Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After pages and pages, I still prefer my idea.
Require gun ownership across the board for legal adults.
Gun violence would go down since prospective victims would no longer be an easy target.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Canada has common sense gun control - more so than the US. They also have 1/8 the rate of murder by gun and 1/2 the rate of murder overall. Seems to be working there.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You cannot attribute Canada’s lower murder rate to gun control. That’s merely nonsense. Canada is a much smaller nation (population-wise) with a far more homogeneous population (for now.) That’s what makes it safer.
Click to expand...
This was essentially what was already discussed regarding how Canada is unique and Mexico is unique, which I acknowledged. Then I went on to show how the same argument shows why you cannot use Chicago as an example of where gun control does not work, because Chicago is a dense population with lower average income and higher than average unemployment, and that these factors account for the high crime rate. Hey, if Canada’s uniqueness shows why it cannot be used as an example of where gun control works, Chicago’s uniqueness shows why it cannot be used as an example of where gun control doesn’t work. Therefore we cannot say “We know from experience that gun control does not work.”
 
Joe_5859 said:
What type of gun control laws does Canada have?
Click to expand...
Canada has moderate firearm laws according to this overview.
pnewton said:
I do! I do! It’s an absurd presentation of another’s position that is easy to attack because no one actual is defending it. Here is an example.
40.png
Cathoholic:
that it’s OK to IGNORE the Bill of Rights for the whole U.S.A.
Click to expand...
It is a straw man because Leaf, and no one else, believes anything like this.
Click to expand...
Excellent example.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg:
Yes we do. Entire states like California have draconian gun laws. They make no difference…
Click to expand...
.

True enough. Except to penalize, infringe upon, and help disarm the good law-abiding citizens (while incrementally chipping away at the whole Constitution).
 
Last edited:
LeafbyNiggle (emphasis mine):

.
Canada has moderate firearm laws . . .
Click to expand...
.
The truth is, in Canada the average good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen, is unable to own handguns because it would be . . . . ILLEGAL.

THIS is what LeafbyNiggle and other people who think like that, think the term “moderate gun controls” mean.

Don’t buy into these pernicious ideas.

Please remember LeafbyNiggle’s words (virtually no handguns = “moderate”).

But in Canada (as far as I know) you can still get foreign made SKS’s. In the U.S.A., you cannot (unless they are grandfathered in).

People like LeafbyNiggle won’t be advocating for doing away with this prohibition in the U.S.A. either (or am I wrong LeafbyNiggle and here and now you WILL advocate for less restrictions in these circumstances)?
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
“We know from experience that gun control does not work.”
Click to expand...
Yes we do. Entire states like California have draconian gun laws. They make no difference…
Click to expand...
By your own admission:
You cannot attribute Canada’s lower murder rate to gun control
Click to expand...
…because of unique characteristics of Canada. Yet you now want to ignore the unique characteristics of California to use to prove something about the ineffectiveness of gun control. You can’t have it both ways. Either examples prove things or they don’t. Take your pick.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafbyNiggle (emphasis mine):
Canada has moderate firearm laws . . .
.
The truth is, in Canada the average good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen, is unable to own handguns because it would be . . . . ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...
I did not make up that description. It came straight from the Wikipedia article I cited. But no matter. If you want to call them “very strict” that is fine by me too. The reason I was citing Canada in the first place was to provide an example of a place where gun control seems to be working. And in Canada it is. Did you read the Wikipedia article about what Canada’s gun laws are? They do allow guns, especially in the wilderness. In fact, carrying a gun is required survival gear in Canada when you pilot a small plane over certain wilderness areas, in case of a forced landing. But they are strict about background checks and required training courses before you can own a gun - because they don’t have a 2nd amendment.

Our definitions of what it means for gun laws to “work” are apparently different. You think the fact that “average good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen, is unable to own handguns” is the very definition of “not working.” I do not.
Please remember LeafbyNiggle’s words (virtually no handguns = “moderate”).
Click to expand...
Sure, I’ll sign on to that.
But in Canada (as far as I know) you can still get foreign made SKS’s. In the U.S.A., you cannot (unless they are grandfathered in).

People like LeafbyNiggle won’t be advocating for doing away with this prohibition in the U.S.A. either (or am I wrong LeafbyNiggle and here and now you WILL advocate for less restrictions in these circumstances)?
Click to expand...
I see no reason to have less restrictions. Before you mentioned them, I had no idea what an SKS was. I have lived all my 69 years without having one. I suspect you can too.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
because of unique characteristics of Canada. Yet you now want to ignore the unique characteristics of California to use to prove something about the ineffectiveness of gun control. You can’t have it both ways. Either examples prove things or they don’t. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
California is not the only example. There are several: NY, NJ, MA, OR, etc.

On the other hand, one of the safest states – Vermont, has the least of any of the 50 states.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
because of unique characteristics of Canada. Yet you now want to ignore the unique characteristics of California to use to prove something about the ineffectiveness of gun control. You can’t have it both ways. Either examples prove things or they don’t. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
California is not the only example. There are several: NY, NJ, MA, OR, etc.

On the other hand, one of the safest states – Vermont, has the least of any of the 50 states.
Click to expand...
Canada is not the only example either.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Canada is not the only example either.
Click to expand...
OK, show me another country of the USA’s size and diversity with a lower rate of violent crime. Not just gun-related crime, but total violent crime. No police-states like China either.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Canada is not the only example either.
Click to expand...
OK, show me another country of the USA’s size and diversity with a lower rate of violent crime. Not just gun-related crime, but total violent crime. No police-states like China either.
Click to expand...
We were first to the moon. Why can’t we be first with effective common sense gun laws? Why do we have to wait for others to prove it can be done?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
We were first to the moon. Why can’t we be first with effective common sense gun laws? Why do we have to wait for others to prove it can be done?
Click to expand...
“Gun laws” do not reduce crime. It has been proven. That’s why. “Gun laws” are akin to dealing with the crime of drunk driving by making it more difficult for law-abiding people to purchase new vehicles. It’s not the vehicles that need to be dealt with, it’s the drunk drivers.

No matter how many you pile-up, no matter how they are arranged, “gun control” will never reduce violent crime.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Standard practice in debates is to prove your point, not to just say “it has been proven.”
Click to expand...
Try Google.

Mountains of gun control measures have been implemented with no reduction in violent crime. They range from the truly stultified and dangerous concept of “gun free zones” to the “reasonable” waiting periods – even when the background check is immediate and it’s known that the buyer already owns firearms.

Your notion that a different form of “gun control” could be concocted and implemented which would truly be effective at reducing gun-related violent crime is simply absurd. The only way “gun control” would reduce gun-related crime in the US would be to confiscate all 350M guns that already exist (impossible) and somehow confiscate/erase the tools, other resources and knowledge it takes to make guns illegally – also impossible.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Standard practice in debates is to prove your point, not to just say “it has been proven.”
Click to expand...
Too few fail to make the distinction between proof and evidence. I would say rather what he claims to have been proven cannot every be proven or disproved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top