Piers lost professional control as an interviewer...the guy would have hung himself by just letting him talk without getting upset. In fact he probably could have gotten how he really felt by encouraging him by nodding along as he spoke his junk. That said...I would have lost it too.
Gun Control in US and Canada
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Quite true... As you point out, it's understandable he lost it because he was simply appalled at the outrageous nonsense advanced by the gun advocate. I'm still amazed that anyone would be more offended by an interviewer losing control than by the insanity being advanced by the gun advocate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
That is your right to feel that way I just hope you don't go "JEHOVAH" and try to change me because it aint gonna work.
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
As it is yours, but your use of a religious stereotype is offensive.
Last edited by a moderator:
trophywife
Crew Member
should have said muslim instead of Jehovah
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Here are some extracts from Supreme Court of Canada cases that touch upon firearms and their control in our country. It reveals some of the thinking that has underpinned legislative gun control in Canada and may assist in evaluating the various arguments being advanced in this debate on this forum. There is a theme that emphasizes how firearms are, by their very nature and purpose, distinct from other things, like cars, and that this fact informs how the community has decided to regulate their possession and use.
Almost a quarter century ago, in R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 SCR 443 the majority noted:
"The Code has included provisions for the control, use and possession of firearms since the enactment of the 1892 Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 105. That section prohibited the possession of pistols and air guns at other than specific places and, as well, provided for exemptions from the operation of the section. Since that time, there have been successive amendments which without exception have strengthened the controls upon possession and use of firearms. The history of this process is summarized by Martin L. Friedland, A Century of Criminal Justice (1984), commencing at p. 125. He concludes, at p. 128, with what may be considered a sober warning:
Canada has been fortunate in having had a gradual development of control over firearms for the past 100 years. We have never had to face a situation as in the United States today, which appears to many observers to be almost out of control."
In rejecting an argument that a firearm is not a weapon as defined by s. 2 of the Criminal Code unless it is used or intended for use in causing death or bodily injury or for threatening or intimidating, the majority in R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199 said:
"In my view, a firearm must come within the definition of a weapon. A firearm is expressly designed to kill or wound. It operates with deadly efficiency in carrying out the object of its design. It follows that such a deadly weapon can, of course, be used for purposes of threatening and intimidating. Indeed, it is hard to imagine anything more intimidating or dangerous than a brandished firearm. A person waving a gun and calling "hands up" can be reasonably certain that the suggestion will be obeyed. A firearm is quite different from an object such as a carving knife or an ice pick which will normally be used for legitimate purposes. A firearm, however, is always a weapon. No matter what the intention may be of the person carrying a gun, the firearm itself presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence.
The definition of "weapon" in s. 2 must include a firearm as defined in s. 84. For example s. 88 of the Criminal Code provides that anyone who, without lawful excuse, has a weapon in his possession while he is attending or on his way to attending a public meeting is guilty of an offence. The presence of a firearm at a public meeting would, in itself, present a threat and result in the intimidation of all who were present. It really cannot have been the intention of the framers of the legislation that people would be permitted to brazenly take their guns with them to public meetings provided that they did not use them or intend to use them to cause injury or to threaten or intimidate. Indeed, to state the proposition reveals that a definition with such a result is unthinkable...
There is something extremely menacing and intimidating about the presence of a naked weapon. There is something even more sinister in the presence of a concealed weapon. No doubt the legislators enacting s. 89 believed that weapons are usually concealed by persons on the way to commit crimes or after leaving the scene. Clearly then one of the goals of the section is to discourage the prospective bank robber who might be apprehended on the way to the bank with a sawed-off shotgun concealed in his pant leg. Yet, I think the section has a wider aim. All Canadians have the right to feel protected from the sinister menace of a concealed weapon. If it was ever thought that it was lawful to carry concealed weapons more and more Canadians might come to believe it would be prudent for them to carry concealed weapons in order to defend themselves and their families. This might lead to a vigilante attitude that could all too readily result in an increase in violence in Canadian society. Canadians are well satisfied with the security provided by the close regulation of the ownership and use of firearms. They have every right to expect the concealment of weapons would also be prohibited or properly regulated."
In R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 SCR 398, the majority spoke of automatic firearms:
"2.The Purpose and Goals of the Provisions Pertaining to Prohibited Weapons
Let us consider for a moment the nature of automatic weapons, that is to say, those weapons that are capable of firing rounds in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger. These guns are designed to kill and maim a large number of people rapidly and effectively. They serve no other purpose. They are not designed for hunting any animal but man. They are not designed to test the skill and accuracy of a marksman. Their sole function is to kill people. These weapons are of no value for the hunter, or the marksman. They should then be used only by the Armed Forces and, in some circumstances, by the police forces. There can be no doubt that they pose such a threat that they constitute a real and present danger to all Canadians. There is good reason to prohibit their use in light of the threat which they pose and the limited use to which they can be put. Their prohibition ensures a safer society.
The American authorities should not be considered in this case. Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited...
Collectors are attractive targets for thieves who are seeking these weapons with every intention of using them or selling them to others who wish to make use of them. Members of the community are entitled to protection from the use of automatic weapons...
Automatic weapons or those which may be easily and quickly converted to automatic status have such potential for killing and indeed, mass killing, that their possession may properly bring consequences of imprisonment. It is because of their lethal potential that the definition of "prohibited weapon" requires a reasonable interpretation based upon the wording of the section and the aim or purpose of the legislation."
Almost a quarter century ago, in R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 SCR 443 the majority noted:
"The Code has included provisions for the control, use and possession of firearms since the enactment of the 1892 Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 105. That section prohibited the possession of pistols and air guns at other than specific places and, as well, provided for exemptions from the operation of the section. Since that time, there have been successive amendments which without exception have strengthened the controls upon possession and use of firearms. The history of this process is summarized by Martin L. Friedland, A Century of Criminal Justice (1984), commencing at p. 125. He concludes, at p. 128, with what may be considered a sober warning:
Canada has been fortunate in having had a gradual development of control over firearms for the past 100 years. We have never had to face a situation as in the United States today, which appears to many observers to be almost out of control."
In rejecting an argument that a firearm is not a weapon as defined by s. 2 of the Criminal Code unless it is used or intended for use in causing death or bodily injury or for threatening or intimidating, the majority in R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199 said:
"In my view, a firearm must come within the definition of a weapon. A firearm is expressly designed to kill or wound. It operates with deadly efficiency in carrying out the object of its design. It follows that such a deadly weapon can, of course, be used for purposes of threatening and intimidating. Indeed, it is hard to imagine anything more intimidating or dangerous than a brandished firearm. A person waving a gun and calling "hands up" can be reasonably certain that the suggestion will be obeyed. A firearm is quite different from an object such as a carving knife or an ice pick which will normally be used for legitimate purposes. A firearm, however, is always a weapon. No matter what the intention may be of the person carrying a gun, the firearm itself presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence.
The definition of "weapon" in s. 2 must include a firearm as defined in s. 84. For example s. 88 of the Criminal Code provides that anyone who, without lawful excuse, has a weapon in his possession while he is attending or on his way to attending a public meeting is guilty of an offence. The presence of a firearm at a public meeting would, in itself, present a threat and result in the intimidation of all who were present. It really cannot have been the intention of the framers of the legislation that people would be permitted to brazenly take their guns with them to public meetings provided that they did not use them or intend to use them to cause injury or to threaten or intimidate. Indeed, to state the proposition reveals that a definition with such a result is unthinkable...
There is something extremely menacing and intimidating about the presence of a naked weapon. There is something even more sinister in the presence of a concealed weapon. No doubt the legislators enacting s. 89 believed that weapons are usually concealed by persons on the way to commit crimes or after leaving the scene. Clearly then one of the goals of the section is to discourage the prospective bank robber who might be apprehended on the way to the bank with a sawed-off shotgun concealed in his pant leg. Yet, I think the section has a wider aim. All Canadians have the right to feel protected from the sinister menace of a concealed weapon. If it was ever thought that it was lawful to carry concealed weapons more and more Canadians might come to believe it would be prudent for them to carry concealed weapons in order to defend themselves and their families. This might lead to a vigilante attitude that could all too readily result in an increase in violence in Canadian society. Canadians are well satisfied with the security provided by the close regulation of the ownership and use of firearms. They have every right to expect the concealment of weapons would also be prohibited or properly regulated."
In R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 SCR 398, the majority spoke of automatic firearms:
"2.The Purpose and Goals of the Provisions Pertaining to Prohibited Weapons
Let us consider for a moment the nature of automatic weapons, that is to say, those weapons that are capable of firing rounds in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger. These guns are designed to kill and maim a large number of people rapidly and effectively. They serve no other purpose. They are not designed for hunting any animal but man. They are not designed to test the skill and accuracy of a marksman. Their sole function is to kill people. These weapons are of no value for the hunter, or the marksman. They should then be used only by the Armed Forces and, in some circumstances, by the police forces. There can be no doubt that they pose such a threat that they constitute a real and present danger to all Canadians. There is good reason to prohibit their use in light of the threat which they pose and the limited use to which they can be put. Their prohibition ensures a safer society.
The American authorities should not be considered in this case. Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited...
Collectors are attractive targets for thieves who are seeking these weapons with every intention of using them or selling them to others who wish to make use of them. Members of the community are entitled to protection from the use of automatic weapons...
Automatic weapons or those which may be easily and quickly converted to automatic status have such potential for killing and indeed, mass killing, that their possession may properly bring consequences of imprisonment. It is because of their lethal potential that the definition of "prohibited weapon" requires a reasonable interpretation based upon the wording of the section and the aim or purpose of the legislation."
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
More recently, in Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, the entire Court observed:
"The argument that the federal gun control scheme is no different from the provincial regulation of motor vehicles ignores the fact that there are significant distinctions between the roles of guns and cars in Canadian society. Both firearms and automobiles can be used for socially approved purposes. Likewise, both may cause death and injury. Yet their primary uses are fundamentally different. Cars are used mainly as means of transportation. Danger to the public is ordinarily unintended and incidental to that use. Guns, by contrast, pose a pressing safety risk in many if not all of their functions. Firearms are often used as weapons in violent crime, including domestic violence; cars generally are not. Thus Parliament views guns as particularly dangerous and has sought to combat that danger by extending its licensing and registration scheme to all classes of firearms. Parliament did not enact the Firearms Act to regulate guns as items of property. The Act does not address insurance or permissible locations of use. Rather, the Act addresses those aspects of gun control which relate to the dangerous nature of firearms and the need to reduce misuse...
In a variation on the theme of property and civil rights, the opponents of the 1995 gun control law argue that ordinary guns, like rifles and shotguns, are common property, not dangerous property. Ordinary firearms are different, they argue, from the automatic weapons and handguns that Parliament has regulated in the past. Ordinary guns are used mainly for lawful purposes in hunting, trapping and ranching. Automatic weapons and handguns, by contrast, have few uses outside crime or war. The fact that Parliament has the right under the criminal law power to control automatic weapons and handguns does not, they argue, mean that Parliament has the right to regulate ordinary guns.
The difficulty with this argument is that while ordinary guns are often used for lawful purposes, they are also used for crime and suicide, and cause accidental death and injury. Guns cannot be divided neatly into two categories – those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous. All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns are capable of killing and maiming. It follows that all guns pose a threat to public safety. As such, their control falls within the criminal law power...
Yet another argument is that the ownership of guns is not criminal law because it is not immoral to own an ordinary firearm. There are two difficulties with this argument. The first is that while the ownership of ordinary firearms is not in itself regarded by most Canadians as immoral, the problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. Firearms may be misused to take human life and to assist in other immoral acts, like theft and terrorism. Preventing such misuse can be seen as an attempt to curb immoral acts. Viewed thus, gun control is directed at a moral evil...
Furthermore, the federal government points out that it is not only career criminals who are capable of misusing guns. Domestic violence often involves people who have no prior criminal record. Crimes are committed by first-time offenders. Finally, accidents and suicides occur in the homes of law-abiding people, and guns are stolen from their homes. By requiring everyone to register their guns, Parliament seeks to reduce misuse by everyone and curtail the ability of criminals to acquire firearms. Where criminals have acquired guns and used them in the commission of offences, the registration system seeks to make those guns more traceable. The cost of the program, another criticism of the law, is equally irrelevant to our constitutional analysis. "
"The argument that the federal gun control scheme is no different from the provincial regulation of motor vehicles ignores the fact that there are significant distinctions between the roles of guns and cars in Canadian society. Both firearms and automobiles can be used for socially approved purposes. Likewise, both may cause death and injury. Yet their primary uses are fundamentally different. Cars are used mainly as means of transportation. Danger to the public is ordinarily unintended and incidental to that use. Guns, by contrast, pose a pressing safety risk in many if not all of their functions. Firearms are often used as weapons in violent crime, including domestic violence; cars generally are not. Thus Parliament views guns as particularly dangerous and has sought to combat that danger by extending its licensing and registration scheme to all classes of firearms. Parliament did not enact the Firearms Act to regulate guns as items of property. The Act does not address insurance or permissible locations of use. Rather, the Act addresses those aspects of gun control which relate to the dangerous nature of firearms and the need to reduce misuse...
In a variation on the theme of property and civil rights, the opponents of the 1995 gun control law argue that ordinary guns, like rifles and shotguns, are common property, not dangerous property. Ordinary firearms are different, they argue, from the automatic weapons and handguns that Parliament has regulated in the past. Ordinary guns are used mainly for lawful purposes in hunting, trapping and ranching. Automatic weapons and handguns, by contrast, have few uses outside crime or war. The fact that Parliament has the right under the criminal law power to control automatic weapons and handguns does not, they argue, mean that Parliament has the right to regulate ordinary guns.
