Welcome
Hey guys, welcome to the NSider Community, a Nintendo gaming forum! Our most popular discussions are Pokémon, Super Smash Brothers, and free discussion at our Restaurant. But don't be deceived; you will not get your food! I hope you join in our discussions today here at NSC.

The Right to Bear Arms

The deepest conversations are moving, inspired, and sometimes touchy. Take a break from the bustling world for a minute and speak from the heart.

The Right to Bear Arms

Postby AlakazamBrain » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:29 pm

Well, although a right in the US, it is far from one in Canada. The right to bear arms. It is not completely illegal to bear arms in Canada, but there are many restrictions (must be registered, cannot be loaded, must be safely stored at all times, etc.)

A jeweller from BC wants Canada to allow the people to carry fully loaded concealed guns. This is after his store was being robbed. While being robbed, he went off to his safe, loaded his legally registered gun, and fired at the robber and his accomplice. Although the accomplice got away, the robber was successfully arrested. The jeweller believes that local law enforcement is too incompetent to trust with our safety and are simply not doing their job. The jeweller believes that people should be able to be responsible for their own safety.

Some other rather important details: The jeweller admits he had little thought in his actions; the robber was shot five times. Many other bullets went through the windows of the store and into the door. The robber is also now paralyzed from the chest down because of the incident. The robber was a cocaine addict and that his drug dealer was the one who instructed him to go through with the robbery.
-------------------------------
I think I have listed enough details, so what do you think? Should people be allowed to bear arms?

As for my opinion, I say absolutely not. There is no way that arms were safer in this scenario or in any other. Say in this case the gun was not used. Chances are the thieves would have ran off with maybe $10,000 worth of stuff, and the shopkeeper might be emotional scared, but safe. They might have been caught, might not have. There was a security camera. Instead, although one thief was caught, the thief is permanently physically disabled, innocent people walking outside the store were put in danger (as the bullets easily could have hit just about anyone), and nothing was lost. In the end, so what if a bit of jewellery is stolen. It really is not that much in perspective, and insurance would likely have covered it. Lives are definitely more important than a diamond ring...

Also, having guns more prevalent in society does not really make it safer. It just means that security personel need even bigger guns and bullet-proof vests. It wouldn't be too hard for a criminal to steal a bunch of guns and then guns are in the hands of criminals, probably the last thing we want.

I would say the best thing to do is completely get rid of guns (with the exception of police officers and such obviously). You prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals, and ultimately, remove one of the most dangerous weapons that could be used (and endangers the most people).
Image
Image
Chuey wrote:I know you enjoy screwing with me. >_>

Image
User avatar
AlakazamBrain
Jack
Jack
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Where the river narrows
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 4 time
Highscores: 22

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby Darkbuster13 » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:49 pm

That is an interesting story. I'm not really ure I have an opinion on it, though. A guy was getting his property stolen, so he prevented it. The end. Yeah, he may have put people in danger with his careless shooting, but no innocent party was hurt so I'm not seeing the problem.

Anyway, although I give no disrespect to you AB, as I can see your heart is in the right place, I need to say that the idea of banning guns all together is out-right stupid.

I'm not sure if they would teach this in Canadian history classes, but in 1919, The United States congress passed the Eighteenth Amentment to the US Constitution. This amendment was an attempt to effectively ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of all intoxicating substances (outside of religious and medical use). The new law was not taken lightly among many US citizens. Groups of bootleggers and smugglers would sneak alcohol into the country, and gangsters would sell it in hidden locations away from the watchful eyes of the law. In essence, the banning only resulted in organized crime revolving around the selling of the substance, and anyone who really wanted alcohol could obtain it despite being illegal. In the end, congress passed the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933, repealing the eighteenth.

But do you see what I am saying here? Just because an item is illegal does not mean that a criminal couldn't get their hands on it. And who is to say they wouldn't? They are already going to be a criminal for the gun crime, what's the problem with breaking one more law to prepare for it? A world were a criminal can have the ultimate weapon and an average joe can't is a world that I wouldn't fancy living in.
"Those are some nice BOWLING SHOES." -President Obama

"La risa que procede de leve causa es tontería."
Image
User avatar
Darkbuster13
Tingle
Tingle
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:28 pm
Location: Almost Heaven
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 6 time
Highscores: 24

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby Roboryantron » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:37 am

No, unless for hunting purposes. Nothing has come from guns but death and injury. And I know "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." with guns. Plus, Canada is pretty peaceful, as its own nation (not a colony), Canada has never gone to war. I think that you should only be allowed to bear arms for professional purposes, not 'just in case'.
Image
User avatar
Roboryantron
Treecko
Treecko
 
Posts: 4335
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: Those are some mad poofy pants
Has thanked: 5 time
Have thanks: 1 time

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby AlakazamBrain » Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:34 pm

@Darkbuster13 - You do make a good point. Just as a note, the banning of alcoholic beverages did happen in Canada around the same time too. However, the illegal transactions of alcohol took place because alcohol is actually pretty easy to make :P. Any chemist (or alcoholic) could tell you it is relatively simple to make alcohol and does not really take sophisticated devices, equipments, or conditions. With a bit of ethane (or better yet, ethene), it is a simple process to change it into ethanol.

