This girl has a lot of cool youtube videos
According to her page, she's 17.
Either way, this is officially....
But seriously, it's good to see that even someone as young as her understands the uselessness of registries.
Either way, this is officially....
But seriously, it's good to see that even someone as young as her understands the uselessness of registries.
What's the point of this? Is this really just a new "gun control doesn't work" thread, now with added evidence from a 13 year old (supposedly) Canadian?
Well, it could serve as more specifically a good example of why gun control doesn't work in Canada (or at least in Toronto).
Yes, and it doesn't, and you win a Karma (tomorrow you had your fill today)ghettoperson wrote:
What's the point of this? Is this really just a new "gun control doesn't work" thread, now with added evidence from a 13 year old (supposedly) Canadian?
Meh, I agree that it's fairly pointless in general, but massacres like VT could have been prevented if mentally unstable people were not allowed access to guns.
are you suggestingghettoperson wrote:
Meh, I agree that it's fairly pointless in general, but massacres like VT could have been prevented if mentally unstable people were not allowed access to guns.
lobotomy?
Another YouTube video without sources?
No crimes committed with a registered firearm? So, let me get this straight. The fact that no crimes were committed with registered firearms means that registering firearms doesn't deter their criminal use? Going by 2006 figures, (source) Toronto had about 1,150 reported cases of violent gun crime. 1,150 cases, and not a single registered firearm was supposed to have been used? That sounds like a pretty damn solid basis for establishing that registering guns deters their use in crime.
You're always going to have cases that you cannot legislate your way out of, no matter what it is. Guns, prescription drugs, identification, whatever. If it somehow happened that no legally obtained prescription drugs were used for illegal purposes, would you then abandon the idea of prescriptions, and make it easy and convenient to engage in untracable abuse for both the habitual criminals and the people who were deterred by the previous illegality?
I don't get this.
No crimes committed with a registered firearm? So, let me get this straight. The fact that no crimes were committed with registered firearms means that registering firearms doesn't deter their criminal use? Going by 2006 figures, (source) Toronto had about 1,150 reported cases of violent gun crime. 1,150 cases, and not a single registered firearm was supposed to have been used? That sounds like a pretty damn solid basis for establishing that registering guns deters their use in crime.
You're always going to have cases that you cannot legislate your way out of, no matter what it is. Guns, prescription drugs, identification, whatever. If it somehow happened that no legally obtained prescription drugs were used for illegal purposes, would you then abandon the idea of prescriptions, and make it easy and convenient to engage in untracable abuse for both the habitual criminals and the people who were deterred by the previous illegality?
I don't get this.
If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one.ghettoperson wrote:
Meh, I agree that it's fairly pointless in general, but massacres like VT could have been prevented if mentally unstable people were not allowed access to guns.
Massacres in VTech would be less likely if you could carry and conceal on campus.
The difference here is that it's much harder to kill someone else with drugs. Guns are equally as much a form of defense as they are a tool for crime, so to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get one only puts the advantage towards criminals.mikkel wrote:
Another YouTube video without sources?
No crimes committed with a registered firearm? So, let me get this straight. The fact that no crimes were committed with registered firearms means that registering firearms doesn't deter their criminal use? Going by 2006 figures, (source) Toronto had about 1,150 reported cases of violent gun crime. 1,150 cases, and not a single registered firearm was supposed to have been used? That sounds like a pretty damn solid basis for establishing that registering guns deters their use in crime.
You're always going to have cases that you cannot legislate your way out of, no matter what it is. Guns, prescription drugs, identification, whatever. If it somehow happened that no legally obtained prescription drugs were used for illegal purposes, would you then abandon the idea of prescriptions, and make it easy and convenient to engage in untracable abuse for both the habitual criminals and the people who were deterred by the previous illegality?
I don't get this.
Gun registries only affect people who obey the law, because if you're going to commit a crime (and you have any common sense), you're going to use an unregistered weapon which you can then discard somewhere.
Also, you're assuming that people who buy guns legally would otherwise commit crimes without the registry, which is quite an assumption....
Gun registration does not in itself constitute a hardship. Registration of any kind can be as easy or as difficult that you'd like it to be, but in itself, registration does not make it difficult to obtain a firearm.Turquoise wrote:
The difference here is that it's much harder to kill someone else with drugs. Guns are equally as much a form of defense as they are a tool for crime, so to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get one only puts the advantage towards criminals.mikkel wrote:
Another YouTube video without sources?
No crimes committed with a registered firearm? So, let me get this straight. The fact that no crimes were committed with registered firearms means that registering firearms doesn't deter their criminal use? Going by 2006 figures, (source) Toronto had about 1,150 reported cases of violent gun crime. 1,150 cases, and not a single registered firearm was supposed to have been used? That sounds like a pretty damn solid basis for establishing that registering guns deters their use in crime.
You're always going to have cases that you cannot legislate your way out of, no matter what it is. Guns, prescription drugs, identification, whatever. If it somehow happened that no legally obtained prescription drugs were used for illegal purposes, would you then abandon the idea of prescriptions, and make it easy and convenient to engage in untracable abuse for both the habitual criminals and the people who were deterred by the previous illegality?
I don't get this.
Gun registries do not only affect people who obey the law. I don't understand where you get this from. A registered gun in the hands of a criminal is just as registered as it is in the hands of its rightful owner. Gun registries affect every single person who has ever been kept from acting irrationally by the knowledge that their firearm was registered to them, and every single person who could've been a potential victim of those situations.Turquoise wrote:
Gun registries only affect people who obey the law, because if you're going to commit a crime (and you have any common sense), you're going to use an unregistered weapon which you can then discard somewhere.
