07.15.2014 07:37 AM

Olivia on the front page of 24 again

Love the kids in the background.

20140715-083706-31026712.jpg

15 Comments

  1. George says:

    Why not just ban crime? Or bad haircuts? Or drunk, crack-smoking mayors with obnoxious brothers? Or indecisive, flip-flopping political losers who think they finally have a chance to win?

    Bans don’t work. The people that this simplistic and non-effective idea appeals to should be forced to take an IQ test before they vote.

    I expected better.

    Then again, as Sir Winston once remarked, “”The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

    • Kelly says:

      Banning handguns will reduce their use. You seem to think that currently law abiding gun owners could never commit a crime with their guns (check the news every day for proof to the contrary — ask any cop, too — especially mounties in rural areas) or that they will never be stolen or never be used to accidentally shoot someone. There has always been illegal gun smuggling and always will be but the more guns there are — of any kind — the more people get shot. Period.

      Look. You don’t get to walk around with a handgun on your hip in this country and you never will. You don’t get to shoot someone just because they came onto your property or you “feel” threatened. You have to really be at ask risk of losing your life and self defense has to be proportionate. Forget the cowboy fantasies. This isn’t Texas. If you catch someone stealing your bike and you shoot him dead you’re going to jail for a long time and so you should.

      • George says:

        Kelly, I respectfully disagree with your position, and I also wonder what prompted the rant in your second paragraph.

        I don’t own a gun. I didn’t say anything about walking around, armed, or shooting people in self-defense. I have no interest in owning a gun or carrying a concealed weapon.

        What fantasies are you speaking of?

        The only point I was making is that banning handguns (or anything else, for that matter) will have no impact on those who consciously choose to ignore the ban. Doesn’t matter if it’s guns, booze, cigarettes, prostitution, or Justin Bieber (we can only hope).

        While banning handguns would reduce the number of weapons held by law-abiding citizens that could be stolen or misused at a point in time (where the formerly law-abiding citizen goes crazy, for example), even in the absence of legal guns due to a ban, someone who wants to get a gun will get a gun, ban or not…in which case we get back to the premise of my original post, which is that “bans don’t work.”

        The only thing a ban does is make people feel all warm inside, kind of like when I used to climb the rope in gym class.

        • !o! says:

          Question 1: Do any legally owned handguns get used in crimes of passion, impulse, or while under the influence of alcohol? (yes, unambiguously)
          Question 1b: Would there be fewer victims of the above if there were fewer such handguns? (yes, unambiguously)

          Question 2: Are any legally owned handguns ever stolen and used for the commission of crimes? (yes, unambiguously)
          Question 2b: Would some of the victims of said stolen handguns not be victims of said stolen handguns if said stolen handguns weren’t stolen in the first place? (yes, unambiguously)

          Question 3: Are there any victims of accidental discharge of legal firearms? (yes, unambiguously)…
          Question 3b… you get the idea.

          Finally

          Do first degree murder charges (preplanned, premeditated) a majority or a minority of total homicides committed utilizing a firearm?
          Answer: a small minority, entailing that, the people you talk about who ‘consciously choose to ignore the ban’ and plan ahead, acquire an illegal gun, and then go kill somebody are a tiny minority of total firearm related deaths.

          • George says:

            Question 1: Do any legally owned steak knives get used in crimes of passion, impulse, or while under the influence of alcohol? (yes, unambiguously)
            Question 1b: Would there be fewer victims of the above if there were fewer such knives? (yes, unambiguously)

            Question 2: Are any legally owned steak knives ever stolen and used for the commission of crimes? (yes, unambiguously)
            Question 2b: Would some of the victims of said stolen steak knives not be victims of said stolen steak knives if said stolen steak knives weren’t stolen in the first place? (yes, unambiguously)

            Question 3: Are there any victims of accidental stabbings with steak knives? (yes, unambiguously)…
            Question 3b… you get the idea

            Yes, I get the idea. And a frightening idea it is. The problem with your argument is while it’s logical, to what end? Where does it end? Knives? Bats? Cars? Trucks? Junk food?

            You can’t legislate good behaviour. You can’t force people to act in their self-interests.

            Banning firearms won’t stop violence. Period.

            I am spending way too much time here defending a position I’m not even that passionate about – it’s the holes in the logic (or the conclusions from same logic that aren’t being drawn) that drive me batty.

            If you buy the arguments to ban guns, you may as well ban a million other things that collectively cause far more harm – eg: alcohol, tobacco, soda pop, lunch meat, industrial processes that pollute, internal combustion engines, autotune, Lululemon-style pants in sizes greater than size 6, etc.

          • !o! says:

            Steak knives have purposes other than killing people. Handguns don’t.

        • Kelly says:

          You’re right…no need to assume you’re gun crazy or in favor of Texas style gun lunacy. In a strange way I wasn’t thinking of “you” exactly, more like a general mindset that I was targeting. However, though you’re right in that a determined criminal who wants a gun to use in criminal activity will get one, many, many gun crimes are committed in fits of passion or with stolen guns. Reduce the number of guns and you reduce the number of tragedies, all else being equal. As for the others if you’re caught committing a crime with a gun the sentence should be a loooong time in jail. It’s about the only area of policy where I agree with the current government

      • Lance says:

        Banning handguns will reduce their use.

        Not quiet; banning handguns will reduce their LEGAL use. It does absolutely NOTHING to reduce their CRIMINAL use.

        You seem to think that currently law abiding gun owners could never commit a crime with their gun.

        And you seem to think that criminals will never commit crimes with illegal handguns if we ban ALL handguns outright.

        We’ve had handgun registration since 1934 and have seen the proliferation and use of illegal handguns in crime since. There is no logical reason to believe a ban will have any more of an impact on reducing gun crimes than registration did. Stealing is illegal, but criminals still steal. It is still illegal to hurt people, but criminals still commit assault. There is no logical reason to believe a ban will have any more of an impact on reducing gun crimes than registration did, or that criminals will respect a ban.

    • George says:

      Les,

      Interesting response.

      “fewer guns equals fewer people being shot with guns”

      “Criminals will have guns, no matter what we do.”

      You don’t see the irony in this? You can ban (currently legal) guns, but criminals (eg: the ones who use guns to commit crimes) will still have guns. Therefore, what’s the point of banning them?

      I agree with your comment “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try” – but if we’re going to “try”, then let’s try something that is likely to be effective.

      To end gun violence, you need to do (at least) two (broad) things, each of which has many component parts:

      – eliminate poverty
      – stop glorifying “gun culture” – eg: movies, music, video games, TV, etc.

      Most of us have never actually seen a person get shot in real life. But we all know what it looks like. Why? See above.

      The problem with my prescription is it is too complex and/or costly to implement and people from every side of the political spectrum have their own way to go about it.

      It’s much easier to prescribe pablum – eg: “Let’s ban guns.” That’s what you do when you don’t know what to do.

      Civilians don’t “need” many things. Perhaps you would advocate a ban on Coca-Cola and other sugar-based soft drinks? They kill more people annually via obesity related diseases than hand guns.

      What else would you ban, oh great arbiter of the acceptable? I hope my cigar collection isn’t next on your list.

    • Just askin' says:

      Yeah, I find this puzzling. I don’t perceive legal gun ownership as a problem in Toronto, nor do I consider legal gun ownership to be a municipal issue.

  2. Matt says:

    Boy, those kids seem super interested.

  3. Andy says:

    If banning hand guns was so easy, David Miller would have done it during the “Year of the Gun”.

  4. Elisabeth Lindsay says:

    Banning guns only serves to make the citizens THINK the politicians are actually doing something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*