The difficulty with this argument is that while ordinary guns are often used for lawful purposes, they are also used for crime and suicide, and cause accidental death and injury. Guns cannot be divided neatly into two categories – those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous. All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns are capable of killing and maiming. It follows that all guns pose a threat to public safety. As such, their control falls within the criminal law power...
Yet another argument is that the ownership of guns is not criminal law because it is not immoral to own an ordinary firearm. There are two difficulties with this argument. The first is that while the ownership of ordinary firearms is not in itself regarded by most Canadians as immoral, the problems associated with the misuse of firearms are firmly grounded in morality. Firearms may be misused to take human life and to assist in other immoral acts, like theft and terrorism. Preventing such misuse can be seen as an attempt to curb immoral acts. Viewed thus, gun control is directed at a moral evil...
Furthermore, the federal government points out that it is not only career criminals who are capable of misusing guns. Domestic violence often involves people who have no prior criminal record. Crimes are committed by first-time offenders. Finally, accidents and suicides occur in the homes of law-abiding people, and guns are stolen from their homes. By requiring everyone to register their guns, Parliament seeks to reduce misuse by everyone and curtail the ability of criminals to acquire firearms. Where criminals have acquired guns and used them in the commission of offences, the registration system seeks to make those guns more traceable. The cost of the program, another criticism of the law, is equally irrelevant to our constitutional analysis. "
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
Right you are and I agree will all that is written, but what good have we done castigating each other for what the Americans do with their laws that we have no control over. The end will be when they can come to a compromise between the government and the people over what is really necessary.
As for our side we have stringent laws in place but they are only as good as the application of them is. Too many get off and return to doing business as usual. Our criminal laws are too weak, they only deter law abiding citizens.
If we are going to make laws to protect us they should be applied with a heavy hand.
I can live with gun control but I am getting tired of the clamor to increase control when when the ones that are in place are not being applied properly.
As for our side we have stringent laws in place but they are only as good as the application of them is. Too many get off and return to doing business as usual. Our criminal laws are too weak, they only deter law abiding citizens.
If we are going to make laws to protect us they should be applied with a heavy hand.
I can live with gun control but I am getting tired of the clamor to increase control when when the ones that are in place are not being applied properly.
lorneparker1
Banned
lorneparker1
Banned
you think piers destroyed that guy? wow......
I guess if you call constant interupting,name calling and hissy fitting a win, then you are correct.
Lorne
Alaso Saxe... I asked you in the other thread, you love to use canada as an example of how gun countrol can work. Do you have any idea of how easy/hard it is to get a gun or hand gun legally in Canada?
Lorne
Last edited by a moderator:
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
The argument, the argument Lorne... listen to it, understand it. If you think Piers was wrong, and the other fellow was right, that is absolutely unbelievable and frightening to boot. The American fellow was arguing for more guns! And in school! In other words, the only way to a truly safe society, according to him, is the one where everyone is packing!! Do you seriously think that argument has any merit whatsoever? That is the argument Piers so easily refuted. Did you read what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about our history vis-a-vis firearm control and how it compares to the US?
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
The scary part about that video is someone went out of their way to find it...
Was Archie Bunker a NRA director at one time and is he responsible for their guns for everyone stance? This brings back memories and rings true to this thread and what is being discussed (argued) lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
Correlation does not imply causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. ."
Logical Fallacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#logical
Last edited by a moderator:
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
Not sure why u needed to take a shot at me LC...a buddy asked if I had seen the interview (not giving specifics) - I hadn't, so I checked it out. While I don't agree with how Piers handled the interview as a 'professional', I certainly do agree with his stance and I can understand why he lost it. The whole conversation would be so ridiculous and so frustrating that I would probably resort to calling him an idiot as well! For the record on my stance, I have no problem with gun ownership and don't believe a ban is at all the answer here, but I do believe a ban on semi-automatic is needed, and for these NRA freaks to try to convince people the answer to the gun problem is more guns and guards at every school, costing tax payers another 5 billion a year (and that is JUST schools, let alone any other public location), to me, IS a thought from someone demented.
Lipripper
Active Member
MM gettin all book learnt on us.....
lorneparker1
Banned
It wasnt your video.....
It was some ****'s...
Lorne
p.s A ban on semi-automatic makes zero sense. I personally can shoot off three shells out of pump action shot gun just as fast as anyone with an semi automatic. I am good for banning bigger clips and magazines.
