Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sadolph

gun control bs.

Recommended Posts

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/31/court-adjourns-homeowners-self-defence-trial-to-clarify-confusing-gun-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why so mamy US firearms owners who already follow hundreds of gun laws in the books fight even the seemingly little stuff that pops up here and there, with regard to more gun laws. As the use of a Molitov coctail illustrates, virtually everything illegal to do with a gun is already an illegal act on it's face regardless of the means.

 

One wonders if the actions of the people outside with the firebombs were scrutinized as carefully as the homeowners actions are being scrutinized. One wonders if the Crown has asked ask how their gasoline (or other accelerant) was carried to the scene? Were the delivery vessels used in a manner consistent with their manufacture? Were any applicable taxes paid and safety labels affixed? Does their right to freely express their protest against the homeowner outweigh his right to stop someone from burning his home up? How did the three masked men "feel" about being shot at while launching fire bombs at a house?

 

But then, the present issue appears to be that of storage as much as it is about castle doctrine. And they impact each other.

 

Cliche as it has become, the phrase, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away" applies here. Some sort of safe storage is, IMO, the responsibility of gun owners though the concept has clearly gone overboard when the requirements are written and enforced in a manner so as to render the objects of little use for their purpose by a responsible adult who has passed every other lawful requirement to purchase the instrument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.national...un-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

 

It will be interesting to see whether or not this results in a real review, or is swept under the carpet by the authorities. Either way - I sincerely hope that Mr. Thomson is completely exonerated and not subsequently hassled by local law enforcement in an attempt to "catch him" at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/31/court-adjourns-homeowners-self-defence-trial-to-clarify-confusing-gun-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

that the proscuter does not understand a revolver from a semiautomatic when it comes to shell ejection is amazing.

talk about ignorant..or politically motivated

In the states a good lawyer would have wiped the floor with the fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mr. Mahler oughta to be forced to live next door to those three punks for a year......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. Mr. Thompson is a dangerous criminal who needs to feel the full brunt of the law!!!

 

 

Fukin' rediculous He lives alone in a secure and alarmed house, but the crown thinks he needs to have a lock on his bedside table because there's ammo in it. The part about not understanding that shell casings remain in a revolver cylander is just priceless. What a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

if you've ever listened to the CBC you would understand. If you think the media in the US is slanted in a political direction. .... ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed... and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

Wacky. About as wacky as... say... a pedestrian being prosecuted for jaywalking because intersection camera footage indicated the possibility the pedestrian's trailing foot may or may not have still been on the curb when the WALK light turned to DON'T WALK -- all the while ignoring the fact the pedestrian was run down by a driver blowing the red light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed... and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

Damn the luck. Progressive incrementalism at its finest.

 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed. and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

Seems they're going after a firearms instructor.

In the background: is first a beef, then firebomb vs gun-play.

 

 

 

At the end of the day it was a beef being played out. Since beefs are cheap and easy to come by.

maybe the prosecutors is saying not in our district.

 

Steve A, what was it that drove all this anti-gun law in Canada?

 

The whole what-to-do-about-guns thing is interesting.

But either outcome, our differences here IMO are a cultural page turning, not politics.

It goes to how we think and what makes us feel safe, not to how we vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed. and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

Seems they're going after a firearms instructor.

In the background: is first a beef, then firebomb vs gun-play.

 

 

 

At the end of the day it was a beef being played out. Since beefs are cheap and easy to come by.

maybe the prosecutors is saying not in our district.

 

Steve A, what was it that drove all this anti-gun law in Canada?

 

The whole what-to-do-about-guns thing is interesting.

But either outcome, our differences here IMO are a cultural page turning, not politics.

It goes to how we think and what makes us feel safe, not to how we vote.

 

Hmmm, three fucking thugs walk up to my house when my family and I are inside and start tossing Molatavs? I don't care what the beef was about but I garauntee ya they're all either going to the hospital----or the fuking morgue. Then I'll wait for the LEO's or the jury to sort it all out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed... and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

criminals always have more rights than their victims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Steve A, what was it that drove all this anti-gun law in Canada?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

 

a wingnut shot up a school. SIX YEARS later we were blessed with our current gun control laws. the stories i have heard from instructors about how each part came about would make you shake your head. our mags are limited to 5 rounds for centerfire long guns. rim fire is unlimited. lawmakers came to this conclusion by asking hunters how how many rounds they typically load into a shotgun while hunting game. they decided limiting rounds in a mag would mean a shooter would have to reload more often and not be able to do as much damage. oddly, shotguns are not limited. i have 25 round mags for my 22. my shotgun has a mag extension. my 9mm was 10 rounds. my 'assault' rifle has mags blocked to 5 rounds. but i have 4 of them.

 

it's perfectly legal to walk down a busy street with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as long as it's trigger locked and unloaded. you can have a rifle and shells in your car as long as the rifle is trigger locked and unloaded. you can store a handgun in a soft case as long as the case is not see thru, is lockable, and the handgun is trigger locked and unloaded.

 

ammo is supposed to be stored separately from the firearm, but it's legal to keep ammo in the same case as long as the firearm is, you guessed it, trigger locked and unloaded.

 

our firearm laws suck. they do nothing but make life miserable for law abiding citizens. license for unrestricted firearms. license for restricted firearms. license to transport restricted firearms. registry for firearms you are already licensed to possess. thankfully the registry is about to be dissolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Steve A, what was it that drove all this anti-gun law in Canada?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

 

a wingnut shot up a school. SIX YEARS later we were blessed with our current gun control laws. the stories i have heard from instructors about how each part came about would make you shake your head. our mags are limited to 5 rounds for centerfire long guns. rim fire is unlimited. lawmakers came to this conclusion by asking hunters how how many rounds they typically load into a shotgun while hunting game. they decided limiting rounds in a mag would mean a shooter would have to reload more often and not be able to do as much damage. oddly, shotguns are not limited. i have 25 round mags for my 22. my shotgun has a mag extension. my 9mm was 10 rounds. my 'assault' rifle has mags blocked to 5 rounds. but i have 4 of them.

