the whole nuking part, but at least you'll be able to sleep easier once those pesky Albertan crazies are taken care of.

Here's to hoping for a holy war, taking the 2nd amendment and applying it to Canadians, forming a militia and recreating our worlds as we see fit.

Hope i make it to see the aftermath.

ps. I apologize for the bad taste. purple font where necesary.

[M.O.B.E]

You two think you are being funny but you are so close to right its scary.

Check out the real situation:

Nation war against nation.

Where did it all begin?

When will it end?

[color:red]Well, it seems like: total destruction the only solution,And there ain't no use: no one can stop them now.

Ain't no use: nobody can stop them now.

Give them an inch, they take a yard;

Give them a yard, they take a mile (ooh);

Once a man and twice a child

And everything is just for a while.

It seems like: total destruction the only solution,

And there ain't no use: no one can stop them now.

There ain't no use: no one can stop them now;

Ain't no use: no one can stop them now;

There ain't no use: no one can stop them now.