Canada can be pretty gun-happy too, and there’s been quite a bit of backlash over certain gun control motions from the government (Google Canada Long Gun Registry, for example) but I think culturally we have an understanding that it is necessary to keep them regulated so it is more difficult for the nutcases to get ahold of them.

I shot a gun for the first time in my life in November. It was…..almost fun. I can understand where gun enthusiasts are coming from, but I think I prefer to get my target practice jollies out via my favourite sumemr camp activity: archery. I don’t know how Parks Canada would feel about me setting that up in my back yard though

Let me take a stab at arguing, here. I completely disagree with the second amendment being “moot.” The First Amendment hasn’t lost its luster or purpose because of its age. Or the fourth, for that matter. Why should the Second?

I see you have taken the stance that the clause before the comma is a conditional statement (also there is only one comma, not two as your quote in the FB screenshot suggests), thus not recognizing the right of *individuals* to bear arms. This has been ruled as incorrect in D.C. v. Heller a la Justice Scalia. In the paper he wrote justifying his position he mentions this. He also mentions that citizens have the right to defend themselves with their firearms. Also, if you read the founders’ letters to each other regarding the Constitution you will see that the Second Amendment *is* there primarily to prevent tyrannical government such as what started the revolutionary war.

I would also like to take the time to point out that the Constitution does not *grant* any rights. It recognizes them so that they cannot be taken away as they were with the colony before the revolution. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution will you see “the government provides citizens the right to…”.

I’m not going to try to back out of saying that the primary function of a rifle isn’t to be a weapon. Plain and simple, a rifle is a weapon. However, my stance on the matter is that most gun owners are responsible enough and rational enough to not shoot other people unless they feel their life is in danger. Punishing those people for the actions of people who would disregard new laws anyway is not the solution. I remember a video interview with jailed felons that I can’t find at the moment but the gist of it was this: Criminals don’t care about laws. Their *lives* are about breaking them. What’s another law to them? Nothing. The Washington Post also got its hands on the issue of banning assault rifles, and there isn’t much conclusive evidence that says the 1994 ban worked. (Article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/)

I can only assume this post was in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook. Let’s look at the mass shootings that have occurred in the US in the past 20 years. Columbine occurred while the (Assault Weapons Ban, AWB from here on)AWB was in effect. They didn’t use any rifles. They used pistols and a pistol carbine. They also got their guns in a straw purchase. Cho (VTech) got his pistols the same way. The Wisconsin shooter used a handgun.
That leaves aurora and sandy hook, which did involve a semiautomatic rifle. Both tragedies, and both could have been prevented by social services as well as better laws and better enforcement. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his guns from his mother’s collection – he did not obtain them through purchase. He should have been taken to a therapist long before he snapped. Whatever was going on in his life to cause him to do what he did was not trivial.

In hindsight the aurora shooter should have been denied his purchases (obviously), but he passed his background check 3 times as he bought his guns from 3 different stores. The system failed here, and we need to figure out how he slipped through and how we can prevent it from happening again.
The point i’m trying to make is these people were extremely unstable and needed psychiatric help. The problem is people, not the availability of weapons. If you fix the people, you fix the problem.

You mention here that bear spray would be effective in repelling a home invader. What if burglars respond to people using bear spray with wearing a gas mask? What then? What if it’s just you at home and a 200+lb man breaks in? There are weight classes in any fighting sport for a reason. Firearms are an equalizer. With a firearm you can defend yourself from anyone wanting to do you harm regardless of their size. If the person has a gun, you won’t be getting close enough to kick them or hit them with a pan.

You also mention that you’ve never shot a gun before. If you’d be up to it sometime (maybe when your bun is out of the oven), I could take you out to a range and you could see what gun ownership is really about and what kind of people have them.

My GOD. I’m so glad that bullet missed you!! I can totally understand your reasoning for not having guns in your house, and while I don’t have any similar stories to share (I’ve actually never been around, much less shot, a gun of any sort), I’m strongly against them in my home as well. The ability for people, especially children, to have access to them so readily scares the living daylights out of me. I certainly don’t trust many of these people on the road; why would I trust them with something inherently dangerous and meant only to maim or kill?

You’re right, though. The most effective tool ISN’T a gun, especially if those guns are well-regulated. There are other, more effective tools that can be used and that can be deemed safe in a household. Another friend pointed out that a good kick to the groin is also just as effective, as are cast-iron pans and other techniques. It doesn’t HAVE to be a gun.

We’re just in a gun-happy society (as Canada is, I’ve heard, though not quite as much as America is), and if that’s the reality we have to deal with, then we should also deal with regulating those guns!

Thanks for your comment, Summer. And by all means, hijack! You added a very interesting and thoughtful twist to this discussion.

I’m actually not going to touch the gun debate, as you’re right, we’re on two completely different sides of the fence when it comes to that. I could sit here and debate all day as to why pretty much every one of your points are fallacious, but considering this, I’ll spare the time and space.

I WILL say this, though: Don’t expect not to see some sort of public mockery for something as childish as defriending someone shortly after stating your side, expecting them to read within those few minutes I’m sure it took to hit “unfriend” (or whatever it’s called on Facebook — I honestly don’t remove people often enough to know), then get all up in arms (pun intended) when said person doesn’t and can’t read your retort.

I saved that screenshot you sent, and if anyone is so interested, I can post it again, no problem. The way you handled this situation, Bryan, was — and the way I’ve seen many Tea Party/right wingers/Republicans handle debate is — impetuous at best.

Honestly, I don’t care if you defriended me. It’s no skin off my nose, literal or otherwise. But at least act like a decent human being — a “man”, if you so will — and at least own up to your actions and your adolescent behavior. Or I can continue to make such a mockery.

I completely agree. Granted, I’m one that’s always up for spirited debate, especially from someone whose views are completely different from mine and can challenge me (I’m thinking of one person in particular, actually), but it’s not anything to defriend someone over. Unless, as you said, that person is sophomoric.

Ah well. Moving on!

I have to say – I agree with most if not all your points. I am not comfortable around guns – at all – I was shot at by an alcoholic boyfriend of my mom’s when I was 16 and was almost killed. (inches from my head, it hit a tree I was next to) … so personally, I just can’t have them in my home. My son also attended a school where there was a school shooting last Spring. I have nothing against people who own A gun … for those in the occupations who need them…….. hunters have the rights … but I’m just personally not okay with having any in my home.