medler
I love guns
Not being a azz. But to clarify. A assault rifle is prohibited in Canada. Assault rifle is selectable fire..
The start of a 4 year disarmament in US
- Thread starter byronkentgraham
- Start date
Not being a azz. But to clarify. A assault rifle is prohibited in Canada. Assault rifle is selectable fire..
Wilk INStheWEST
Active VIP Member
Wish I didn't have to get up for work so early, I would have stayed up and debated this all night. Why is banning an automatic rifle ridiculous? Why do you need one? You need more than 4 guns in your house to protect it? What are you protecting yourself from? Ze Germans? Not sure what you think is rushing through that front door that you would need more than a 12 guage pump action.
I'm not a media sheep. I don't watch the news. I will inevitably see headlines on the media, which is how I learned about Sandy Hooke and Aurora, but I don't follow beyond the key stats. I see that 12 people were killed and 70 injured in a movie theatre due to a shooting, by someone with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine (and a pump action 12 gauge and handgun)! Ya, none of the weapons used were automatic, but if that gun didn't jam after 30 rounds, how many more would have been injured? How broken do you think our system is that the government is going to start loading trouble makers into boxcars? I don't see any extremist movements starting up in the Canada or US government that would lead to that, the system just wouldn't allow it. The military and law enforcement personnel wouldn't stand for it, and they are the ones with the guns. People have morals, some don't, and the military just won't start loading people into boxcars because their COs told them they were trouble makers. Even if 50% of the military blindly followed those type of orders they would still have a hard time doing that.
We aren't talking about the complete disarmament of the US population, but the removal of weapons that have the ability to do mass harm to the public. Assault rifles, automatic and even semi-auto with large capacity clips, and hand guns. Now handguns are generally semi auto, and don't have a large capacity, but their concealment is the issue. It's easy to hide them, and then unload their clip on a crowd without anyone knowing until the first shot is fired. The US will never disarm it's population, but control of what is available is needed. The 2nd amendment is there for the right for people to protect themselves, and they still can with bolt action rifles and even-double barrel shotguns.
Now, I have friends in the states, that live in Nevada, that have very impressive gun collections. Among that collection are AR15 and Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. These guys just fire them off at gun ranges or out in the desert at old microwaves, but I still question why they need them. They just say cause they are fun to fire. Note that, they didn't say for protection. I agree with them, that firing off a weapon is fun, it is a release but perhaps it should be limited to a controlled environment. Let gun ranges have these weapons and people can go pay to fire them (probably for a lot cheaper than buying them). In Canada, I have a friend with a gun vault in his garage. In that vault is over 20 shotguns, majority of which are double barrelled, with a couple pump action and a few bolt action hunting rifles. These are all used for hunting, that is it. The shotguns are used for shooting skeet, and bird hunting. Why does anyone in a developed country, such as Canada or the US need anything more than that? I'm not talking the number of guns, but the type. I don't think anyone on here is arguing with you that guns should be banned completely, but the type of guns available should be.
JaySimon
Active VIP Member
Well that escalated quickly, shoulda jumped on after I got home from work.
I love the argument that if everyone was carrying things would go smoother. I have to disagree, in most instances, if you are not a combat vet, you are going to do what everyone else does if rounds start flying by you. That would be, shiat your pants. You aren't going to be mr hero as people think, at least not likely.
So now you've got a dude who has already shait his pants, who has unholstered his side-arm He gets up from behind the desk full of adrenaline and starts looking for the shooter. He sees muzzle flash and fires at it. He might have just well shot another hero rather than the initial shooter. It's not like these dudes wear uniforms that let everyone know. They're in civilian clothes. And that is given he actually hits his target. I suspect that even most police would not have the training to deal with this situation. If anything, I see our hero, blasting away wildly, tunnel vision from adrenaline, and hitting innocents. The only people who would really know what to do in this situation would be combat veterans, hell, how many cops in Canada have actually had a round fired at them?
