To all the people who want to ban guns.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Honor93

 

Did you ever see a cart pull a horse?
Get real for crissakes. Children and Cops matter to me more than your right to protect yourself against things that go bump in the night. And btw (statistically) chances are you will only kill your dog or blow your own wife's head off in the dark.

what does carts being pulled by horses have to do with guns?
Ok, get real about what? my experience or yours?

Training! Hadn't thought of that - your great idea - I agree with that too.

I said this which you disagreed with...

No guns for people with a mental illness
No guns for people without a background check
No guns without a cool down period
No guns if you fail a drug test

Is this unreasonable?

YOU SAID:
"Yes because most of the criminals who already have guns don't fit your criteria."

This is putting a cart before a horse.

You are trying to say #1 the above is unreasonable.
It isn't. We can even go further and add the TRAINING you suggested so wisely in your reply above.

You are also trying to suggest #2 because CRIMINALS already fail every criteria required above this is no reason to initiate these steps that would begin to tip the scales in favor of those responsible gun owners who are not criminals and who pass every test.

What the heck sort ofconvoluted upside down logic is that?

They are reasonable requests and if they were put in place we would eliminate much of the problem...
You say no. I say let us try it first (with the horse pulling the cart) and see.

I think a few of these guys are just plain and simply CLUCKING CHICKENS without a friggin arsenal.

Sadly to me... You and Mikey the shill (his word not mine) are NOT protecting Constitutional rights.
You ARE making sure criminals have a never ending supply of high veloocity weaponry.

Good job fellas. I feel safer already.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
I said this which you disagreed with...
No guns for people with a mental illness
No guns for people without a background check
No guns without a cool down period
No guns if you fail a drug test

Is this unreasonable?

YOU SAID:
"Yes because most of the criminals who already have guns don't fit your criteria."

This is putting a cart before a horse.

You are trying to say #1 the above is unreasonable.
It isn't. We can even go further and add the TRAINING you suggested so wisely in your reply above.

You are also trying to suggest #2 because CRIMINALS already fail every criteria required above this is no reason to initiate these steps that would begin to tip the scales in favor of those responsible gun owners who are not criminals and who pass every test.

What the heck sort ofconvoluted upside down logic is that?

They are reasonable requests and if they were put in place we would eliminate much of the problem...
You say no. I say let us try it first (with the horse pulling the cart) and see.

I think a few of these guys are just plain and simply CLUCKING CHICKENS without a friggin arsenal.

Sadly to me... You and Mikey the shill (his word not mine) are NOT protecting Constitutional rights.
You ARE making sure criminals have a never ending supply of high veloocity weaponry.

Good job fellas. I feel safer already.

first, i'm glad you agree training should be mandatory but that is where i draw the line.

second, i answered your question ~ "Is this unreasonable?" ~ and gave a reason ... i did not disagree with anything --> but i'm about to.

i still fail to see how 'defense' is putting the cart Before the horse. They (criminals) have 'em, why restrict me?
Yes, i stated the 'above' (your suggestions) were unreasonable, you disagree, why?

yes, i am copacetic with the current 'laws' requiring owning one (of my State) but that's because today, i'm 'qualified'. Tomorrow, through no direct fault of my own, that could change. However, my right to legally possess one, shouldn't.
The Constitution guarantees my use of equal force. In other words, i cannot be forced to participate in a gun battle with nothing more than swords or sticks and stones.

drug testing is inconclusive and irrelevant
*** alcohol is a drug ... and just how do we manage that one? (it is illegal to possess while consuming)
btw, how's the alcohol-related death count working out for you or your family? i've lost a few.

what about all the ppl on 'prescription narcotics' ?? Are we to suddenly presume known side-effects no longer exist or apply? ie: depression, suicidal thoughts, mania ... blah, blah, blah
what about ppl who use prescription narcs for recreation but pass the 'drug test'?

You are also trying to suggest #2 because CRIMINALS already fail every criteria required above this is no reason to initiate these steps that would begin to tip the scales in favor of those responsible gun owners who are not criminals and who pass every test.

this already occurs with the current laws in most states. as more ppl who are 'qualified' actually possess, crime rates in indicated areas have fallen. In some areas, sharply and rapidly.

Upside down logic? -- i don't follow that thought.
Why would we 'try' what most states already do? i passed, could you?
Not sure how you figure I ensure criminals have anything, even access ... where do you get such an idea?
Unless you've been a victim, you have no clue.

so should there be more farming implement bans and backround checks? what about german shepard and deadly canine bcakround checks? does somebody have to take martial arts or boxing to get their hands registered as deadly weapons? hmmm... firearms are ONE i repeat ONE say again ONE class of weapons to argue about. how many people are beaten to death annually or killed by dogs? what about chainsaws? let's ban and control them too. there are quieter and equally deadly weapons such as compound bows, crossbows, darts, (lawn darts anyone?) meathooks machetes etc. that when used effectively, can either maim, or kill in any given time frame. the actual reason behind gun control by my guess would be manufacturing costs. there are weapons of mass destruction that require no ammunition and are less humane than punching a hole in something and putting a toe tag on it. it is difficult to dismember with a gun, when extracting information out of someone the military can elaborate on firearm usage, vs. a razorblade. so besides targeting a major industry in which many countries thrive on, please compare guns to the vast array of physical weapons that exist today and also psychic weapons as well. if there is a day where nobody needs weapons that day may be when the dust from my bones is gone. until then i'm gonna keep my eyes on the target and my powder dry

In Greater London there were 125 murders in 2010, and 532 murders in New York City during the same period. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the gun crime figures.

Originally posted by FreeQuebec86

And in Canada, people can have gun after a mental check and they need a permit. But all automatic gun are banned in Quebec after our mass shouting ( we learned at least... )

Marc Lapin used a Ruger mini-14 which was a semi auto rifle, semi auto guns are still allowed in Canada, the Jean Cretian government said they banned it but all they did after the mass shooting was go through a book and try and ban the scary and military looking arms or anything from an Arnold movie. When that failed they banned "assault weapons" (aka full auto weapons which already where banned) anything with a magazine over 5 rounds or things with a calibre above 50... which technically makes slug armed 12 gauge shotguns illegal, except shot guns are exempt from the calibre limit.

You can buy a Ruger Mini-14 from Cabelas (and they ship to Quebec) with a non-restricted Possession and aquisition license. To get the non-restricted license you need to write an exam (multiple choice), take a 8 hour course on gun safety. Then you submit your money along with a form signed by your spouse saying they know you want a gun and are not afraid of you having one then two friends sign forms saying that your not crazy. Lastly teh RCMP check to make sure you don't have a reord of violent crimes, or mental related crimes. It doesn't stop the crazy from getting guns it just makes people feel good.

Originally posted by Halfwayline
In Greater London there were 125 murders in 2010, and 532 murders in New York City during the same period. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the gun crime figures.

Umm I'd be carefull about those statistics. First 2010 was the lowest burder rate since 1978 for London and the third lowest since the 60's in New York (2009 was the lowest).

Different countries report crime statistics differently. In New York Murder (of all three types) are part of the 532 number. Then there is the fact the English police regularily classify crimes as a lesser offense to keep crime statistic down so that it looks good for the public and they get there bonuses.
news.bbc.co.uk...
edinburghnews.scotsman.com...

Article on a 2008 investigation that showed 22% of violent crimes (murder included) where put in a lesser category to make the figures look better.

Also in most of north america a crime is categorized when the police start the investigation, under the EU crime statistic rules it's not categorized till a prosecution is successful.
Also gun crimes are being labelled as a seperate category (as are knife crimes) www.truepatriot.com...
So in England you could be murdered and you could be classified as "suspicious activity", "knife crime", "gun crime", "murder" or not at all till they solve it if they do.


This is the EU crime statistic report page (in english) english.wodc.nl.... It says that murder is only murder if it's intentional and planned. So crimes of passion or anger are not murder in the EU but are in NA.

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
until then i'm gonna keep my eyes on the target and my powder dry

...and find my CAP key.

I agree 100%!!!!! The libs want to control as much as they can and taking away gun laws in one way of many.

reply to post by exile1981


Good point actually. I am pretty sure all police forces "fudge the numbers" like that to try and justify their own existence, and try to convince us they are doing a good job.

There is no reason what so ever to have guns. It is only irrational people that need them.

I can understand if you want to hunt (food) but most society just goes to the market.

Most modern countries are socialist in nature and because of that we are all pretty safe.

Don't give me that its American nonsense.

reply to post by Honor93


Unfortunately with the human race that will never happen, no matter how many laws are drafted and written. There will always be people with the intent of harm to fellow human beings. That is why I have the natural right to carry a weapon to defend myself from those people.

I don't need a weapon to defend myself.. however those criminals will have a weapon... and it's wise to have a level playing field.

reply to post by atomicn


From Marko Kloos (Read the whole essay here.)

There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being. They don’t want to be respected by you. They don’t care about you–they’re not even really aware of you. They only care about the food you represent, the money that’s in your pocket. You’re not a person to them, but an obstacle. You’re just in the way of the reward, like a wrapper around a candy bar, and these people are willing to discard you just like that wrapper in order to get what they want.

If you don’t believe that, if you are one of the people who think that “everyone wants to be valued and respected”, you are deluding yourself, to put it mildly. There are literally hundreds of surveillance camera videos out on the Internet that show criminals injuring or killing people for the transgression of not handing over the money or opening the safe fast enough. For those of you who think that “if you give them what they want, they’ll go away”, there are almost as many videos out there of people getting hurt or killed after handing over the goods, simply because they’re now witnesses to a crime that allows for a lengthy jail term...

...I feel anger at the thought of these low-lifes, people who have never known another way of making a living than to take what they want from others by force. I feel anger at the sight of someone casually taking another’s life over a few hundred bucks–taking a husband from his wife, a son from his parents, or a father from his children, just because they’re in the way. Can you imagine your life ending tonight, with you taking your last breaths on the dingy linoleum floor of some convenience store, just because you had the bad luck of drawing third shift? Can you imagine what it would be like to have everything taken from you in a few moments–your history, your knowledge, your hopes, your dreams, your consciousness–all over a few pieces of paper? If you can, don’t you, too, feel white hot anger when you think of the person who would do such a thing to you without a second thought just so they can get a fix, pay the rent, and get a new game for the Playstation?

It’s mind-boggling to me that there are people who perpetuate the dangerous myth that you can rely on the humanity and reason of a person who is already threatening to kill you over the contents of your wallet, an entirely inhumane and unreasonable act in itself....

Think about it for a second, and pretend you’re someone who makes a living by sticking guns in people’s faces. Which kind of society would encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing–one where you know people are being told to “give them what they want and don’t resist”, or one where people refuse to go quietly into that good night, and where they will fight back with anything that comes to hand?

I can tell you which society deters the criminal. The society that offers their citizens the greatest ability to fight back. For two decades the violent crime rate has dropped in America. So has the murder rate. For the last twehty three years we have been steadily loosening the gun laws. The only parts of the country that haven't enjoyed a dropping crime rate are the ones hanging on to strict and ridiculous gun laws.

Even England has seen a 300% increase in the number of "violence against the person" crimes reported since they banned hand guns. In 2005 you were more than 250% more likely to get violently assaulted in Scotland than America. Simply put, the more people we arm the less criminals try to press their luck against innocent people. When Scotland and England ban and restrict the weapons more severely the criminals get more brazen.

Why is it that sexual assault and domestic abuse against women is on the rise in England? Could it have anything to do with the fact that women are less able to protect against agressive males? I would say that is the case. Looking through statistics in America it was found that 3% of sexual assaults against women were completed when a gun was used to resist. It was also found that 32% of sexual assaults were completed when a woman only used her hands and feet to resist. Basically, when a 120 pound woman can level the field against a 200 pound predator, the predator is nearly eleven times less likely to continue his behavior.

I would hate to see America reverse a falling violent crime rate and murder rate because of the delusions of a few.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Honor93
For all my Canadian friends who appear to be sadly mistaken ...
well, you keep believin' you are somehow 'separate' from the US ... one day, you'll awaken to realize Niagara is the sole remnant of a border that used to be.