 

it's perfectly legal to walk down a busy street with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as long as it's trigger locked and unloaded. you can have a rifle and shells in your car as long as the rifle is trigger locked and unloaded. you can store a handgun in a soft case as long as the case is not see thru, is lockable, and the handgun is trigger locked and unloaded.

 

ammo is supposed to be stored separately from the firearm, but it's legal to keep ammo in the same case as long as the firearm is, you guessed it, trigger locked and unloaded.

 

our firearm laws suck. they do nothing but make life miserable for law abiding citizens. license for unrestricted firearms. license for restricted firearms. license to transport restricted firearms. registry for firearms you are already licensed to possess. thankfully the registry is about to be dissolved.

 

That's a lotta crap to work with....but you should see what our Ozzie friends have to go thru. Key-rhyst, you have better luck getting a permit to hunt pigeons at the Vatican...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House being firebombed... and prosecutors are interested in the homeowner.

 

Damn the luck. Progressive incrementalism at its finest.

 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

 

Burke never said or wrote it

 

There is no original. The quote is bogus, and Burke never said it. It is a pseudo-quote, and corresponds to real quotes in the same way that urban legends about the ghost hitch-hiker vanishing in the back of the car and alligators in the sewers correspond to true news stories.

 

http://tartarus.org/...burkequote.html

 

I used to like the quote myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.national...un-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

 

i agree a REASONABLE discussion is order. The Criminal Code does specify a reasonable response. There are lots of precedents. Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law or worse a paramour law.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a lotta crap to work with....but you should see what our Ozzie friends have to go thru. Key-rhyst, you have better luck getting a permit to hunt pigeons at the Vatican...

 

from what i can remember, when aus and the uk enacted very strict gun laws, to the point of banning guns outright, crime rates went up. in the uk violent crimes at knife point skyrocketed.

 

but that's another political debate never to be won by either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.national...un-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

 

i agree a REASONABLE discussion is order. The Criminal Code does specify a reasonable response. There are lots of precedents. Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law or worse a paramour law.

 

So just lay back and let the bad guys do to you and your family what they f'ng want to? Then call Dudley Doo-Little and hope he shows up in time to both save your lives and catch the criminals?

 

Meeee-ooooow. That's a pretty g-damn sad attitude to pattern your life around. Victimitis is not a healthy disease ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.national...un-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

 

i agree a REASONABLE discussion is order. The Criminal Code does specify a reasonable response. There are lots of precedents. Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law or worse a paramour law.

 

So just lay back and let the bad guys do to you and your family what they f'ng want to? Then call Dudley Doo-Little and hope he shows up in time to both save your lives and catch the criminals?

 

Meeee-ooooow. That's a pretty g-damn sad attitude to pattern your life around. Victimitis is not a healthy disease ......

 

Boothy, wanting clear gun laws is not endorsing being a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to his blanket, casual dismissal of having/needing a Castle Doctrine law. Paramour law? Haven't a clew what that is---unless it's a law that says your wife won't get shit in the divorce if you're caught with your paramour.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to his blanket, casual dismissal of having/needing a Castle Doctrine law. Paramour law? Haven't a clew what that is---unless it's a law that says your wife won't get shit in the divorce if you're caught with your paramour.... :P

 

Enough said.

 

I used to live in Texas

 

The Iranian Code provides that a husband can kill his wife and her lover if he catches them in flagrante delicto. (This used to be the law in Texas, where it was the paramour law.)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to his blanket, casual dismissal of having/needing a Castle Doctrine law. Paramour law? Haven't a clew what that is---unless it's a law that says your wife won't get shit in the divorce if you're caught with your paramour.... :P

 

Enough said.

 

I used to live in Texas

 

The Iranian Code provides that a husband can kill his wife and her lover if he catches them in flagrante delicto. (This used to be the law in Texas, where it was the paramour law.)

 

Is Iran our 58th state now? Sheet, I must have been asleep that day........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i agree a REASONABLE discussion is order. The Criminal Code does specify a reasonable response. There are lots of precedents. Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law or worse a paramour law.

 

And that's where the great divide happens.... Differing opinions as to what is meant by "reasonable". If one person's idea of reasonable discussion focuses on abolishment at worst and anal-retentative storage methods at best, he's never going to consider a self-defence argument. And, a homeowner with no marks against his name & who already must store his weapons under lock & key is unlikely to consider further restrictions that add marginal, if any, value to society as reasonable.

 

What does Canadian or Provincial law provide in this case, an instance of arson in progress, as a reasonable response?

 

If precidents exist - and in the interest of seeing how the US might learn from the Canadian model - what are those precedents that apply here, in this case, where it is said the man was trying to stop an immediate threat to life and/or substantial property value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is particularly frustrating is the predictable homeowner under arrest thing. I am not a legal expert nor am I particularly knowledgeable on the subject. I take a regular cab ride with an avid gun enthusiast and competitive marksman.

 

There are other examples of Canadian nonsense, like the shopkeeper who was arrested and charged after a repeated thief again tried to loot his grocery store.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/10/06/chen-shoplifting-trial.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thankfully the registry is about to be dissolved

I had heard that, and saw it as a "beginning of reasonable-ness" on the part of Canuckistani gubmint.

 

 

Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law

I disagree.

 

Steve's news linkies support my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

I don't think they would trust their safety to it, but they certainly filed it under 'nice to know'. They certainly lobbied hard for it, and on the face of it I have no problem with the cops knowing who has guns, but ... it was poorly planned, poorly executed and unbelievably expensive.

 

A friend that should know what she's talking about told me that an underlying premise through the Canadian legal system is that human life is more important than 'stuff'. Implied by this is that a human life is worth more than stuff even if said human life is trying to steal your stuff, and poorly written laws have led to the idiocy that happened with the shopowner Steve referenced. I am not a lawyer and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I think it would be very tough/impossible to reconcile this premise with the ideas behind a castle law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

I don't think they would trust their safety to it, but they certainly filed it under 'nice to know'. They certainly lobbied hard for it, and on the face of it I have no problem with the cops knowing who has guns, but ... it was poorly planned, poorly executed and unbelievably expensive.

 

A friend that should know what she's talking about told me that an underlying premise through the Canadian legal system is that human life is more important than 'stuff'. Implied by this is that a human life is worth more than stuff even if said human life is trying to steal your stuff, and poorly written laws have led to the idiocy that happened with the shopowner Steve referenced. I am not a lawyer and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I think it would be very tough/impossible to reconcile this premise with the ideas behind a castle law.

 

I think part of the castle law premise is that anyone who is on your property taking your stuff has a reasonably high likelihood of being a danger to you personally as well. I don't have any proof of this, but it seems to me that the alternative is to sit and wait for the perp to become physically aggresive towards you or wait for the cops to show up. Neither would seem to me an adequate response with a potentially dangerous criminal in the midst of burglarizing my habitation. For all of the bleating about human life being more valuable than stuff, instances of a homeowner shooting someone who is simply trying to non-violently carry property away are pretty rare. At least, they certainly are a rarity in the news. I don't have any statistics to back this up, so don't ask. Most gun crime I see reported is violence between two individuals who know each other and where property crime is not part of the equasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is particularly frustrating is the predictable homeowner under arrest thing. I am not a legal expert nor am I particularly knowledgeable on the subject. I take a regular cab ride with an avid gun enthusiast and competitive marksman.

 

There are other examples of Canadian nonsense, like the shopkeeper who was arrested and charged after a repeated thief again tried to loot his grocery store.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ting-trial.html

 

Some charges were dropped

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/shopkeeper-learns-his-lesson-in-acquittal/article1777985/

 

He was acquitted

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/03/chen-shoplifter.html

 

 

That law has been / is being amended

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/22/toronto-harper-arrests-122.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

 

Maybe I have missed it, but I have never heard of any specific instance in which the police used the gun registry to inform themselves of a potential hazard and averted some potential threat with the information. The police just parrot vague, ambiguous terms like "it helps", "it works", "it's for the safety of our officers", etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is particularly frustrating is the predictable homeowner under arrest thing. I am not a legal expert nor am I particularly knowledgeable on the subject. I take a regular cab ride with an avid gun enthusiast and competitive marksman.

 

There are other examples of Canadian nonsense, like the shopkeeper who was arrested and charged after a repeated thief again tried to loot his grocery store.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ting-trial.html

 

Some charges were dropped

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/shopkeeper-learns-his-lesson-in-acquittal/article1777985/

 

He was acquitted

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/11/03/chen-shoplifter.html

 

 

That law has been / is being amended

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/22/toronto-harper-arrests-122.html

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out. It's great to see adjustments being made, hope it continues.

 

With regards to stuff being worth less than life, I agree, but one of the challenges is -- how do you confirm with the threat that stuff is all that's at stake?

Believe me I am philosophically inclined to take a non violent stance, but it does trouble me a lot that there is a wide margin of error, and limited time to act.

 

Also, individual views and beliefs are only part of the answer when you have responsibility for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.national...un-control-law/

 

 

Thought I would post this. Clearly this is bs and is indicative of how far the wrong way Canadian gun control laws have gone. Maybe this trial will stimulate some reasonable discussion in Canada over castle doctrine, and striking a better balance.

 

i agree a REASONABLE discussion is order. The Criminal Code does specify a reasonable response. There are lots of precedents. Canada does not have nor need a second amendment or a castle law or worse a paramour law.

 

So just lay back and let the bad guys do to you and your family what they f'ng want to? Then call Dudley Doo-Little and hope he shows up in time to both save your lives and catch the criminals?

 

Meeee-ooooow. That's a pretty g-damn sad attitude to pattern your life around. Victimitis is not a healthy disease ......

 

Much of this is news to me, I see why the frustration, thanks.. And I see how personal it is for many here.

If I felt the need for a gun to hell with the laws, it would be be quick to load.

 

But EM, in how many arguments have you been 100% righteous?

This one is not Boomer buying gas and getting clobbered by a gun to the temple getting in his car.

 

With the OP, it got to Gunplay vs. Firebomb, but first the two sides had a history, a running dispute..

We contribute to our own disagreements, to a point. It's muddy water, you're only part right.

If it escalates to a fracus.on both sides and guns get involved, sure you have a right to protect yourself

in a fight which you had helped to build.

That fight is an effect, not a cause. Is an effect of how each handled himself and the conflict, and... it turned to gunplay.

 

You guns guys' train of thought is not subtle enough. How you handle yourself is internal first and physical second.

Either could prevent this gun play. Both sides have chosen neither.

The resulting behavior is similar to wolves attacking their weaker pack mates. Animal kingdom stuff.

 

Street crime, the Boomer incident, is different. Yet the need for a gun or hand-to-hand combat skills overall still treats an effect not a cause. And upwardly-mobile social patterns separate those of means from the causes physically, visually, and mentally.

No gun will fix it but we need it fixed. Look inside.

 

Even the USA and Russia stood down on weapons proliferation. Don't feel like it can't be done.

 

Out-of-sight, out of mind, then widepread riots in the 60's (shockeroo) and Rodney King riots in the 90"s.

When the affluent in our society detatch themselves from the ugly bottom feeders you have ignorance.

Then sooner or later you want a gun. As a "tool".