Americans are paranoid, I was talking to a couple from georgia this past spring and the man mentioned he ALWAYS carried his handgun under his seat. I asked why, he told me, "Well, I drive a lot of backroads, and you never know who you will see out there". Well sir, I also drive a lot of backroads, but have never felt the need to be carrying a weapon. It just seems like they're all afraid of each other. I guess you'll get that when you spend the last century being an azzhole to the world, gotta look over your shoulder I suppose.
I love the argument that if everyone was carrying things would go smoother. I have to disagree, in most instances, if you are not a combat vet, you are going to do what everyone else does if rounds start flying by you. That would be, shiat your pants. You aren't going to be mr hero as people think, at least not likely.
So now you've got a dude who has already shait his pants, who has unholstered his side-arm He gets up from behind the desk full of adrenaline and starts looking for the shooter. He sees muzzle flash and fires at it. He might have just well shot another hero rather than the initial shooter. It's not like these dudes wear uniforms that let everyone know. They're in civilian clothes. And that is given he actually hits his target. I suspect that even most police would not have the training to deal with this situation. If anything, I see our hero, blasting away wildly, tunnel vision from adrenaline, and hitting innocents. The only people who would really know what to do in this situation would be combat veterans, hell, how many cops in Canada have actually had a round fired at them?
Americans are paranoid, I was talking to a couple from georgia this past spring and the man mentioned he ALWAYS carried his handgun under his seat. I asked why, he told me, "Well, I drive a lot of backroads, and you never know who you will see out there". Well sir, I also drive a lot of backroads, but have never felt the need to be carrying a weapon. It just seems like they're all afraid of each other. I guess you'll get that when you spend the last century being an azzhole to the world, gotta look over your shoulder I suppose.
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
The system doesn't have to be broken for bad things to happen.... maybe it was intended that way..... Nazi germany, cambodia, bosnia, rawanda, somalia, russia in the 30's, nicaragua, argentina, afghanistan,.... the list goes on.... and as for police and military not following orders.... the gestapo and the SS in germany NEVER had to conscript.... there was always lots of volunteers ready to oppress and murder their fellow citizens..... also a fact, there were more frenchmen sent to the camps by french collaborators than by the nazis..... for most of the war only half of france was occupied by germany..... fellow frenchmen followed orders and oppressed their countryman.....the only thing that keeps governments and police on the right side of freedom is the fear that the populace will take away their power..... history has demonstrated this time and again.... don't believe me, do some research and see for yourself.....the brownshirts in germany in the 30's wouldn't have done what they did if they thought every jew had a gun...... everyone thinks the NRA are a bunch of whackos and ridicule them at every opportunity..... their argument that there is a slippery slope when gun control starts has merit based on history.....time and again....
Wilk INStheWEST
Active VIP Member
So, you think putting a gun in everyone's hands is the way to stop the government from becoming those countries of history? The Romans had a democratic system that worked, until they gave that power to one man and he didn't give it back. A one party system can do as it pleases, this is less likely to happen in a 2 or more party system like we have in North America.
- Thread starter
- #86
byronkentgraham
Active VIP Member
When the Nazis were VOTED in there was more than 1 party. Then they disarmed their people.
Wilk INStheWEST
Active VIP Member
Notice how I said "less likely" not "won't happen".
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all
conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms
have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
Adolph Hitler
Notice the words that Hitler uses are subject races and conqueror...
