I didn't want to hijack the thread anymore.
Going off what some are saying about carrying.
I think I'm smarter than most, or perhaps I have more common sense than the minority.
I will not carry if I've been drinking (which isn’t often). There are rules you must abide by when you do have a CCW permit.
Because of my job, I have a lot more firearms training than the public, so I'm lucky in that respect. There are rules that firearm user’s abide by. Those who don’t, have negligent discharges.
There was an off duty cop in the DC area a few months ago who shot and killed a gang member who opened up at a mall. I garun-damn-tee you that if the same thing happens anywhere within my hearing range, I know I’ll do the same thing.
In omina paratus.
Va Tech > Guns...
Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia
Va Tech > Guns...
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
I used to be anti-gun with the opinion that only the military and police should have firearms. Boy, was I naive. I'm now a responsible firearm owner, trained and proficient in the use of handguns. Canadians seem to have a deep rooted anti-firearm culture as I believe they think it sets them apart from the violence often seen across the border. Keep in mind, the criminals here have pistols too!
The bottom line is the government should not be allowed to deny my choice to carry. Canadian law needs to change. I should be able to protect myself and my family from grievous bodily harm and death. It's my choice and it does not negatively affect public safety, it in fact enhances it.
"The notion that guns are evil is one of the most dishonest and hypocritical arguments of the left. The fact that Rosie O'Donnell ranted and screamed about banning guns, then employed an armed bodyguard for her kids, should have given any intelligent person cause to distrust the anti-gun crowd. "Whether or not my family is in need of armed guards," she told People magazine, "that doesn't change my position on gun control."
Ironically, Rosie maintained that she and her three children needed protection because of threats made against her as a result of her outspoken stance on gun control. In other words, if she and her family are threatened, then they should be protected with guns. However, if you and your family are threatened, you should not be allowed access to guns. Very nice.
Guns save lives
The gun-haters start with the basic premise that guns are bad. You shouldn't have them in your house because they're dangerous, they say. I should let you know right from the start that handguns are used for protection against criminals in America nearly 2 million times per year. That's up to five times more often than they're used to commit crimes and nearly 128 times the total number of murders in the United States. Those stats alone are good enough to blow any anti-gun argument out of the water, but there's more. According to the National Crime Victimization Surveys, people who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or don't defend themselves at all.
Robert A. Waters chronicled many such stories in his book "The Best Defense" (Cumberland House). In one of the most gripping accounts, Waters tells of a psychotic serial killer who brutalized his victims before killing them. One woman was found dead with a gun shoved in her vagina. Wayne Nance was one of the most sadistic killers in American history, and he attempted to make a couple in Missoula, Mont., Kris and Doug Wells, his 11th and 12th victims. That proved to be his fatal mistake. You see, Nance had chosen a couple who kept guns in the house.
Nance had been stalking Kris, and when Doug surprised him outside the couple's home, the killer shot him in the back of the head. Dazed and bleeding from a deep scalp wound, Doug struggled with his assailant from the garage into the house. Amazed that Doug was even still alive, Nance pounded him with a length of pipe and finally prevailed. After grabbing Kris and tying her to the bed frame in the couple's bedroom, Nance took Doug to the basement and tied him to a post. Doug, a gunsmith by profession, had earlier placed an antique lever-action Savage Model 99G Take-Down rifle near his workbench in the basement. He knew that if he could get to it, he and his wife might have a chance.
Doug had been shot, bound and beaten nearly to death, but Nance still stabbed him in the chest with an oak-handle kitchen knife, puncturing one of his lungs. The killer then left to have his way with Kris, most assuredly intending to kill her afterward, as he had done with so many of his other victims. Somehow, Doug managed to muster enough strength to break loose from the clothesline that bound him. He grabbed the Savage, loaded it, and waited, knowing that if he headed upstairs for the bedroom, Nance would surely use Kris as a shield. Doug banged the butt of the rifle against the wall to get Nance's attention. The ploy worked. Nance raced back toward the basement stairs, and as soon as he came into view Doug let him have it with the Savage.
In the meantime, Kris had managed to free herself except for one arm. Hearing the shot, she feared that Nance had killed her husband. Doug managed to stumble up the stairs, and when he saw the wounded Nance begin to rise, proceeded to pummel him with the butt of the rifle. As Nance crawled toward the bedroom, Doug continued to beat him with the gun until the butt splintered. By then, Nance was in range of the still-tethered Kris, who began to kick and punch him. Nance pulled his gun from its pouch on his belt and fired at Doug, missing him. His second shot caught Doug just above the knee, but Doug kept coming, beating Nance with the barrel of the rifle. In the process, he knocked the lamp off the bedside table, plunging the room into darkness. Doug heard another explosion, and as he lunged for the table where he kept a pistol, he hit the switch for the overhead light. When he grabbed the handgun and trained it on Nance, who lay on the floor convulsing and twitching, Doug saw that the criminal had shot himself.
