Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Whats troubling, is there was a person out there, crazy enough to kill HIS Mother, and 20 kids that are less then 7 year olds, and the only way you can make sense of it, is blaming the weapon used in the event.BY removing guns from the equation or putting in tougher gun laws, you are only making it harder( or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have a gun and protect themselves. And im not ok with that. I have a right to protect myself and my family. Crimals will always have guns.
And lastly, its not fair to compare just the firearm laws in both countries. There is alot more involved. Economy, poverty, gangs, crime rates just to name a few are all parts of the equation.
Lorne, it's completely wrong to assert "the only way you can make sense of it is blaming the weapon used." My points are made in relation to the larger issue relating to gun control and gun violence. "Blaming the weapon" you say?? What, as if it went off by itself? What kind of world do you live in? No one suggests any perpetrator is not to blame for their actions (putting aside for the moment the difficult issue of criminal responsibility and mental disorders). But for you to suggest that gun control is of no relevance to gun violence is baffling. Are you saying because it is all about individual responsibility, society should not regulate the ownership, use and possession of firearms at all? It seems to me that this is what your argument boils down to. You say no restrictions are required because irresponsible use is all about individual choices, which can be addressed through criminal sanctions. To that I say thank goodness there isn't a developed country in the world that espouses that philosophy. The question is always where the line is to drawn, not whether there should be a line. You might be the most responsible gun owner in Canada, but I still think most Canadians will agree that even you should not own, possess or use a fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun, whether it be for the sheer pleasure of owning one, or to use to protect your family from invading criminals.
You also contradict yourself. You sensibly acknowledge the multiple factors underpinning social dysfunction (your last sentence), but refuse to accept that firearm access might be another relevant factor, as the evidence clearly suggests it is.
Last edited by a moderator: