We are off thread.
Little OT, yes, though it's close in the sense of what is and is not a political issue:
Why do we place these problems in the hands of politicians who understand them no better than the man in the street? If the heating in my house doesn't work I call in someone who understands heating systems, not someone who has a very strong opinion about heating systems but no knowledge of how they work. It would seem sensiblle to do the same when our planet's heating system is on the blink. So why don't we redefine what is and what is not a political issue, and give only political problems to politicians to solve (there are enough of those to keep them busy!)
I had guessed Canadian, but did not guess you liked guns, normally that is a US American thing. I guess in Canada a grisly bear might make you feel nervous. What do you think your gun is for. Is shooting somebody for a minor criminal act allowable in Canada. In Africa I understand the police advise shoot the criminal first then put a warning shot into the wall or roof, it saves on paperwork. Is that the same in Canada.
Guns (assault weapons) in the ownership of people who don't value life or the law might not be a good idea, people would do mass shootings and all sorts of bad things. You will be aware that mass shootings have been going on in America for a long time the worst being in 1890 https://bigthink.com...-not-in-orlando
Bears don't bother me: they will run away if you stand up and scream unless you're in between them and their cubs. What is of concern is some desperate drug user strung out and irrational (or other criminal element). Guns "even the odds" for anyone not physically capable of subduing the criminal element. EG: 45kg grandmother coming home from the bank, with the POTENTIAL of a pistol in her purse she is not as much of a target as if she is denied that potential. Same is true for a 45kg college girl walking home to the dorms after a sporting event. Note in my previous post I pointed out the London has MASSIVE murder rates with it's draconian gun control, and now even kitchen knives are under government siege. You need to examine the logic of your stance when it's shown to be silly de facto.
"mass shootings" have been stopped in progress by "a good guy with a gun" very often. You will note that states with Open Carry laws have very low incidents of that kinda crap. If(when) one idiot with a gun starts shooting which of the following 2 scenarios is better:
- OMG this is Illinois where gun control is very strict. No one has a gun and it's very hard to out-run a bullet. 30+ people are there and can see the crazy person, and while they try to outrun the bullets and hide they scramble to dial 911 and wait 15-30 minutes (or possibly 2+ hours in other cases) for police(good guys with guns) to respond, identify the shooter, organise, and take action.
- OMG this is Texas. This guy's shooting people from a church! Good guy runs from his house nearby with his rifle(the infamous AR 15 by Armalite), and Ends the terror while the police are still talking on their radios.
Criminals Do Not Follow Laws. What short-circuit of logic can possibly lead to the conclusion that removing guns from those without criminal history makes it safer? That's like saying (possibly drunk) drivers have killed pedestrians, no one should be allowed to own a vehicle or drive except government employees. Another analogy, this time regarding magasine capacity, size of barrel, and general scary looks: Cars with the ability to move faster than 15 km/h and weighing more than 400kg can cause "mass destruction" if they ever get out of control, we must govern all cars to a maximum of 15 km/h and limit the weight to no more than 400kg fully loaded!
It is better to have a Big Stick and never have to swing it than to desperately need a Big Stick and have one nowhere in sight.
"assault weapons" is an undefinable political buzz-word and it is a waste of calories to even bother to read it. A firearm is a firearm regardless of mechanisms or weather is had a wood-grain stock or a "scary looking" stamped metal or plastic one.
Back on thread
Who should politicians protect, big businesses, Monsanto perhaps or the electorate. Should multinationals making huge profits around the world for investors be allowed to apply lower levels of protection for their work force in perhaps India than they would in America or Europe. Are some workers more expendable than others.
In theory none of the above; Government duty is to the nation. Republics are generally set up to safeguard individual freedoms from mob rule while at the same time promoting local interests that do not go against individual rights. Big Business or Multinationals should fall under that "mob rule" part just as much as "the electorate" does. Examples of Failures in this regard are many; weather it be in waste or water management, law enforcement and protecting the peace in an active manner, or any number of valid civic duties. When the government fails to provide what it forces tax collection for, private business often has to step in(security guards, bottled water, septic services, etc...) while the taxpayer still is forced to pay(at gunpoint) for services that are being mismanaged or failure to provide.
People are free to not buy a product from a company they don't like the ethics of. They are NOT free to "not buy" a government mandated service. This is a classic debate of personal choices, freedoms, and oversight. What about your local laws and bylaws? Do they actually protect your rights and freedoms as they are currently implemented?
Edited by GAHD, 29 August 2019 - 12:09 PM.