Wayne Nance died a few hours later. Doug Wells miraculously recovered from his wounds, and his wife, Kris, was not physically harmed. Care to wonder what would have happened had Doug Wells not had a gun in the house? Want to guess how many other innocent victims Wayne Nance might have slain had Doug Wells not killed him? This is but one example of literally millions of times that guns have saved lives, something the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know. But now you do.
Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the anti-gun advocates have been galvanized in recent years by the highly publicized school shootings, which they point to as the reason we need more gun control. That's an emotional response and not one based in fact. These shootings are indeed tragic, and steps must be taken to stop them, but banning guns is not the answer. Actually, banning guns is adding to the problem. Research shows that people who commit these heinous murders have absolutely no regard for any kind of law, much less laws which prohibit them from carrying a gun onto a particular property. The only thing that will stop them is somebody else with a gun.
By now you're probably familiar with the 1997 school shooting in Pearl, Miss. What you may not know, and what wasn't widely reported, is that after the shooting started, an assistant principal ran outside to get his own gun from his automobile, which by law had to be parked 1,000 feet from the school because there was a firearm in it. He then held his gun on the killer, physically immobilizing the shooter before he could cause additional harm. In the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Penn., which left one teacher dead, a citizen who happened upon the scene held a shotgun on the offender while the young man was reloading his gun, preventing him from killing again. The police didn't arrive for another 10 minutes. Yet, the anti-gun crowd screams for more gun control. Thank God someone with a gun was present at Pearl and Edinboro. Imagine how less tragic Columbine could've been if only some responsible citizen with a gun had been there to stop it.
My friend comedian James Gregory, billed as "the Funniest Man in America," puts the school shooting issue in simple terms. He says the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns. They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting. Obviously, guns aren't the problem.
What is particularly confounding is the media's refusal to recognize the role guns play in thwarting crime. At the Appalachian School of Law in January 2002, a gunman killed three people before, as The Washington Post reported, "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." They failed to mention that these students "pounced" after holding a gun on the assailant, forcing the gunman to drop his.
Another account from the Associated Press seems to purposely omit the part about the guys subduing the gunman with their own guns: "Todd Ross, 30, of Johnson City, Tenn., was among the students who were outside when Odighizuwa (the gunman) left the building. Ross said the suspect was holding his hands in the air and dropped the gun at his prompting." The story didn't mention that the "prompting" was done with the business end of a gun. One would have to go out of his way not to report that a gun saved lives at Appalachian School of Law. I guess the truth is too politically incorrect to be printed. Apparently, it doesn't fit some of the leftwing reporters' agenda – an agenda to rid this country of guns. That's really what all this comes down to. If there were not a concerted agenda on the part of many in the news media to rid the United States of guns, you would have equal attention given to other forms of murder. Glaring examples of the double standard can be found in some of this country's most high-profile murders. Something overlooked by many in the so-called "Crime of the Century," the O. J. Simpson trial, was that Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were not murdered with a gun, they were stabbed to death.
That may be an obvious point, but it shifted a lot of the focus. In every high-profile murder case involving guns, you get the usual plea from the gun-snatchers to ban all guns. The Sept. 11 terrorists used box cutters to take over the planes. Where was the outcry to ban knives and box cutters in the wake of those murders?"
The bottom line is the government should not be allowed to deny my choice to carry. Canadian law needs to change. I should be able to protect myself and my family from grievous bodily harm and death. It's my choice and it does not negatively affect public safety, it in fact enhances it.
"The notion that guns are evil is one of the most dishonest and hypocritical arguments of the left. The fact that Rosie O'Donnell ranted and screamed about banning guns, then employed an armed bodyguard for her kids, should have given any intelligent person cause to distrust the anti-gun crowd. "Whether or not my family is in need of armed guards," she told People magazine, "that doesn't change my position on gun control."
Ironically, Rosie maintained that she and her three children needed protection because of threats made against her as a result of her outspoken stance on gun control. In other words, if she and her family are threatened, then they should be protected with guns. However, if you and your family are threatened, you should not be allowed access to guns. Very nice.
Guns save lives
The gun-haters start with the basic premise that guns are bad. You shouldn't have them in your house because they're dangerous, they say. I should let you know right from the start that handguns are used for protection against criminals in America nearly 2 million times per year. That's up to five times more often than they're used to commit crimes and nearly 128 times the total number of murders in the United States. Those stats alone are good enough to blow any anti-gun argument out of the water, but there's more. According to the National Crime Victimization Surveys, people who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or don't defend themselves at all.
Robert A. Waters chronicled many such stories in his book "The Best Defense" (Cumberland House). In one of the most gripping accounts, Waters tells of a psychotic serial killer who brutalized his victims before killing them. One woman was found dead with a gun shoved in her vagina. Wayne Nance was one of the most sadistic killers in American history, and he attempted to make a couple in Missoula, Mont., Kris and Doug Wells, his 11th and 12th victims. That proved to be his fatal mistake. You see, Nance had chosen a couple who kept guns in the house.
Nance had been stalking Kris, and when Doug surprised him outside the couple's home, the killer shot him in the back of the head. Dazed and bleeding from a deep scalp wound, Doug struggled with his assailant from the garage into the house. Amazed that Doug was even still alive, Nance pounded him with a length of pipe and finally prevailed. After grabbing Kris and tying her to the bed frame in the couple's bedroom, Nance took Doug to the basement and tied him to a post. Doug, a gunsmith by profession, had earlier placed an antique lever-action Savage Model 99G Take-Down rifle near his workbench in the basement. He knew that if he could get to it, he and his wife might have a chance.
Doug had been shot, bound and beaten nearly to death, but Nance still stabbed him in the chest with an oak-handle kitchen knife, puncturing one of his lungs. The killer then left to have his way with Kris, most assuredly intending to kill her afterward, as he had done with so many of his other victims. Somehow, Doug managed to muster enough strength to break loose from the clothesline that bound him. He grabbed the Savage, loaded it, and waited, knowing that if he headed upstairs for the bedroom, Nance would surely use Kris as a shield. Doug banged the butt of the rifle against the wall to get Nance's attention. The ploy worked. Nance raced back toward the basement stairs, and as soon as he came into view Doug let him have it with the Savage.
In the meantime, Kris had managed to free herself except for one arm. Hearing the shot, she feared that Nance had killed her husband. Doug managed to stumble up the stairs, and when he saw the wounded Nance begin to rise, proceeded to pummel him with the butt of the rifle. As Nance crawled toward the bedroom, Doug continued to beat him with the gun until the butt splintered. By then, Nance was in range of the still-tethered Kris, who began to kick and punch him. Nance pulled his gun from its pouch on his belt and fired at Doug, missing him. His second shot caught Doug just above the knee, but Doug kept coming, beating Nance with the barrel of the rifle. In the process, he knocked the lamp off the bedside table, plunging the room into darkness. Doug heard another explosion, and as he lunged for the table where he kept a pistol, he hit the switch for the overhead light. When he grabbed the handgun and trained it on Nance, who lay on the floor convulsing and twitching, Doug saw that the criminal had shot himself.
Wayne Nance died a few hours later. Doug Wells miraculously recovered from his wounds, and his wife, Kris, was not physically harmed. Care to wonder what would have happened had Doug Wells not had a gun in the house? Want to guess how many other innocent victims Wayne Nance might have slain had Doug Wells not killed him? This is but one example of literally millions of times that guns have saved lives, something the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know. But now you do.
Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the anti-gun advocates have been galvanized in recent years by the highly publicized school shootings, which they point to as the reason we need more gun control. That's an emotional response and not one based in fact. These shootings are indeed tragic, and steps must be taken to stop them, but banning guns is not the answer. Actually, banning guns is adding to the problem. Research shows that people who commit these heinous murders have absolutely no regard for any kind of law, much less laws which prohibit them from carrying a gun onto a particular property. The only thing that will stop them is somebody else with a gun.
By now you're probably familiar with the 1997 school shooting in Pearl, Miss. What you may not know, and what wasn't widely reported, is that after the shooting started, an assistant principal ran outside to get his own gun from his automobile, which by law had to be parked 1,000 feet from the school because there was a firearm in it. He then held his gun on the killer, physically immobilizing the shooter before he could cause additional harm. In the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Penn., which left one teacher dead, a citizen who happened upon the scene held a shotgun on the offender while the young man was reloading his gun, preventing him from killing again. The police didn't arrive for another 10 minutes. Yet, the anti-gun crowd screams for more gun control. Thank God someone with a gun was present at Pearl and Edinboro. Imagine how less tragic Columbine could've been if only some responsible citizen with a gun had been there to stop it.
My friend comedian James Gregory, billed as "the Funniest Man in America," puts the school shooting issue in simple terms. He says the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns. They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting. Obviously, guns aren't the problem.
What is particularly confounding is the media's refusal to recognize the role guns play in thwarting crime. At the Appalachian School of Law in January 2002, a gunman killed three people before, as The Washington Post reported, "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." They failed to mention that these students "pounced" after holding a gun on the assailant, forcing the gunman to drop his.
Another account from the Associated Press seems to purposely omit the part about the guys subduing the gunman with their own guns: "Todd Ross, 30, of Johnson City, Tenn., was among the students who were outside when Odighizuwa (the gunman) left the building. Ross said the suspect was holding his hands in the air and dropped the gun at his prompting." The story didn't mention that the "prompting" was done with the business end of a gun. One would have to go out of his way not to report that a gun saved lives at Appalachian School of Law. I guess the truth is too politically incorrect to be printed. Apparently, it doesn't fit some of the leftwing reporters' agenda – an agenda to rid this country of guns. That's really what all this comes down to. If there were not a concerted agenda on the part of many in the news media to rid the United States of guns, you would have equal attention given to other forms of murder. Glaring examples of the double standard can be found in some of this country's most high-profile murders. Something overlooked by many in the so-called "Crime of the Century," the O. J. Simpson trial, was that Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were not murdered with a gun, they were stabbed to death.
That may be an obvious point, but it shifted a lot of the focus. In every high-profile murder case involving guns, you get the usual plea from the gun-snatchers to ban all guns. The Sept. 11 terrorists used box cutters to take over the planes. Where was the outcry to ban knives and box cutters in the wake of those murders?"
-
RatherBeFlyingInCanada
- Rank 3
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:10 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Right-Heart-ABCs- ... 1581823541
it's from the book, "Right from the Heart: The ABC's of Reality in America"
it's from the book, "Right from the Heart: The ABC's of Reality in America"
-
niss
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
- Contact:
Does everyone here who is a completely legal firearm owner agree with the laws for storage? If your fire arm is stored properlly doesnt it become a poor choice for defence because you cant get to it in time?
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Guns are like cars - if everyone has them well just take a look at how much bad driving there is every day. Despite training (we all have a licence) there are 1000's of car accidents each day in Canada.
In the same way there are 1000's of gun accidents each year in North America. By all rights the USA should have no crime. Guns are simple a tool. A good tool in the hands of some, deadly in the hands of others.
What is this liberal utopia where every citizen is a trained sniper and close combat expert and wipes out all crime. As if. You have a better chance of every car driver becoing a professional driver and reducing all accidents.
In the same way there are 1000's of gun accidents each year in North America. By all rights the USA should have no crime. Guns are simple a tool. A good tool in the hands of some, deadly in the hands of others.
What is this liberal utopia where every citizen is a trained sniper and close combat expert and wipes out all crime. As if. You have a better chance of every car driver becoing a professional driver and reducing all accidents.
That'll buff right out 
I don't live in Canada, and follow a complete different set of rules residing aboard a military installation. But here it goes...
Should the scenerio arise that Joe Schmuckatelli breaks into my house, I will find the time to get my side arm.
I can go from the 'ready' to a double tap to center mass in less than 2 seconds, with an average of 5 cm grouping at 7m (my best is 4.3cm).
I don't know if it's good or bad timing this week, but I've been on the pistol range all week. I test out on Thursday (Beretta M9 for those are interested).
How is it that I get paid to have this much fun?
Oh, and to the car v. gun debate. Shooting someone is a deliberate act, not paying attention and driving through a red light isn't.
Cheers.
Should the scenerio arise that Joe Schmuckatelli breaks into my house, I will find the time to get my side arm.
I can go from the 'ready' to a double tap to center mass in less than 2 seconds, with an average of 5 cm grouping at 7m (my best is 4.3cm).
I don't know if it's good or bad timing this week, but I've been on the pistol range all week. I test out on Thursday (Beretta M9 for those are interested).
How is it that I get paid to have this much fun?
Oh, and to the car v. gun debate. Shooting someone is a deliberate act, not paying attention and driving through a red light isn't.
Cheers.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5622
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Well, put me on the side of stricter gun laws. But, I'm not so ideologically bound that I fail to see the humour in the above!Nark wrote:
I can go from the 'ready' to a double tap to center mass in less than 2 seconds, with an average of 5 cm grouping at 7m (my best is 4.3cm).
Cheers.
Nice, but the job is not done until the third round (you know, the warning shot ) is fired into the floor
Nice shooting, Nark. I suspect, however, that your military-funded expertise is beyond the financial reach of all but the most ardent hobbyist.
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
looproll....from a guy who used to be "anti-gun" great post.
With Canada's gun laws, we're all "sitting ducks", and the scumbags know it. This is not a good thing.
On the safe storage issue. When I'm not home, the gun is locked down. If I'm home...don't count on that being the case. By the time an intruder gets past my two barking "suck hounds", the new Kimber is ready to "defend" the motherland!
And I just love the "fools" looking for tougher gun laws! The idiots who write off students usually end up "offing" themselves in the end...tougher gun laws? Yah! That's the answer!
With Canada's gun laws, we're all "sitting ducks", and the scumbags know it. This is not a good thing.
On the safe storage issue. When I'm not home, the gun is locked down. If I'm home...don't count on that being the case. By the time an intruder gets past my two barking "suck hounds", the new Kimber is ready to "defend" the motherland!
And I just love the "fools" looking for tougher gun laws! The idiots who write off students usually end up "offing" themselves in the end...tougher gun laws? Yah! That's the answer!
I'm not sure that anyone here is old enough to remember, but ...
About 25 years ago, there was a shooting in Quebec by some nut. In reaction to that (fierce lobbying by women's groups) Alan Rock established the gun registry, which cost over $1B so far.