A) As much as it and our current government may wish it to be, Alberta does not define Canada.
B) As I keep saying...look at our murder stats per capita. We ARE indeed different.
C) If you can even suggest otherwise, then you'd better cross that border for a visit some time. We'll leave a light on and a cold one in the fridge.

edit on 16-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)

JohnnyC...

A)Don't be alarmed, but Alberta is very much in "tune" with the rest of Canada in terms of gun control...FreeAlberta is not the best source for unbiased Albertan views...and neither are the posters that source it.

Most Albertan's are 100% behind the current gun LAWS. What some Albertan's disagree with are the REGISTRATION components. I, as an Albertan, clearly see the difference. I am sure you do as well. Honor93...I'm not so sure about.

B)100% agreement on the stats...the WORST Canadian cities would be somewhere in the top 10 safest if they were in the US...different people, different culture.

C) I don't think I even need to touch this.

From an Albertan to all the Canadians: Although we share many ideals with our cousins to the south, we will never become more Amercanized than Canadianized....we love it here too much.

reply to post by MikeNice81

There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being....

This describes not just the low end thieves but the really dangerous crooks, the bankers and global elite. Of course they want everyone of us disarmed. The French Revolution may not be taught in public schools but it is taught in the schools that the elite sent their children to.

Who the heck do you think owns the mass media that is shoving the get rid of guns agenda down our throats? J.P Morgan, the banking family!

JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

reply to post by Rocky Black


Great Post S&F! I think people don't realize that if you want a gun whether it illegal or not there are those who will get one no matter what. So take away guns, they'll still be there, people can make fire arms themselves.

Think about it, if everyone in the store is armed, it would be a death sentence for a robber to pull out his gun and demand cash. You'll think twice about shooting when everyone else has a gun as well.

reply to post by Rocky Black


Well said, my friend! It's about time people step up and fight off the disinformation campaign of the leftists!

Originally posted by mileslong54

Think about it, if everyone in the store is armed, it would be a death sentence for a robber to pull out his gun and demand cash. You'll think twice about shooting when everyone else has a gun as well.

Reminds me of the Darwin Award winner a couple years back. Idiot went into a gun store, that also had a cop car parked outside, to rob it!! He was able to pop off one round before getting ventilated by the armed store staff and policeman, he was dead before he hit the floor.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...and find my CAP key.

i found it and meant it

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
I don't like the idea of having an armed society. I've grown up in a place where you can't own a gun.

According to this report you are likelier to be killed if you are armed.

www.newscientist.com...

look at al lthose stars... you people literally make me vomit :barf : ... I actually read your reference (link )

I stay out of statistical arguments because statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say.
I.E. it is also more likely that I will be killed by slipping in the shower if I shower; than if I don't go near indoor plumbing.
If these people did not have their guns but were in the same situation can you say the results would have been different?, No you cannot. Even if you take a sample of people the same gender and age,because all things being the same: all things simply Are Not the same.

How many of these "gun on gun" statistics were gang related? How many were military trained? How many shots were fired? did an inferior weapon jam or misfire? ? at what range?were police involved?

I'm glad you feel safe in your gun free area. As a trained and qualified; retired master sergeant :I neither seek your guidance nor protection from my own choices.

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
I don't like the idea of having an armed society. I've grown up in a place where you can't own a gun.

According to this report you are likelier to be killed if you are armed.

www.newscientist.com...

look at al lthose stars... you people literally make me vomit :barf : ...

Funny...if there's one phrase that I have learned defines a certain type of individual, it is 'you people', followed closely by 'troublemaker'.

What would induce one to barf, here? Someone who prefers his unarmed society and those who agree with him? Those who write scientific papers trying to account for an inordinate number of Americans killing each other with guns? How about those who read them?

By all means, keep your guns. But if one wishes a commitment to personal firearms to be respected, then one must also respect the right of others to offer an opposing opinion. This site is about discourse, right?

And it's not like JonoEnglish was talking about gun nuts or Freud or anything...he was pointing to an academic study conducted in America by Americans.

But...hey...if that is barf-rendering...go nuts. That, too, is your right.