The Germans were also disarming their people prior to the Nazis being in power. The disarmament of the German people was required by the Treaty of Versailles, after WWI. In 1938, the Nazi party changed the gun laws, actually allowing the German "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." to obtain weapons. Hitler was restricting guns to the the Aryan race and restricting it from those he thought were inferior, not disarming the entire country.
hopper146
Active member
FBI stats...gun sales up...violent crimes down...read it...FBI Stats: Gun Sales Up, Violent Crime Down
Summiteer
Active VIP Member
The NRA is a Lobby group for the gun manufacturers. It has always been their mandate to put as many guns into the hands of as many people as possible regardless of the consequences. TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE MANUFACTURERS. If you want to indulge in the paranoia that they purvey, maybe it's time to move down to the States where you can "defend" yourself any way you want. Do guns make us safer? - CNN.com
Last edited:
snopro
Active VIP Member
Doo800ho
Active VIP Member
you know whats wrong with this quote......is that guns don't kill people.....people kill people. guns are just the tools....if someone wants kill someone they just will find another weapon. just about every one has the right to own a gun.
the punishment should fit the crime.......as they say an eye for an eye.
just my $ 0.02
whitegold
Active VIP Member
Your right.... but why should those "tools" be so accessible to everyone? I think if you are a responsible gun owner then having to licence your gun shouldn't be a problem. I think the gun laws will only help to prevent the nutty people that just grab what ever they can get their hands on and go on a shooting rampage and then shoot themselves in the end. The common criminal that plans to kill someone will definitely find a way to get their hands on a gun no matter what laws are.
My nephew has a hand gun. He goes to the shooting range and that's the only time he has it out of his case.
I am sure if he had to use it, there is an easy way to get it out of the case to defend himself at home.
Other than that, he will not open the case in sight of others.. etc. unless he is in closed quarters. He knows the responsibility and the consequences of abusing his privileges. Right now in the states, you can buy a gun from anyone.. without a paper chase.
Just think of it.. you go on Kijiji, someone has a gun. You call him up, meet him, give him cash, and walk away with the gun. The laws that the U.S. are trying to implement would make it so that if you want to sell or buy a gun, you would be responsible for that weapon, if it becomes a part of a crime scene.
Just think about it. If you had a gun that no one knew about, and sold it, to joe blow ... and say someone got murdered from it in a dark alley. How hard would it be to solve the crime?
Now think about this..... if that gun had been tagged to you, you would have to transfer that responsibility to another to cover your ass. The buyer would think twice about killing anyone in a dark alley. Awareness.
It all seems like it is a stupid formality, but in time the mentality will become the norm and the thought of having an easy way to attain a way to 'make things happen' is suddenly harder to do.
I am sure if he had to use it, there is an easy way to get it out of the case to defend himself at home.
Other than that, he will not open the case in sight of others.. etc. unless he is in closed quarters. He knows the responsibility and the consequences of abusing his privileges. Right now in the states, you can buy a gun from anyone.. without a paper chase.
Just think of it.. you go on Kijiji, someone has a gun. You call him up, meet him, give him cash, and walk away with the gun. The laws that the U.S. are trying to implement would make it so that if you want to sell or buy a gun, you would be responsible for that weapon, if it becomes a part of a crime scene.
Just think about it. If you had a gun that no one knew about, and sold it, to joe blow ... and say someone got murdered from it in a dark alley. How hard would it be to solve the crime?
Now think about this..... if that gun had been tagged to you, you would have to transfer that responsibility to another to cover your ass. The buyer would think twice about killing anyone in a dark alley. Awareness.
It all seems like it is a stupid formality, but in time the mentality will become the norm and the thought of having an easy way to attain a way to 'make things happen' is suddenly harder to do.
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
Sumiteer:
Do you have any proof to back this up, or is it just your opinion?.im thinking its your opinion. History time and again has proven my point. But you call it paranoia, and tell me to move. Are you this narrow minded in all aspects? Someone has a different opinion than you and your solution is for that person to disappear. I don't agree with you, so I have to leave.
You have a picture of a sled in your avatar. Suppose someone doesn't like snowmobiles and says that you pollute the back country and cause avalanches that kill people. They say that you don't NEED a sled to enjoy winter. Therefore they want to ban snowmobiles because they injure and kill people, cost the health care system too much when someone crashes or hits a fence etc. why do you NEED a sled instead of skis? And they portray you as an ignorant redneck because you like to sled. If you want to sled then get out of my country and move to Alaska where you can pollute and make noise and ruin the back country and ruin our health care system because I don't agree with your choice of hobbies. I don't like it, therefore YOU can't do it because I say so.
Before you say that there's a huge difference between a sled and a gun separate the inanimate from the argument. Neither object by itself is dangerous. Add the human and the trouble starts. Motorcycles,back yard pools, pleasure boats kill more people every year than the " assault rifles" everyone is wetting their pants over. It's a fact. Look it up.
It may make you feel good to be smug and holier than thou and think that we are better than the Americans because they are all paranoid or stupid or whatever. In your little world everything is fine therefore everyone else must be fine too. And if they're not, then they can leave because your way is the only way.
Do you have any proof to back this up, or is it just your opinion?.im thinking its your opinion. History time and again has proven my point. But you call it paranoia, and tell me to move. Are you this narrow minded in all aspects? Someone has a different opinion than you and your solution is for that person to disappear. I don't agree with you, so I have to leave.
You have a picture of a sled in your avatar. Suppose someone doesn't like snowmobiles and says that you pollute the back country and cause avalanches that kill people. They say that you don't NEED a sled to enjoy winter. Therefore they want to ban snowmobiles because they injure and kill people, cost the health care system too much when someone crashes or hits a fence etc. why do you NEED a sled instead of skis? And they portray you as an ignorant redneck because you like to sled. If you want to sled then get out of my country and move to Alaska where you can pollute and make noise and ruin the back country and ruin our health care system because I don't agree with your choice of hobbies. I don't like it, therefore YOU can't do it because I say so.
Before you say that there's a huge difference between a sled and a gun separate the inanimate from the argument. Neither object by itself is dangerous. Add the human and the trouble starts. Motorcycles,back yard pools, pleasure boats kill more people every year than the " assault rifles" everyone is wetting their pants over. It's a fact. Look it up.
It may make you feel good to be smug and holier than thou and think that we are better than the Americans because they are all paranoid or stupid or whatever. In your little world everything is fine therefore everyone else must be fine too. And if they're not, then they can leave because your way is the only way.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #97
byronkentgraham
Active VIP Member
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
Which one? Your concealed handgun, or your semi-auto assault rifle with a 20 bullet clip?
I have a feeling that you think you are an American. Is Rainier Alberta a town in the United States?
I have a feeling that you think you are an American. Is Rainier Alberta a town in the United States?
Wilk INStheWEST
Active VIP Member
Your argument about sleds killing people in comparison to weapons is completely off base. There is a MASSIVE difference between people knowingly engaging in dangerous activities, where they are putting themselves in harm's way, and people using weapons to kill OTHER people. When I go out sledding, or even skiing for that matter, I KNOW that it is dangerous and that there is a risk of me injuring or killing myself. This is an acceptable risk to me, and I know what to do to minimize these risks for myself and others.
There is no way for me to prevent somebody with guns from coming into a movie theater and opening fire on myself and 200 other people that are innocently sitting there. There is no way to stop this from happening at schools, or malls. Should we all have to go through Airport security to walk into any crowded public place because Joe Blowyourheadoff could walk into any gun store and pick up a semi-automatic, large capacity mag, gun with minimal effort. I'm not sure what you are reading here, but the majority of us are fine with people owning reasonable guns. Something that can be used to protect your home, or hunt with. Something like a double-barrel shotgun, even a pump action, or a hunting rifle. But there is no reason at all for anyone to own semi-auto rifles or handguns. They are too easy to massive damage with to other innocent people. Putting a handgun in everyone's hand is not answer. The average person does not have the training to deal with these high stress situations involving weapons, and will likely end up over-reacting and shooting someone who may just be reaching into their pocket for a pack of gum, if they ever feel threatened.
Similar threads