Then, a year or two ago, there was another shooting in Quebec. IIRC the shooter's guns were all properly registered, etc. So, the $1B gun registry, all of Canada's strict guns laws simply didn't work.
Some problems you can't solve with more government paperwork. I'm not sure that Transport is aware of this nugget of knowledge, either.
About 25 years ago, there was a shooting in Quebec by some nut. In reaction to that (fierce lobbying by women's groups) Alan Rock established the gun registry, which cost over $1B so far.
Then, a year or two ago, there was another shooting in Quebec. IIRC the shooter's guns were all properly registered, etc. So, the $1B gun registry, all of Canada's strict guns laws simply didn't work.
Some problems you can't solve with more government paperwork. I'm not sure that Transport is aware of this nugget of knowledge, either.
...
Shootings like this have nothing to do with gun laws, with the prevalence of guns (or lack thereof), or with elaborate security systems (or lack thereof).
These shooters themselves have bought guns to "protect" themselves from those they deemed a threat, for whatever reason... ie: their fellow students, their ex-girlfriend, their ex-boss, ...whatever.
These guys have been psychologically isolated for whatever reason and so they lash out.
There is the case not that long ago, of the guy from out east who was coming to shoot up Toronto. I think he had guns and bombs in his car... BUT he was befriended by a DOG, for Jeez sake... The psychological isolation was broken and he abandoned the project.
So if we want to stop this sort of carnage we will do better to train ourselves as a society to find and reach out to those isolated anti-social individuals, rather than becoming anti-social ourselves.... arming ourselves to the teeth or creating our personal fortresses.
Fortresses can be breached... the bomb in the Bahgdad Green zone is a recent example, but you can go back through history. The unwashed will eventually see it as a threat and will tear it down by force, or it will become irrelevant and will decay on its own.
Those inside the fortress themselves become isolated and insecure and anti-social.... develop such paranoia that they cannot function outside of the walls at all. Also, at what point will they mistake the mailman or the meter-reader, or a late-night trip to the fridge by hubby, for an intruder?
I have stated in a previous post that I am not in favour of the Gun Registry, because it does nothing to prevent crime and does so at a great cost.
I have also stated, that I do not favour the Government having exclusive rights to bear arms.
But I also know that no matter how you slice it, the death rate by guns per capita in the USA is something like 3 to 5 times that of Canada, depending on where you get the numbers.
You would think that if we were "sitting ducks" as somebody put it, then this would not be so.
Creating a culture of isolation in armed fortresses will do nothing to improve our quality of life, nor that of the generations to come.
But in the meantime, the "security experts" are licking their chops at this kind of publicity, as they line up for the American dollar.
...
Shootings like this have nothing to do with gun laws, with the prevalence of guns (or lack thereof), or with elaborate security systems (or lack thereof).
These shooters themselves have bought guns to "protect" themselves from those they deemed a threat, for whatever reason... ie: their fellow students, their ex-girlfriend, their ex-boss, ...whatever.
These guys have been psychologically isolated for whatever reason and so they lash out.
There is the case not that long ago, of the guy from out east who was coming to shoot up Toronto. I think he had guns and bombs in his car... BUT he was befriended by a DOG, for Jeez sake... The psychological isolation was broken and he abandoned the project.
So if we want to stop this sort of carnage we will do better to train ourselves as a society to find and reach out to those isolated anti-social individuals, rather than becoming anti-social ourselves.... arming ourselves to the teeth or creating our personal fortresses.
Fortresses can be breached... the bomb in the Bahgdad Green zone is a recent example, but you can go back through history. The unwashed will eventually see it as a threat and will tear it down by force, or it will become irrelevant and will decay on its own.
Those inside the fortress themselves become isolated and insecure and anti-social.... develop such paranoia that they cannot function outside of the walls at all. Also, at what point will they mistake the mailman or the meter-reader, or a late-night trip to the fridge by hubby, for an intruder?
I have stated in a previous post that I am not in favour of the Gun Registry, because it does nothing to prevent crime and does so at a great cost.
I have also stated, that I do not favour the Government having exclusive rights to bear arms.
But I also know that no matter how you slice it, the death rate by guns per capita in the USA is something like 3 to 5 times that of Canada, depending on where you get the numbers.
You would think that if we were "sitting ducks" as somebody put it, then this would not be so.
Creating a culture of isolation in armed fortresses will do nothing to improve our quality of life, nor that of the generations to come.
But in the meantime, the "security experts" are licking their chops at this kind of publicity, as they line up for the American dollar.
...
I guess I am the opposite of looproll. I wasn’t necessarily a gun nut, but I spent some time in the military and had a C7 and a 9mm. When I left I joined a shooting range and shot competitive rifle for a few years in university. There were guns in my house as a little kid and my father had a rifle at work (nature of the business). It was interesting and fun, but in the end I lost the flavour for it. Now I have no guns and am quite happy. That’s my background. The reason I say this is that I feel that I have seen both sides of the gun debate.
Every time an incident (massacre, shooting, killing, murder) happens a bunch of groups take up sides. Let’s see who we’ll have this time. There will be the anti and pro-gun people. Because this kid was a resident alien, the immigration and anti-immigration people are going to get involved. As well since this happened in a school the security and civil liberty people will also have a say. They’ll argue, come up with recommendation, some will be implemented, and some rejected. In time there will be a yearly memorial and most, except those who were involved, will let this incident slowly change into a memory. I remember Columbine but I’m not reading too much about it anymore and it isn’t part of my daily conversation, same with Dawson and the host of other shooting incidents.
Let’s look at the arguments. You and I know they are always the same.
Anti-gun
No guns, no one gets shot
No guns, no armed wacko’s
No guns, no gun accidents/incidents
Gun Registry to control guns
Pro-Gun
Constitutional Right
Trained gun owners are safe
There are law aimed at preventing these shooting
Registered guns were used at Dawson
Anti-Immigration
Foreigners are taking our jobs
Outsiders are using our social assistance
Immigration
Without foreigners no one to work the min wages job
New people, means new homes and jobs to support them
Security
Metal Detectors everywhere will ensure no weapons where they shouldn’t be
Armed guards should be posted to deter any would be attackers
Civil Liberty
People should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t affect anyone else
What are we teaching our youth when they have to be screened before the go to school to learn
I’m sure I missed a couple but I think you get the drift. And I’m also sure there a few more sides to be taken up.
A few years ago I was of the opinion that the British might have it right. There are no guns allowed in London. Even the bobbies don’t have them. There are a few exceptions I am sure, but if you have a gun within city limits and you’re not a government agent then you’re in trouble. Correct me if I’m wrong this was my understanding. Most gun owners in Britain belong to hunting clubs or are rural farmers and as such store there guns outside major cities.
I figured the same could apply here. Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and St, John’s should have a law preventing guns within the city. There’s no need for them there. On the other hand if I live on Outer Goat Trail Lane in Upper Rubber Boot, AB I might have a legitimate need for a rifle either for hunting or for protecting the homestead from a marauding grizzly.
I joke with people about going to the southern States and seeing gun rack in people’s pick-up trucks. I call them red-necks and the like and am glad that I can walk down my street here in Canada without needing a gun for protection. It’s like the arms race. Remember the cold war. It wasn’t too long ago. USA and USSR were building the biggest arsenal of weapons so that they could intimidate the each other. No one used them, just had them. For protection just in case. Everyone was so worried about something going wrong that they pressured each other to partially disarm. Now there’s a bunch of other players getting involved trying to accomplish the same thing. It’s a culture of fear to get what you want. Maybe it's time to start working in the other direction.
There is a simple truth I still come back to. If there are no guns, no one gets shot. A few people gave examples of protecting themselves from the wacko’s. There are millions of scenarios that any logical person can come up with where a gun for protection will save their family. Maybe it’s time to look at the larger picture though. Is having the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a potential attacker worth the almost hundred students that have died in the last 20 years. Not counting gun accidents and crime associated with them.
If gun-nuts are so hell bent about keeping their guns, here’s an idea, stop making bullets. You can mount them in your pick-up truck or above your mantle just the same as you always have but you just won’t be able to shoot them. So when bad man comes you can still butt stroke him if required. It’s a long term solution, I know, as it would take years for all the bullets out there to be used up. And I’m also sure survivalists would find some way to store a couple million rounds in a hole in Montana. Plus there would be a multitude of books and websites that would pop up so that you could find a way to make your own.
Now for reality, this will never work as the lobbyists will throw their money at the government to prevent this. The people put out of work alone would stop any government from implementing this. Look at tobacco, for example.
The reality also is that we need to do something. What we have now isn’t working.
So where do we go from here. Let’s here what Dubya and Stevie have to say this week. I’ll be watching.
On a side note would the f-ing reporters stop putting this stuff on the front page of every newspaper and tv show on the planet. When this happens, I hate to say, it needs to be locked down. When some mentally questionable individual who had been picked on and abused all his life sees this stuff going on it’s gives them an outlet. Some one who would otherwise never have been noticed is now on the front page of every newspaper, headline on every news broadcast and subject of millions of web pages. You give these people an avenue to get exactly what they want. Attention. These school shooters are willing to die for their 15 minutes of fame. Problem is they think they need to take a bunch of people with them.
Every time an incident (massacre, shooting, killing, murder) happens a bunch of groups take up sides. Let’s see who we’ll have this time. There will be the anti and pro-gun people. Because this kid was a resident alien, the immigration and anti-immigration people are going to get involved. As well since this happened in a school the security and civil liberty people will also have a say. They’ll argue, come up with recommendation, some will be implemented, and some rejected. In time there will be a yearly memorial and most, except those who were involved, will let this incident slowly change into a memory. I remember Columbine but I’m not reading too much about it anymore and it isn’t part of my daily conversation, same with Dawson and the host of other shooting incidents.