Guns are not quite so simple to make. If guns were completely banned, chances are you would not have criminals setting up making them. It would take a massive financial commitment, as well as people who knew very well what they were doing. It is not simple :P

@Roboryantron - Canada as a nation has gone to war. In WWI, Canada was a nation and did go to war. However, it was because its foreign policy was dependent on England, so when England went to war, Canada automatically was involved. In WWII, different story. Canada was a nation and did go to war, but by this time, Canada's foreign policy was independent of England, so Canada chose to go to war. As a note, Canada chose to go to war seven days after England did :P.
Image
Image
Chuey wrote:I know you enjoy screwing with me. >_>

Image
User avatar
AlakazamBrain
Jack
Jack
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Where the river narrows
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 4 time
Highscores: 22

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby LaTerry » Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:09 pm

I live in Utah. If you don't have a gun here, you are considered a freak and a wierdo who needs to get a life.

There have been several countries that have banned guns. Do you know what happened? Crime rates went up. Normal people didn't have guns, but criminals certainly did. Its not that they made them, they smuggled them. If the US banned guns, not only would drugs be smuggled across the US-Mexico border, but guns would as well. This would put guns in the hands of any criminal that wanted one and leave everyone else except policemen defensless.

What if not a jewelery store was being robbed but your home? A m,na with a gun comes in and threatens your family. If you don't also have a gun he will get away with it, and will keep getting away with it and will definitly hurt many people. If you have a gun though, you can stop him right then and there.

As a side note, if the US banned guns, I'm pretty sure that western US would revolt and become its own nation.

Here are some facts that I looked up on gun control.

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

homicide rate
-36% FL
-0.4% US

firearm homicide rate
-37% FL
+15% US

handgun homicide rate
-41% FL
+24% US

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.
Barak Obama is going to take that away from you!
He can try!
=D
ImageImage
Image
The most awesome website eva!
User avatar
LaTerry
Waddle Doo
Waddle Doo
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:22 pm
Location: I'm in the middle of the desert.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Highscores: 2

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby AlakazamBrain » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:49 pm

First off, let me just say LaTerry you made a very good argument.

However, it is easy to compare Canada's crime rate and the US's crime rate to get a good idea of the effects of handguns (and smuggling). Pretty much every firearm in Canada comes from the United States; some legal, some not so much. The point is, a lot of the firearms in Canada are smuggled from the US.

Now, Canada each year has about 200 firearm related homicides and about 0.0275% of the population [of Canada] is a victim of a firearm related crime. The US has closer to 10,000 firearm related homicides. Take into consideration the difference in population (Canada's population ~ 1/10 of US), and there is a very different number of homicides per capita. Although I am sure there are many cases where a gun was used in self defense, and did save a life (or more), chances are many lives would also have been saved by no access to guns in the first place.

I think we could both agree the main thing in the end that has to be done is get guns out of the hands of criminals. The only problem is it is far from an easy task.
Image
Image
Chuey wrote:I know you enjoy screwing with me. >_>

Image
User avatar
AlakazamBrain
Jack
Jack
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Where the river narrows
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 4 time
Highscores: 22

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby Luigi_Freak_The_23rd » Thu May 21, 2015 2:03 am

Image
Image
Luigi_Freak_The_23rd wrote:Poor Watermelon gods couldn't didn't see it coming

Image NS:|
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Luigi_Freak_The_23rd
Wendell
Wendell
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:59 pm
Location: The power of your imagination :)
Has thanked: 4 time
Have thanks: 5 time
Highscores: 11

Re: The Right to Bear Arms

Postby Chuey » Thu May 21, 2015 11:57 am

I almost burst out laughing seeing this post while waiting for my lunch to be ready.
Image
User avatar
Chuey
428 and Chuey
428 and Chuey
 
Posts: 20654
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:13 pm
Location: New York City or Western MA
Has thanked: 3 time
Have thanks: 9 time
Highscores: 24


Return to The Fireplace

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred