Originally Posted by
Axeman33
Looks like we've moved on to guns now. I'll share this:
I would say with confidence that the lives of innocent Canadians are more valuable and worthy of consideration than the rights of gun-owners to possess and use their preferred firearm (no matter how safely or responsibly they do so). Public safety takes priority over the privilege of weapon ownership.
I understand why many of my friends, family and fellow citizens may disagree with this position. I have tried to remain open-minded, I have heard their concerns and have seen the validity of their perspectives. In respectful discussions, I have learned from some of those with whom I disagree. But I am still seeing some of the same tired, illogical, worn-out arguments being made, in the guise of "common sense" that are in fact completely senseless:
1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.
2. "Gun laws are pointless, because they only punish law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws anyway" - What? Try saying this again, slowly, and see how stupid it sounds. This is a massive failure to understand the whole point of having ANY laws. Should we not have DUI laws, because drunk drivers don't obey them anyway? Should we scrap traffic laws too, because not all drivers follow them? Does regulating your licence, insurance, registration, driving tests, traffic laws, etc. unfairly punish law abiding motorists? Of course not. Ridiculous. We have no problem with vehicle regulations and restrictions, because a vehicle can be dangerous and can kill. These regulations are for public safety, regardless of whether criminals decide to break them. Society doesn't (and shouldn't) decide on laws based on whether criminals are likely to abide by them.
3. "GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people". - No shit, Sherlock. No one is claiming otherwise. Not one person ever said that a gun can kill on it's own. This is why we want to regulate PEOPLE, not guns. Background checks on PEOPLE, mental health assessments for PEOPLE, limits on what firearms PEOPLE should own. Gun control is about restricting access to PEOPLE. A firearm is a dangerous and deadly tool, that is quite safe when used responsibly by well trained people. But easily quite deadly in the wrong hands. More deadly than a knife, a sword, a car, or a baseball bat, and should be treated as such. Regulations simply attempt to decrease the chances of legal guns falling into the hands of people whose intentions are illegal. Would you say "tanks don't kill people, people kill people" to argue against laws or regulations regarding tank ownership and operation? I hope not.
Please stop using stupid soundbites as arguments against gun control, when there are actually intelligent and coherent points that could be made instead. It hurts your cause more than it helps.
I grew up in a rural family that regularly used guns, and was taught how to use them by responsible people. I know many friends and family who have every right to own and continue using their firearms for hunting, sport and (ideally never) home defense. They have no problem with tough gun laws and strict regulations, because they realize what a huge responsibility firearm ownership is. They are grateful for the privilege, not entitled to the right. They are not selfish enough to elevate their desire to own a weapon above the lives of others, and they are willing to be subject to stringent measures for the greater good of public safety. I would question the level of awareness, responsibility and mental maturity of anyone who feels that gun control and regulation is a bad thing. Maybe that's the exact type of person - stubborn, selfish, and childish - who should NOT be allowed to own a gun...
Finally, what do the facts say? Data from dozens of countries worldwide, spanning decades of research, consistently reveals that higher rates of gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws always correlate to higher rates of violent crime and gun deaths. Almost without exception, this trend is true. If this were false, then the USA would have the lowest rate of firearm deaths in the world. Instead, it's the exact opposite - they have the highest. Would Canadians rather follow the advice of "leaders" like Trump and groups like the NRA? Or instead, take inspiration from the world's most admired and respected leader, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand? The choice should be obvious here.