Let’s look at the arguments. You and I know they are always the same.
Anti-gun
No guns, no one gets shot
No guns, no armed wacko’s
No guns, no gun accidents/incidents
Gun Registry to control guns
Pro-Gun
Constitutional Right
Trained gun owners are safe
There are law aimed at preventing these shooting
Registered guns were used at Dawson
Anti-Immigration
Foreigners are taking our jobs
Outsiders are using our social assistance
Immigration
Without foreigners no one to work the min wages job
New people, means new homes and jobs to support them
Security
Metal Detectors everywhere will ensure no weapons where they shouldn’t be
Armed guards should be posted to deter any would be attackers
Civil Liberty
People should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t affect anyone else
What are we teaching our youth when they have to be screened before the go to school to learn
I’m sure I missed a couple but I think you get the drift. And I’m also sure there a few more sides to be taken up.
A few years ago I was of the opinion that the British might have it right. There are no guns allowed in London. Even the bobbies don’t have them. There are a few exceptions I am sure, but if you have a gun within city limits and you’re not a government agent then you’re in trouble. Correct me if I’m wrong this was my understanding. Most gun owners in Britain belong to hunting clubs or are rural farmers and as such store there guns outside major cities.
I figured the same could apply here. Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and St, John’s should have a law preventing guns within the city. There’s no need for them there. On the other hand if I live on Outer Goat Trail Lane in Upper Rubber Boot, AB I might have a legitimate need for a rifle either for hunting or for protecting the homestead from a marauding grizzly.
I joke with people about going to the southern States and seeing gun rack in people’s pick-up trucks. I call them red-necks and the like and am glad that I can walk down my street here in Canada without needing a gun for protection. It’s like the arms race. Remember the cold war. It wasn’t too long ago. USA and USSR were building the biggest arsenal of weapons so that they could intimidate the each other. No one used them, just had them. For protection just in case. Everyone was so worried about something going wrong that they pressured each other to partially disarm. Now there’s a bunch of other players getting involved trying to accomplish the same thing. It’s a culture of fear to get what you want. Maybe it's time to start working in the other direction.
There is a simple truth I still come back to. If there are no guns, no one gets shot. A few people gave examples of protecting themselves from the wacko’s. There are millions of scenarios that any logical person can come up with where a gun for protection will save their family. Maybe it’s time to look at the larger picture though. Is having the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a potential attacker worth the almost hundred students that have died in the last 20 years. Not counting gun accidents and crime associated with them.
If gun-nuts are so hell bent about keeping their guns, here’s an idea, stop making bullets. You can mount them in your pick-up truck or above your mantle just the same as you always have but you just won’t be able to shoot them. So when bad man comes you can still butt stroke him if required. It’s a long term solution, I know, as it would take years for all the bullets out there to be used up. And I’m also sure survivalists would find some way to store a couple million rounds in a hole in Montana. Plus there would be a multitude of books and websites that would pop up so that you could find a way to make your own.
Now for reality, this will never work as the lobbyists will throw their money at the government to prevent this. The people put out of work alone would stop any government from implementing this. Look at tobacco, for example.
The reality also is that we need to do something. What we have now isn’t working.
So where do we go from here. Let’s here what Dubya and Stevie have to say this week. I’ll be watching.
On a side note would the f-ing reporters stop putting this stuff on the front page of every newspaper and tv show on the planet. When this happens, I hate to say, it needs to be locked down. When some mentally questionable individual who had been picked on and abused all his life sees this stuff going on it’s gives them an outlet. Some one who would otherwise never have been noticed is now on the front page of every newspaper, headline on every news broadcast and subject of millions of web pages. You give these people an avenue to get exactly what they want. Attention. These school shooters are willing to die for their 15 minutes of fame. Problem is they think they need to take a bunch of people with them.
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
So, if these people had died over a couple of days (say a long weekend) in traffic accidents, that would have been ok, because it would not have been sensationalized by the opportunistic media?
I just read that the storm that just went through the northeast was responsible for at least 15 deaths.
Should we register/ban storms? Would that help?
I just read that the storm that just went through the northeast was responsible for at least 15 deaths.
Should we register/ban storms? Would that help?
There's no storms that I know of that are felling neglected and want attention.Hedley wrote:So, if these people had died over a couple of days (say a long weekend) in traffic accidents, that would have been ok, because it would not have been sensationalized by the opportunistic media?
I just read that the storm that just went through the northeast was responsible for at least 15 deaths.
Should we register/ban storms? Would that help?
My points is that I wonder how many of the shooters after Columbine were encouraged by the attention focused on the killers in that incident? Lonely and isolated is a common theme I have read a few time with these kids.
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
An airplane isn't designed to kill, that's why they won't get banned. Tell me what a gun is for other than to shoot?B18rules wrote:Guns don't kill people! People kill people using guns. It would be like banning airplanes after September 11th. In the right hands they are both usfull.
Please tell me whose hands a gun is useful in? (Military and Police excepted) Please tell me where someone could not support and raise a family without a gun?
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
Snowgoose:
Northern Canada for starters. If you put a blanket policy out there too remove all the guns how are some of these people gonna support their families? It is a way of life for them, it is a tool that is a part of their life that they use to survive. What about the trappers that need them for protection and also to do their job. All I was saying it is the nut on the other end of a gun that makes the choice to end somebodys life.
Northern Canada for starters. If you put a blanket policy out there too remove all the guns how are some of these people gonna support their families? It is a way of life for them, it is a tool that is a part of their life that they use to survive. What about the trappers that need them for protection and also to do their job. All I was saying it is the nut on the other end of a gun that makes the choice to end somebodys life.
I lived in the north for 3 years and never needed one. Same with all the people I worked with, except those who liked to hunt. We all made it out alive.B18rules wrote:Snowgoose:
Northern Canada for starters. If you put a blanket policy out there too remove all the guns how are some of these people gonna support their families? It is a way of life for them, it is a tool that is a part of their life that they use to survive. What about the trappers that need them for protection and also to do their job. All I was saying it is the nut on the other end of a gun that makes the choice to end somebodys life.
I'm all for civil liberties, but can we all at least admit that there is a problem here.
For the record a gun is a weapon not a tool.
Main Entry: gun
Pronunciation: 'g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gonne, gunne
1 a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c : a device that throws a projectile
2 a : a discharge of a gun especially as a salute or signal b : a signal marking a beginning or ending
Main Entry: weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
Main Entry: tool
Pronunciation: 'tül
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tOl; akin to Old English tawian to prepare for use -- more at TAW
1 a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : MACHINE TOOL
2 a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a> d often vulgar : PENIS
3 : one that is used or manipulated by another
4 plural : natural ability <has>
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
Here we go ... the old argument to "ban guns because they have no use".
Ok, I'll buy into the left-wing rhetoric, and run with it.
By your logic, we should also ban all pleasure boats. People die every summer - a LOT of them! - from accidents involving pleasure boats that "have no use".
And what about snowmobiles? They "have no use" and people die every winter operating them, so we ought to "ban" them too, right?
And what about motorcycles? They have "no use" and people die every year operating them, so we ought to ban them too, right?
And what about light aircraft? Like pleasure boats, they have "no use" and by your left-wing logic ought to be banned, to get rid of the needless deaths that occur every year?
Try leaving Starbucks every once in a while. It will greatly help your perspective.
P.S. I've shot a bear out the back door of the house. Would you like a bear in your back yard, mauling your children? A gun is just a goddamned tool, like a tractor. Both can kill - the airport manager at Kingston died on a tractor. Should we ban tractors, too?
People get all caught up in the freudian symbolism of a gun - it's hard, and long, and you squeeze it, and deadly stuff shoots out the end. It's enough to drive a feminist wild, I understand, but after you get over the psychology, it's really just a tool.
Ok, I'll buy into the left-wing rhetoric, and run with it.
By your logic, we should also ban all pleasure boats. People die every summer - a LOT of them! - from accidents involving pleasure boats that "have no use".
And what about snowmobiles? They "have no use" and people die every winter operating them, so we ought to "ban" them too, right?
And what about motorcycles? They have "no use" and people die every year operating them, so we ought to ban them too, right?
And what about light aircraft? Like pleasure boats, they have "no use" and by your left-wing logic ought to be banned, to get rid of the needless deaths that occur every year?
Try leaving Starbucks every once in a while. It will greatly help your perspective.
P.S. I've shot a bear out the back door of the house. Would you like a bear in your back yard, mauling your children? A gun is just a goddamned tool, like a tractor. Both can kill - the airport manager at Kingston died on a tractor. Should we ban tractors, too?
People get all caught up in the freudian symbolism of a gun - it's hard, and long, and you squeeze it, and deadly stuff shoots out the end. It's enough to drive a feminist wild, I understand, but after you get over the psychology, it's really just a tool.
Could you have shot the bear with an arrow? Or used a bear banger, or bear repellent? Just a thought.
All those other things you mention Hedley. Like I said, snowmobiles, motorcycles and pleasure boats are not designed to kill.
I've shot many guns, but now I am pretty confident that I will live to a ripe old age without them. There's 33 people yesterday who won't because of them. Tim McVeigh killed a lot of people with fertilizer and diesel. They have normal ever day uses. I have trouble seeing how guns do.
All those other things you mention Hedley. Like I said, snowmobiles, motorcycles and pleasure boats are not designed to kill.
I've shot many guns, but now I am pretty confident that I will live to a ripe old age without them. There's 33 people yesterday who won't because of them. Tim McVeigh killed a lot of people with fertilizer and diesel. They have normal ever day uses. I have trouble seeing how guns do.
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