The magic bullet may be based on economic opportunity. It wouldn't hurt.

 

Whip out the Kumbaya slams, guys, but be ready to do it for a months because I want to talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

 

Maybe I have missed it, but I have never heard of any specific instance in which the police used the gun registry to inform themselves of a potential hazard and averted some potential threat with the information. The police just parrot vague, ambiguous terms like "it helps", "it works", "it's for the safety of our officers", etc...

 

Hope this helps

 

The federal long gun registry is on track to be dismantled next year, but the chief of police in Halifax says he'd like it to stay.Bill C-19, the Conservative government's measure to scrap the registry, has passed first and second reading in the House of Commons.

 

It is currently before a committee, where it will be examined clause by clause before it goes for third reading and then to the Senate, and then possibly on to receive royal assent and become law.

 

Halifax police Chief Frank Beazley said his officers use the gun registry as part of domestic dispute calls and in any investigation involving a gun.

 

"If there's a gun recovered at a crime scene, I could investigate the crime gun — that's what they call it in the police world. We actually do a separate investigation on the gun, see where it came from, how it ended up in the hands of the criminal," Beazley said.

 

"The losing of the gun registry is going to impact my ability to do those types of things. That's what I'm sad about."

 

Nova Scotia has a population of 945,000, and there are more than 300,000 firearms registered in the province.

 

In his end-of-year interview with the CBC, Beazley also said his officers have seen an increase in the number of handguns seized this year, most of them stolen from Canadian gun owners.

 

"Each year we recover about 350, 370 guns. That includes long rifles, shotguns.… A lot of handguns this year so far — pistols, about 80 so far, in my last count," Beazley said. "That's a lot."

 

Since the introduction of stricter gun laws in 1991, there has been a 65 per cent reduction in homicides by long guns, Statistics Canada data shows.

 

 

Beazley said in the fall that he would like to see a provincial registry, but the province has said it has no plans for a Nova Scotia registry.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/26/ns-beazley-long-gun-registry.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet the need for a gun or hand-to-hand combat skills overall still treats an effect not a cause. And upwardly-mobile social patterns separate those of means from the causes physically, visually, and mentally.

No gun will fix it but we need it fixed. Look inside.

 

When the affluent in our society detatch themselves from the ugly bottom feeders you have ignorance.

Then sooner or later you want a gun. As a "tool".

The magic bullet may be based on economic opportunity. It wouldn't hurt.

 

Whip out the Kumbaya slams, guys, but be ready to do it for a months because I want to talk about it.

 

We could talk about it better if you would learn to write coherently. We're on different sides of this but there seems to be an interesting thread to your thought that does seem worthy of discussion. But I swear to God, reading your stuff is worse than reading Faulkner.

 

Please understand that we can't hear the voice in your head while you write this, so phrasing and inflection is lost. What is left is pretty damn incoherent. Writing is harder than talking. Read what you write before hitting that "add reply" button and do a little editing. Then I'll be happy to discuss whatever the fuck the stuff you wrote above means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet the need for a gun or hand-to-hand combat skills overall still treats an effect not a cause. And upwardly-mobile social patterns separate those of means from the causes physically, visually, and mentally.

No gun will fix it but we need it fixed. Look inside.

 

When the affluent in our society detatch themselves from the ugly bottom feeders you have ignorance.

Then sooner or later you want a gun. As a "tool".

The magic bullet may be based on economic opportunity. It wouldn't hurt.

 

Whip out the Kumbaya slams, guys, but be ready to do it for a months because I want to talk about it.

 

We could talk about it better if you would learn to write coherently. We're on different sides of this but there seems to be an interesting thread to your thought that does seem worthy of discussion. But I swear to God, reading your stuff is worse than reading Faulkner.

 

Please understand that we can't hear the voice in your head while you write this, so phrasing and inflection is lost. What is left is pretty damn incoherent. Writing is harder than talking. Read what you write before hitting that "add reply" button and do a little editing. Then I'll be happy to discuss whatever the fuck the stuff you wrote above means.

 

 

I swear to gawd but you can't can can't write shit this good..... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control aside, there is a lot more to this story clearly. The guy lives in secured, alarmed house with security cameras and loaded guns and 3 guys come to fire bomb it?

 

And when the Cops come he is les than co-operative? He either mixes in the wrong circle of friends or he has clearly upset someone and he knows it. But it is not something he wants the cops help with.

He sounds exactly like the kind of person the Government should stop owning a gun!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

the primary use for the registry was confiscation. once a type of firearm was banned, say black arms (assault style rifles), cops would just look up who had them and knock on doors. think it's absurd? in the election where the lieberals lost power one of their last ditch election promises was a ban on handguns. no grandfathering. we would have been forced by law to turn in handguns, with no compensation. failure to surrender your private property would have made you a criminal.

 

the majority of registry searches are automatically done with other searches against your id. traffic stop? registry search attached to the search for your driving record, but has to be viewed separately. most cops don't even know they are making the search, or how to use it. the claim started at 6500 searches a day. was quickly changed to 10000. it could be a million, the bottom line is most of the searches are never used.

 

if i wanted to debate this whole heartedly it would require me to sit at a full keyboard and type, not punch the screen of a tablet. i'd rather go to the range an kill paper with my private property the government isn't keeping track of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control aside, there is a lot more to this story clearly. The guy lives in secured, alarmed house with security cameras and loaded guns and 3 guys come to fire bomb it?

 

And when the Cops come he is les than co-operative? He either mixes in the wrong circle of friends or he has clearly upset someone and he knows it. But it is not something he wants the cops help with.

He sounds exactly like the kind of person the Government should stop owning a gun!

Until the guy does something wrong with the gun or commits a crime - the gov't has no say in who he associates with or what his situation looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,,, the primary use for the registry was confiscation. ,,,

 

This, of course, is the gorilla in the basement.

 

New Orleans & Katrina

'Zactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad's handgun was stolen, we reported it as such, Denver Police didn't seem too concerned about it. Got me thinking about that carbine I got from him and how close I came to devirginizing it by shooting it, but it's still a vintage M1, unfired, so I went to the sporting goods store for a replica carbine to shoot, but it was $900 for the Auto Ordinance, made in USA. Too much.

 

But they have some vintage surplus Russian 30s, with bayonets, drenched in packing grease, large enough cal for deer hunting if necessary (the carbine is legally too small) and just interesting bolt rifles with a history I would prefer not think about. None of the numbers match, but the receiver number is visible, they look like good, albeit heavy weapons, Russian to Yugoslavian.

 

Anyone here have a preference or suggestion before I get one?

 

vdli76.jpg

 

2ag3l1v.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's 'bout you start with a nice little $99.00 Mosin, before you get too analytically crazy ass and start to contemplate the true inner meaning of ear wax, and it's historical effect on High Society during the time of the Phonecians?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's 'bout you start with a nice little $99.00 Mosin, before you get too analytically crazy ass and start to contemplate the true inner meaning of ear wax, and it's historical effect on High Society during the time of the Phonecians?....

 

Geez Boothy, is breaking into all those cabins in Utah doing something to yer head? I just need advice on a fun vintage target rifle since I can't afford the garand replica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC Mike, make up your fuckin' mind ....do ya wanna plink at targets or put some meat in the freezer.....then ask for suggestions.....ps don't forget to get your girls ready to do this....

 

IMGP0004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's 'bout you start with a nice little $99.00 Mosin, before you get too analytically crazy ass and start to contemplate the true inner meaning of ear wax, and it's historical effect on High Society during the time of the Phonecians?....

 

Geez Boothy, is breaking into all those cabins in Utah doing something to yer head? I just need advice on a fun vintage target rifle since I can't afford the garand replica.

 

 

The gun you pictured is a Mosin.

 

The packing "grease" is called cosmoline, you need to clean it all off before you fire it.

 

It fires a very powerful cartridge.

 

For the price how can you go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez Boothy, is breaking into all those cabins in Utah doing something to yer head? I just need advice on a fun vintage target rifle since I can't afford the garand replica.

the price on that was $219, right? too high. they should be around $100. those old guns are fun as hell to shoot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez Boothy, is breaking into all those cabins in Utah doing something to yer head? I just need advice on a fun vintage target rifle since I can't afford the garand replica.

the price on that was $219, right? too high. they should be around $100. those old guns are fun as hell to shoot though.

 

The Russian was $100, I like the Yugoslavian Mauser, it was $380 or so. I just want it for target practice, the meat I put on my plate comes at the end of monofilament, and only then if it doesn't put up a fight, the spirited ones go back.

 

How can anyone make money matching parts of from vintage Russian bolt-action rifles, clean them, pack them to America, even including a bayonet, and then sell them for $100?

 

I don't plan to hunt deer or elk, but I would like to know that I could, just in case. It's just a target gun. The ammo for the carbine is fairly cheap, but it's not a legal deer or elk gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're gonna spend 4 bills on a Mauser, at least get a Swedish or Swiss or German Mauser. For proof, just look at the history of the Yugo.........

 

 

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=273976671

 

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=273064228

 

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=273217735

 

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=273725950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of gun control.... I spent all day on Friday shooting lots of different guns - but a buddy brought out his new SBR with an EOTECH optic.

 

WANT! I'm submitting the tax stamp for both an SBR and a suppressor 1st thing next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's 'bout you start with a nice little $99.00 Mosin, before you get too analytically crazy ass and start to contemplate the true inner meaning of ear wax, and it's historical effect on High Society during the time of the Phonecians?....

 

Geez Boothy, is breaking into all those cabins in Utah doing something to yer head? I just need advice on a fun vintage target rifle since I can't afford the garand replica.

 

History of garand rifle. Left unsaid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a lotta crap to work with....but you should see what our Ozzie friends have to go thru. Key-rhyst, you have better luck getting a permit to hunt pigeons at the Vatican...

 

from what i can remember, when aus and the uk enacted very strict gun laws, to the point of banning guns outright, crime rates went up. in the uk violent crimes at knife point skyrocketed.

 

but that's another political debate never to be won by either side.

ain't that the truth <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

We tried that in the UK, bad guys didn't seem very keen on signing up...... go figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,,, the primary use for the registry was confiscation. ,,,

 

This, of course, is the gorilla in the basement.

 

New Orleans & Katrina

'Zactly!

and the UK is living proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

We tried that in the UK, bad guys didn't seem very keen on signing up...... go figure?

 

 

I think it's 'bout time you guys pass a law that makes it a crime for bad guys to commit crimes, don't you?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun registry, I've heard that one of the primary uses for this is to allow police to know if there are firearms at a residence before they go there.

 

Totally absurd. I can't believe that any police officer would trust a database to tell them their relative safety in an unknown situation.

 

The Canadian chiefs of police supported retaining the registry. In their experience, it worked.

 

 

Did/do the bad guys have to register theirs?.....

We tried that in the UK, bad guys didn't seem very keen on signing up...... go figure?

 

 

I think it's 'bout time you guys pass a law that makes it a crime for bad guys to commit crimes, don't you?.....

Couldn't possibly do that, we'd be infringing their human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. Criminals have feelings too....

 

A burglar from Nottingham has been freed from jail on appeal so he can care for his five children.

 

Wayne Bishop, 33, was jailed for eight months for breaking into a rugby club and crashing into a police car.

 

He argued the judgement breached his human rights and the Court of Appeal agreed not enough attention was paid to the effect on his children.

 

 

 

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this gun control talk, I can recall the smell of gunpowder.

I made a lame promise to Boothy to oil up my .22 to maybe plink with it.

 

So I called my precinct to take it in to register it.

Registration is not required in Washington State or Seattle.

 

That's eerie. That's really Twilight Zone stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this gun control talk, I can recall the smell of gunpowder.

I made a lame promise to Boothy to oil up my .22 to maybe plink with it.

 

So I called my precinct to take it in to register it.

Registration is not required in Washington State or Seattle.

 

That's eerie. That's really Twilight Zone stuff.

NO, its called "freedom and liberty". Novel concept, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this gun control talk, I can recall the smell of gunpowder.

I made a lame promise to Boothy to oil up my .22 to maybe plink with it.

 

So I called my precinct to take it in to register it.

Registration is not required in Washington State or Seattle.

 

That's eerie. That's really Twilight Zone stuff.

NO, its called "freedom and liberty". Novel concept, isn't it?

 

If we're up to it. Just sayin'.

The 9 year old' shooter's bail was $50,000 by the way.

A poster boy for "self-protection".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this gun control talk, I can recall the smell of gunpowder.

I made a lame promise to Boothy to oil up my .22 to maybe plink with it.

 

So I called my precinct to take it in to register it.

Registration is not required in Washington State or Seattle.

 

That's eerie. That's really Twilight Zone stuff.

NO, its called "freedom and liberty". Novel concept, isn't it?

 

If we're up to it. Just sayin'.

The 9 year old' shooter's bail was $50,000 by the way.

A poster boy for "self-protection".

 

More like a poster boy for being unlucky enough to have careless, stupid parents.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 9 year old' shooter's bail was $50,000 by the way.

A poster boy for "self-protection".

 

Is the suggestion here, that if the gun the parent(s) own(s) was registered with the cops it would necessarily have been stored better and inaccessible to the kid?

 

Lack of registration didn't stand in the way of solving the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9 year old' shooter's bail was $50,000 by the way.

A poster boy for "self-protection".

 

Is the suggestion here, that if the gun the parent(s) own(s) was registered with the cops it would necessarily have been stored better and inaccessible to the kid?

 

Lack of registration didn't stand in the way of solving the crime.

 

Regards Atoyot. I enjoy your thoughtful posts.

You're correct that the gun being registered would not prevent this bullet.

Which passed through her arm on the way to her abdomen and is lodged in her spine.

 

You will find me short of solutions in general, I think,

It just seems that we better show the problem some awareness and try to identify the responsibility, the chain of custody in this weapon panacea. Do something, duh,

ANYTHING but a sea of feckless guns around all this flawed humanity, both urban and rural.

 

For example. they must control the ammo around here because way back in the '80's (before many of you were born, sonny) I had a ex-jailbird laborer kid ask me repeatedly to by him common ammo. He didn't get any from me.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's review. We're entirely casual about gun possession, and some prefer MANY guns. The majority of these weapons are say stored in closets or hidden, but they're there.

Are trigger locks and gunsafes used? Big maybe, including in my own case.

Common home defense type weapons are somewhat handy to suit their purpose, no?

 

The houses are crawling with curious kids, some depressed, and the streets are crawling with marginal mental cases and tweekers

(all wishing they were as cool as El Mariachi).

And under buzz-words like Second Amendment, freedom, liberty, and self-protection, rah rah, you're gonna just pile up more guns.

(How does a collector possibly store these things, anyway, EM?)

 

So, registered or not, you are leaving the matches next to the dynamite, and making me nervous with your gun toys.

I seem to hear of many gun mishaps or abuses for every citizen apprehension of criminals or the interruption of crime.

Oh yeah, let's add that alcohol and guns are a bad, omnipresent, legal, very American combo.

 

Where are you going with this gun enthusiasm?

I am trying to go the way of a stable, actually peaceful society which esteems rationality or understanding or diplomacy for conflict suspension.

Not the quickdraw.

.

So yeah, shooting is a fun hobby and guns protect the home.

But you want multiple guns, and your own personal street justice delivered by gunfire?

And you like your chicks in bikinis with guns, eh?

But you can't keep the guns out of the playpens, eh?

 

Cultural focus is wrong.

If you want to be a warrior state, teaching the children a fighter mentality is just fine.

Or hell, even a 9 year old can teach himself to chamber a round in case he has any problems on the run.

 

A twisted, armed society is what you seem to be building, and some handle it better than others.

Thus, we are back to ugly regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 students shot at an Ohio high school just now.

 

correction - 5 students shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regards Atoyot. I enjoy your thoughtful posts.

You're correct that the gun being registered would not prevent this bullet.

Which passed through her arm on the way to her abdomen and is lodged in her spine.

 

You will find me short of solutions in general, I think,

It just seems that we better show the problem some awareness and try to identify the responsibility, the chain of custody in this weapon panacea. Do something, duh,

ANYTHING but a sea of feckless guns around all this flawed humanity, both urban and rural.

 

For example. they must control the ammo around here because way back in the '80's (before many of you were born, sonny) I had a ex-jailbird laborer kid ask me repeatedly to by him common ammo. He didn't get any from me.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's review. We're entirely casual about gun possession, and some prefer MANY guns. The majority of these weapons are say stored in closets or hidden, but they're there.

Are trigger locks and gunsafes used? Big maybe, including in my own case.

Common home defense type weapons are somewhat handy to suit their purpose, no?

 

The houses are crawling with curious kids, some depressed, and the streets are crawling with marginal mental cases and tweekers

(all wishing they were as cool as El Mariachi).

And under buzz-words like Second Amendment, freedom, liberty, and self-protection, rah rah, you're gonna just pile up more guns.

(How does a collector possibly store these things, anyway, EM?)

 

So, registered or not, you are leaving the matches next to the dynamite, and making me nervous with your gun toys.

I seem to hear of many gun mishaps or abuses for every citizen apprehension of criminals or the interruption of crime.

Oh yeah, let's add that alcohol and guns are a bad, omnipresent, legal, very American combo.

 

Where are you going with this gun enthusiasm?

I am trying to go the way of a stable, actually peaceful society which esteems rationality or understanding or diplomacy for conflict suspension.

Not the quickdraw.

.

So yeah, shooting is a fun hobby and guns protect the home.

But you want multiple guns, and your own personal street justice delivered by gunfire?

And you like your chicks in bikinis with guns, eh?

But you can't keep the guns out of the playpens, eh?

 

Cultural focus is wrong.

If you want to be a warrior state, teaching the children a fighter mentality is just fine.

Or hell, even a 9 year old can teach himself to chamber a round in case he has any problems on the run.

 

A twisted, armed society is what you seem to be building, and some handle it better than others.

Thus, we are back to ugly regulation.

 

 

Regards as well. Thank you for your civility in the wake of tragedy caused by careless use or ownership.

 

While our respective opinions on some bullet points (sorry) may be as far apart as our geography upon North America is, you've got some legitimate concerns and anyone who denies that problems exist in one form or another, that need solving, are doing free gun ownership no special favors. There mainly seems to be a sea of differences in what should be done, and it's going to continue to be a difficult discussion on all sides until each recognizes the concerns of the other, free of the personal remarks.

 

What I continue to fail to understand is how we didn't hear about stuff like school and office shootings when I was a kid... whether we're talking prior to 1968 (when I was 11, and when any meaningful gun control ramped up) or in the 70's when I learned to drive, went to high school, and started college. Gun abuse was either more rare, or, the press wasn't offering much if any free publicity to the whackos I never heard about. Something must have changed, and I'm pretty sure it hasn't been because it's easier to buy guns since then.... because it isn't. May be something to do with personal responsibility and general attitude toward the acceptance of violence in solving our differences? I don't know. If I really, definitely knew what it is, I'd try to change it.

 

The macho, shoot-'em up street justice bantering certainly doesn't help to inspire confidence of those on the fence or who are against guns, toward those who favor more or less the status quo in the U.S. And if common sense with regard to use, storage, and child exposure to these things were in fact common, we'd have fewer of these kids taking a bullet from other kids who feel it 'interesting' or 'big' to handle a real weapon without Mom or Dad right beside them.

 

One thing I really don't get is how the same people who want to regulate guns more, wouldn't dare regulate to any serious degree the images and sentiments found in popular entertainment and video games that are marketed to youth. Freedom of the press and all that.... fashioned during a time that no one could have foreseen TV, motion pictures, or the internet.

 

There are many firearms enthusiasts, quite possibly the majority, who keep our stuff locked up unless they're at the range, or going there/returning, or cleaning the residue from them. Unfortunately, people don't hear about us. They only hear about the bad stuff, the things that happen when kids get a hold of stuff they shouldn't be messing with. As far as the quantity of ones' arsenal, my own viewpoint is that owning more than I can shoot regularly is a waste of resources considering that even a collectible needs attention periodically. All I've got, such as it is, remains locked up precisely to restrict access to the two people in the world who should ever be handling them without supervision.

 

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards as well. Thank you for your civility in the wake of tragedy caused by careless use or ownership.

 

While our respective opinions on some bullet points (sorry) may be as far apart as our geography upon North America is, you've got some legitimate concerns and anyone who denies that problems exist in one form or another, that need solving, are doing free gun ownership no special favors. There mainly seems to be a sea of differences in what should be done, and it's going to continue to be a difficult discussion on all sides until each recognizes the concerns of the other, free of the personal remarks.

 

What I continue to fail to understand is how we didn't hear about stuff like school and office shootings when I was a kid... whether we're talking prior to 1968 (when I was 11, and when any meaningful gun control ramped up) or in the 70's when I learned to drive, went to high school, and started college. Gun abuse was either more rare, or, the press wasn't offering much if any free publicity to the whackos I never heard about. Something must have changed, and I'm pretty sure it hasn't been because it's easier to buy guns since then.... because it isn't. May be something to do with personal responsibility and general attitude toward the acceptance of violence in solving our differences? I don't know. If I really, definitely knew what it is, I'd try to change it.

 

The macho, shoot-'em up street justice bantering certainly doesn't help to inspire confidence of those on the fence or who are against guns, toward those who favor more or less the status quo in the U.S. And if common sense with regard to use, storage, and child exposure to these things were in fact common, we'd have fewer of these kids taking a bullet from other kids who feel it 'interesting' or 'big' to handle a real weapon without Mom or Dad right beside them.

 

One thing I really don't get is how the same people who want to regulate guns more, wouldn't dare regulate to any serious degree the images and sentiments found in popular entertainment and video games that are marketed to youth. Freedom of the press and all that.... fashioned during a time that no one could have foreseen TV, motion pictures, or the internet.

 

There are many firearms enthusiasts, quite possibly the majority, who keep our stuff locked up unless they're at the range, or going there/returning, or cleaning the residue from them. Unfortunately, people don't hear about us. They only hear about the bad stuff, the things that happen when kids get a hold of stuff they shouldn't be messing with. As far as the quantity of ones' arsenal, my own viewpoint is that owning more than I can shoot regularly is a waste of resources considering that even a collectible needs attention periodically. All I've got, such as it is, remains locked up precisely to restrict access to the two people in the world who should ever be handling them without supervision.

 

 

Peace.

 

1308541787905.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

It's not the gun, it's the bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you going with this gun enthusiasm?

I am trying to go the way of a stable, actually peaceful society which esteems rationality or understanding or diplomacy for conflict suspension.

Not the quickdraw.

 

 

Let me know how that goes in about 40,000,000 years when humans have evolved past anything much more than hairless monkeys. :lol:

 

 

Animals kill other animals. Some for food, some for territory, some for shits and giggles. We, (humans), are animals and as such it is impossible to live peacefully, or in harmony with the rest of the world. Just like any other animal. To think anything less is just telling yourself that you are some how better than the rest of the worlds creatures, and that gives you some level of comfort and assurance. I don't know what it is that gives some of us a connection to the rest of the specie, while some of us don't. Me? There's probably about a dozen people I don't care to see wiped off the face of the earth, the rest, I could care less. They can live for ever, or die this second, it wouldn't phase me much. I'd just have to hike my ass to a warmer climate. Minnesota is too damn cold without infrastructure.

 

Morality is strictly a human thing, and it seems to be a self perpetuating mentality. Each generation having to up the previous generations sense of right and wrong. Death has somehow become completely unacceptable, whereas less than a thousand years ago your entire village could be wiped about by plague, or some conquering army and it was just a fact of life. Hell, take a look at Africa, it still happens. Tragedy? or just the way we are when we have to worry about something other than picking up the kids from soccer practice?

 

 

Personally I think most of the worlds issues stem from over population. While life may have been harder, it was definitely simpler when there was less than a billion of us roaming the planet, much less the close to 7,000,000,000 people there are now.

 

 

 

 

Besides, if someone takes away my firearms, wtf am I going to shoot people with? :lol:

 

[/trolling]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever that means.

 

It meant thumbs up on your eloquent response. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

Clearly you've never felt the terror of being in a locked down school while one of your peers prowled the hallways with a handgun and the bullet in his chamber could have your name on it. It's the most sobering experience you can ever have and will make a reformer out of anyone.

 

There will always be nut-jobs, mentally unstable children and psychopaths. People for whom no amount of good parenting will ever fix. There will also be normal children who have horrendous parents that absolutely fail at being responsible and no manner of counseling will completely eliminate the potential for a crazy getting the urge to take someones life

 

The difference between them being able to act on their urges to kill and not is whether or not they have access to a gun.

 

It's simple math, if you take guns out of the equation then you remove one potential avenue through which they can end someones life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple math, if you take guns out of the equation then you remove onley one potential avenue through which they can end someones life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

Clearly you've never felt the terror of being in a locked down school while one of your peers prowled the hallways with a handgun and the bullet in his chamber could have your name on it. It's the most sobering experience you can ever have and will make a reformer out of anyone.

 

There will always be nut-jobs, mentally unstable children and psychopaths. People for whom no amount of good parenting will ever fix. There will also be normal children who have horrendous parents that absolutely fail at being responsible and no manner of counseling will completely eliminate the potential for a crazy getting the urge to take someones life

 

The difference between them being able to act on their urges to kill and not is whether or not they have access to a gun.

 

It's simple math, if you take guns out of the equation then you remove one potential avenue through which they can end someones life.

 

 

I understand your passion. Answer me this, though: Where do you see the logical end of the approach that you're advocating? Substitute the word "guns" for any other means by which harm can come to someone - and let me know where/how you see the progression ending.

 

I honestly do understand the intent and desired outcome of the path you propose, and completely agree with those. The world isn't a sterile, safe place - and while we should always strive to make it better, I think we've got a better chance at doing that if we focus more on making our kids smarter, instead of trying to child-proof the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever that means.

 

It meant thumbs up on your eloquent response. :D

 

Thank you. My mobile connection leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to moving pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

 

OK, this is important. When my pop was a kid (1940's, and there was a war on) he and his buds could get on a school bus with a rifle, turn it in to the gym teacher, shoot during gym class, and take the bus home with it. And no one got hurt.

 

I'm not about to advocate that kids go back to packing rifles for gym class, not with the inbred lack of personal responsibility from which we in the current age suffer in this country. My question is - if availability is the issue, why were there no school shootings (or not on any scale that I can determine) and why do we have them now, when it's a whole lot more difficult to purchase a firearm than it was in the earlier half of the 20th century?

 

How did my elders keep from shooting each other up over parking spaces and where the neighbor's dog takes a crap, back when I was half your age and people could buy a handgun or a rifle out of the back of a magazine? More important, how is it that the Swiss REQUIRE that every man of age keep a fully-automatic weapon and a store of ammunition in the home, and they don't have public murders left and right? May be - just may be - their culture doesn't permit the sort of shit we do here. They actually rear their children into adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

Clearly you've never felt the terror of being in a locked down school while one of your peers prowled the hallways with a handgun and the bullet in his chamber could have your name on it. It's the most sobering experience you can ever have and will make a reformer out of anyone.

 

There will always be nut-jobs, mentally unstable children and psychopaths. People for whom no amount of good parenting will ever fix. There will also be normal children who have horrendous parents that absolutely fail at being responsible and no manner of counseling will completely eliminate the potential for a crazy getting the urge to take someones life

 

The difference between them being able to act on their urges to kill and not is whether or not they have access to a gun.

 

It's simple math, if you take guns out of the equation then you remove one potential avenue through which they can end someones life.

 

 

I understand your passion. Answer me this, though: Where do you see the logical end of the approach that you're advocating? Substitute the word "guns" for any other means by which harm can come to someone - and let me know where/how you see the progression ending.

 

I honestly do understand the intent and desired outcome of the path you propose, and completely agree with those. The world isn't a sterile, safe place - and while we should always strive to make it better, I think we've got a better chance at doing that if we focus more on making our kids smarter, instead of trying to child-proof the world.

 

 

A former coworker told me a story about his wife who worked at a juvenile prison, apparently one of the little darlings conned the staff into thinking he was reformed and they put him to work in the kitchen, in an unsupervised moment, he filled a mop bucket with chlorox and dumped a couple of cans of Ajax in it, then parked it near an air inlet for the AC system...no one died, but people were suffering the effects years later, you don't need a gun...