I think you're misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that people are more likely to commit crimes if they cannot reliably be traced back to the perpetrator. That's an undeniable and repeatedly proven fact. What I was more specifically saying about a situation without the registry is that people who were deterred from or unable to get an illegal firearm in the past would have easy access to firearms, and people with criminal intent could go about acquiring their weapons in a manner completely indistinguishable from your average law abiding citizen.Turquoise wrote:
Also, you're assuming that people who buy guns legally would otherwise commit crimes without the registry, which is quite an assumption....
Last edited by mikkel (2009-02-10 16:28:52)
If I really want some crack, I can find a way to get some. That doesn't mean crack shouldn't be illegal. Just because there are ways around the law, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.Turquoise wrote:
If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one.ghettoperson wrote:
Meh, I agree that it's fairly pointless in general, but massacres like VT could have been prevented if mentally unstable people were not allowed access to guns.
Massacres in VTech would be less likely if you could carry and conceal on campus.
Wouldn't you say though that guns have more positive uses than crack?ghettoperson wrote:
If I really want some crack, I can find a way to get some. That doesn't mean crack shouldn't be illegal. Just because there are ways around the law, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.Turquoise wrote:
If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one.ghettoperson wrote:
Meh, I agree that it's fairly pointless in general, but massacres like VT could have been prevented if mentally unstable people were not allowed access to guns.
Massacres in VTech would be less likely if you could carry and conceal on campus.
I don't know, both are good fun.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't you say though that guns have more positive uses than crack?ghettoperson wrote:
If I really want some crack, I can find a way to get some. That doesn't mean crack shouldn't be illegal. Just because there are ways around the law, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.Turquoise wrote:
If someone really wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one.
Massacres in VTech would be less likely if you could carry and conceal on campus.
It's irrelevant, guns are by nature highly dangerous items, and frankly insane people should not be allowed access to them.
Alright, I'll give you that one.mikkel wrote:
Gun registries do not only affect people who obey the law. I don't understand where you get this from. A registered gun in the hands of a criminal is just as registered as it is in the hands of its rightful owner. Gun registries affect every single person who has ever been kept from acting irrationally by the knowledge that their firearm was registered to them, and every single person who could've been a potential victim of those situations.
Good points... I have to admit that you've caused me to reconsider my position.mikkel wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that people are more likely to commit crimes if they cannot reliably be traced back to the perpetrator. That's an undeniable and repeatedly proven fact. What I was more specifically saying about a situation without the registry is that people who were deterred from or unable to get an illegal firearm in the past would have easy access to firearms, and people with criminal intent could go about acquiring their weapons in a manner completely indistinguishable from your average law abiding citizen.
I know what you're saying, but what I was suggesting had nothing to do with insane people.ghettoperson wrote:
I don't know, both are good fun.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't you say though that guns have more positive uses than crack?ghettoperson wrote:
If I really want some crack, I can find a way to get some. That doesn't mean crack shouldn't be illegal. Just because there are ways around the law, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
It's irrelevant, guns are by nature highly dangerous items, and frankly insane people should not be allowed access to them.
Cho did legally get the gun he used in his massacre, but... let's say he got one illegally. It would still help in that situation to have other people on campus with guns of their own to defend themselves.
If only you could make someone understand sovereignty.
ohh well
ohh well
I think I understand sovereignty very well. What I don't understand is what it has to do with this thread.Steel wrote:
If only you could make someone understand sovereignty.
ohh well
I live in Toronto and I've walked the streets alone late at night and not felt scared, you just have to be smart and not go into the really dangerous parts, like any other place in the world.
I really think you made my point.ghettoperson wrote:
I think I understand sovereignty very well. What I don't understand is what it has to do with this thread.Steel wrote:
If only you could make someone understand sovereignty.
ohh well
Still not getting it...Steel wrote:
I really think you made my point.ghettoperson wrote:
I think I understand sovereignty very well. What I don't understand is what it has to do with this thread.Steel wrote:
If only you could make someone understand sovereignty.
ohh well
http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/iacd_2003S/li … artoon.jpg
Yeah, sovereignty isn't the issue here. Self-defense is.
Either you believe you are a Man bestowed with Unalienable rights from his creator,
or you are a slave appreciative of the Inalienable rights bestowed from your Master, whomever that is.
I believe in a live and let live, kill or be killed existence.
Do not challenge my right to own a firearm, and I will not challenge yours,
Allow me to live as I wish, and I will allow you to do the same.
If I want to buy a pistol on the spot from someone because the opportunity arises, allow me to do so.
Thy Rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Speak softly but carry a big Stick.
any of this help?
or you are a slave appreciative of the Inalienable rights bestowed from your Master, whomever that is.
I believe in a live and let live, kill or be killed existence.
Do not challenge my right to own a firearm, and I will not challenge yours,
Allow me to live as I wish, and I will allow you to do the same.
If I want to buy a pistol on the spot from someone because the opportunity arises, allow me to do so.
Thy Rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Speak softly but carry a big Stick.
any of this help?
Sounds like you want to live in a society with no government if you ask me.
My conscience is my government.ghettoperson wrote:
Sounds like you want to live in a society with no government if you ask me.
I am not a fan of Ted's political views but I do agree with this interview he gave.