♦ nivek ♦ Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Amanda: Canada's Gun Laws for Americans Rules, regs and recent stats on reports. One can and many do own arms in Canada, enjoy many things not importable into uS due to the many politically based bans. Canada is NOT an unarmed society by any means. kL >edit: Criminal misuse of firearms has been a dropping number uS-wide for past few years. Death by *misfortune* and *accident* at all time low, applauded and due in most part by Training and Education. Events of mass shooting are an aberation here in this Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Anyway, how do we keep people that are mentally disturbed from getting a gun? For that matter, how do we stop mentally disturbed people from obtaining jerry cans of petrol and styrofoam and a little liquid soap and thus making napalm? Complete side bar... you can replace the styrofoam with egg white. It's not quite as effective, but served well in northern Ireland in the 1970s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Amanda: Canada's Gun Laws for Americans Rules, regs and recent stats on reports. One can and many do own arms in Canada, enjoy many things not importable into uS due to the many politically based bans. Canada is NOT an unarmed society by any means. kL >edit: Criminal misuse of firearms has been a dropping number uS-wide for past few years. Death by *misfortune* and *accident* at all time low, applauded and due in most part by Training and Education. Events of mass shooting are an aberation here in this Country. Nivek, never to discount one single life, it seems the gun issue is way out of proportion. Cars kill far more people, yet we're not wanting to get rid of them. It is important to maintain our right to bear arms, as it contributes to the balance of power, and keeps officials honest. Last time I participated on your thread like this, I got a gun from my mother, now maybe I'll finally take lessons. Further, early detection of the mentally ill, and befriending those that are struggling with mental issues, recognizing they have been/are often victims themselves, and providing them more resources may reduce that issue significantly. As for testosterone and "alpha male/female" issues, maybe all of us should be educated about it and those that score high in those areas need to be aware of handling it more responsibly. I can see where those who do score high, would benefit us all if channeled correctly. Further, if more responsible people were to get guns, that are more comfortable with having them... I wouldn't need one. Just a side note, hope it's on topic here, but why doesn't incarceration include significant mental health rehabilitation? It just seems law enforcement wants to secure their jobs. It's just not done in Florida, and the system will tell you, it is not their job to rehabilitate. Sure we can't cure them all YET, but I think we could reasonably reduce that 80% recidivism figure. They probably don't get help because they can't vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What is it with this equation of cars to guns? What is the primary function of a car? What is the primary function of a gun? This is why I say a lot of the reasoning is religious in tenor, since it is just plain bad staticistics... A carving knife can be used to kill, but its better suited to cutting cooked meat than raw... The primary design for a commando knife is combat... and I'd not care to try and use one as my beef cutter in ordinary. Why do people compare something that can be improvised as a weapon (and very seldom used as one) compared to something that is designed as a weapon, and the only improvised use I can come up with is as a high-tech, very expensive, club. It's a weak argument for anyone with more than a single figure IQ or less than a religious veneration for the second amendment. As to keeps officials 'honest'... have you LOOKED at the bunch of crooks you elect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gramps, If I can dig it out of the archives, I'll try to post George Carlin's skit on politicians. They are "us", come out of the same pool of people that make up "we". What I dislike the most is that in uS Congress has been allowed to become the fix-all, be-all, everything comes from Here delivery system of goodies and toys. "Having a Constitutional Government sure beats the hell out of what we have now", co-opted from Patty Neil, uS author and fellow radical. Firearms and care of the mentally ill wouldn't be an issue, or set of issues having to be worked on at the Federal level if the People had retained reins on the Federalist State. I realize some problems are large enough that the only obvious way to pay for them is dipping into the taxpayers pockets, but the KONgress has done so for everything imaginable, and in the most irresponsible manners. There in the uS now nothing left in the Treasury but IOU notes saying "Oh sorry we threw a war, and anything else has to wait for funding.." Lots of notes. Firearms and the media, along with the rare mass murder, love triangle killings, etc. provide grist for the "If it bleeds it leads" brand of journalism, keeping folks alarmed and in states of panic. Seems the folks who practice and want the ability to live self directed and determined are becoming less and less in obvious numbers daily. Shame to see the Republic die like this. kL >edit: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE Used their Policy Bot to find some decent recources, feel free to follow work/home safe information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Out of curiosity, didnt the UK and Ireland have stringent anti-gun laws on the books when all that fighting with the IRA was going on? Did it stop the IRA and Ulsters? Did it stop the bombs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 No, but they were dealing with Libya on one side and American organised crime on the other, locally produced bestiality porn funding stuff, as well as misplaced 'charity' from large conurbations like Boston and New York... They operated on an international terrorist level (I am informed they converted a load of opium resin back to arms for decommissioning, but that is NOT verified information) Chances are a lot of their good stuff is now shooting up US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan... The stuff they had was fully automatic and up to anti-tank weapons. Unlike most terror organisations they had a weather eye on public opinions, so, despite some SAMs and SSMs they didn't use them much (cash was more use) BTW, since when does Gun = Bomb? I could get a gun but it would involve mixing with people I really wouldn't want to know my face, whereas a bomb... A visit to B&Q, a garden centre and a large Tesco (cash only) and I'd be pipe bomb central... The IRA and UDA were using C5 and butterfly mines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gramps, If I can dig it out of the archives, I'll try to post George Carlin's skit on politicians. They are "us", come out of the same pool of people that make up "we". What I dislike the most is that in uS Congress has been allowed to become the fix-all, be-all, everything comes from Here delivery system of goodies and toys. "Having a Constitutional Government sure beats the hell out of what we have now", co-opted from Patty Neil, uS author and fellow radical. Firearms and care of the mentally ill wouldn't be an issue, or set of issues having to be worked on at the Federal level if the People had retained reins on the Federalist State. I realize some problems are large enough that the only obvious way to pay for them is dipping into the taxpayers pockets, but the KONgress has done so for everything imaginable, and in the most irresponsible manners. There in the uS now nothing left in the Treasury but IOU notes saying "Oh sorry we threw a war, and anything else has to wait for funding.." Lots of notes. Firearms and the media, along with the rare mass murder, love triangle killings, etc. provide grist for the "If it bleeds it leads" brand of journalism, keeping folks alarmed and in states of panic. Seems the folks who practice and want the ability to live self directed and determined are becoming less and less in obvious numbers daily. Shame to see the Republic die like this. kL >edit: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE Used their Policy Bot to find some decent recources, feel free to follow work/home safe information At the risk of sounding a conspiracy nut I'd suggest that Skull and bones-ers bear as much resemblance to 'ordinary Americans' as I do. But I'd agree, if the American Government embraced the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as much as the general populace did, then the country wouldn't be the bankrupt hell-hole it seems to be heading for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 and can anyone tell me how Cars=guns? 5 gallon bucket = gun? Bomb=gun? all the things that people make equivalence pro-gun stance... unless you're mining you don't need explosives 5 gallon bucket is usually involved in accidental death rather than an improvised weapon of choice. Cars similar. Guns have pretty well a single function. To move a soft metal projectile at high speed at a target, in such away as, if it's breathing and you hit it, it stops breathing, lies down and never gets up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gun does not equal bomb. But the things used to make them are often not outlawed....and often not even regulated. A bomb can be just as, if not more deadly than a gun, and your chances of getting killed by either are infintesimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gun does not equal bomb. But the things used to make them are often not outlawed....and often not even regulated. A bomb can be just as, if not more deadly than a gun, and your chances of getting killed by either are infintesimal. You made the equivalence with the IRA... not me... I was there when I read it and you were there when you typed it... "Out of curiosity, didnt the UK and Ireland have stringent anti-gun laws on the books when all that fighting with the IRA was going on? Did it stop the IRA and Ulsters? Did it stop the bombs?" So, care to elaborate? Also, it's hard to enforce control when you have a country with a contiguous land border who tacitly support the terrorists... Eire was pretty complicit in the Provos armament... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 My question was quite simply, if they had gun laws, they seemed to have proved near useless. Those that are lawbreakers dont give a shit about some peice of paper law. It's hard to enforce control of ANYTHING that people want. Just look at the drug trade, exotic animal trade, and probably a host of other things. I suspect some around here want some utopian society where no one ever gets hurt, no one does anything harmful, no one is exposed to the slightest risky thing for fear of a 1 in a 100,000 chance or worse chance of harm.....and would be willing to trade away every right, every passion, every bad habit to get this stupid utopian society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gun lovers out there I have a question for you all, this is not sarcism but can be if taken that way. Going off what Gramps said what is the primary use of a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 My question was quite simply, if they had gun laws, they seemed to have proved near useless. Those that are lawbreakers dont give a shit about some peice of paper law. It's hard to enforce control of ANYTHING that people want. Just look at the drug trade, exotic animal trade, and probably a host of other things. I suspect some around here want some utopian society where no one ever gets hurt, no one does anything harmful, no one is exposed to the slightest risky thing for fear of a 1 in a 100,000 chance or worse chance of harm.....and would be willing to trade away every right, every passion, every bad habit to get this stupid utopian society. It depends which police force turns a blind eye (NYPD, Boston PD being two prima facie examples of US police forces complicit with the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s, Eireann in the case of ), then you also have Governments quite happy to supply terrorists; US, Libya, Syria, former Soviet Union... Effectively, when you have government involvement in terrorism, nothing much is going to stop the traffic. Quite how terrorism is normal crime doesn't compute... but then, I don't hear much sense out of you so that's to be expected... nothing much at all... But I'm accustomed to pig wind arguments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Gun lovers out there I have a question for you all, this is not sarcism but can be if taken that way. Going off what Gramps said what is the primary use of gun? don't hold yer breath, pal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 ... but then, I don't hear much sense out of you so that's to be expected... nothing much at all... But I'm accustomed to pig wind arguments... Grandpa Harley, is that really necessary? Do you resort to those tactics when you're floundering or something? Or is it just some primeval genetics lingering through evolution? IMO, that hurts your position in a debate. You can really be informative often times, even entertaining, but that stuff just seems to negates so much of what you're offering IMO. But hey... keep it up if you want... I need all the edges I can get around here. Further, Vixentrox makes great sense. FWIW, that poster has made remarks that have substantially changed the way I think... yielding some very positive benefits. Hang out here for awhile, before you make such rash decisions. Relax, no one wins or loses any money or anything like that... it's just a discussion my friend. Gun lovers out there I have a question for you all, this is not sarcism but can be if taken that way. Going off what Gramps said what is the primary use of a gun? Have you ever heard of protection of life and liberties? Example: Do you know what happens when there are hurricanes and floods? Did you see the rampant looting and breaking into houses with hurricane Katrina? I've seen floods from hurricanes here, where they send the national gaurds with rifles gaurding streets that are flooded and most people can't live there. I wonder why they send the gaurds with rifles to gaurd the street? Disasters happen when we least expect them, and sometimes people don't act so pretty. No, I don't like guns, much less love them. But as long as other people have them, the perpetrator can't be sure I don't have one too... and I like that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 If that were true, "terrorism" would have been dead long ago. You must have missed where I said: In fact you can site Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq as countries that have potentially beaten the US government, but look what happened to those countries. They were pretty much razed to the ground and gorillas were sent to fight from holes in the ground. I wouldn't call that winning one's freedom by any definition of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 People who are thinking with their guts and sentiment, not their brains, are skittish, dangerous, and dumb animals, and we both know it. It's called a 'mob' You just described American society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 My question was quite simply, if they had gun laws, they seemed to have proved near useless. Those that are lawbreakers dont give a shit about some peice of paper law. It's hard to enforce control of ANYTHING that people want. Just look at the drug trade, exotic animal trade, and probably a host of other things. I suspect some around here want some utopian society where no one ever gets hurt, no one does anything harmful, no one is exposed to the slightest risky thing for fear of a 1 in a 100,000 chance or worse chance of harm.....and would be willing to trade away every right, every passion, every bad habit to get this stupid utopian society. It depends which police force turns a blind eye (NYPD, Boston PD being two prima facie examples of US police forces complicit with the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s, Eireann in the case of ), then you also have Governments quite happy to supply terrorists; US, Libya, Syria, former Soviet Union... Effectively, when you have government involvement in terrorism, nothing much is going to stop the traffic. Quite how terrorism is normal crime doesn't compute... but then, I don't hear much sense out of you so that's to be expected... nothing much at all... But I'm accustomed to pig wind arguments... Frankly, Grandpa, I can't always make sense of you, either. In fact, you blew past me with that last post, or rant, or whatever it was. All I could really gather from it was that you are getting the idea that corruption is a universal trait(?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Have you ever heard of protection of life and liberties? Example: Do you know what happens when there are hurricanes and floods? Did you see the rampant looting and breaking into houses with hurricane Katrina? I've seen floods from hurricanes here, where they send the national gaurds with rifles gaurding streets that are flooded and most people can't live there. I wonder why they send the gaurds with rifles to gaurd the street? Disasters happen when we least expect them, and sometimes people don't act so pretty. No, I don't like guns, much less love them. But as long as other people have them, the perpetrator can't be sure I don't have one too... and I like that idea. Thank you Amanda but that still does not answer my question at all. I want to know what is the primary use of a gun? I don't want to know about these incidents, I have heard and seen it. By the way those people did own guns....but that is not the point I want to know from someone tell me what the primary use of a gun is suppose to be. The Disasters thing I admit is a good argument, but could those be legal guns.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Do you know what happens when there are hurricanes and floods? Did you see the rampant looting and breaking into houses with hurricane Katrina? Funny that, whenever there has been a natural disaster in Japan (and there are plenty) there is NEVER any of the looting, pillaging, and so forth that goes on in the U.S. I believe the same goes for Oz, but Oz has few if any natural disasters on the scale of those in the U.S. and Japan. Why is that? ........they send the national gaurds with rifles gaurding streets that are flooded and most people can't live there. I wonder why they send the gaurds with rifles to gaurd the street? And what are these guards going to do if they catch people pillaging anyhow, shoot them? What a sorry state the good ol' U.S. is in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Jun your avatar what does it mean? I know it is not the German swaztica, but I am curious to know the meaning of it in a different culture. Jun,Gramps,Devlin these users all from other countries that don't have the gun problem it seems like the US. Listen to all the stuff they are saying, I am starting to see irony in the whole US gun thing. Lets say the second ammedment was never adopted for a second and people could not use firearms. They are still accessible but the temptation to get the weapon of the black market would be less. Crime would indeed be less, I believe because one way or the other someone got the gun the right way and ends up in the wrong hands. It is more accessible to get a gun with gun laws it seems, Cho seemed to have no problem. But lets just say that guns were banned from the start...what do you think would happen? Crime would exist, killings would but people being gunned down at mall,school would be less because it is harder to obtain the guns. I am not saying this is the way to go but look at it all sides of the sprectrum, from other countries cultures, UK seems it is working from Devlin, Gramps perspective, I feel something is wrong with gun system in the US. But what do I know, I am just observing what I see around me and come to conclusions based on what has happend in my life as does everyone else. That is why I am not paranoid of the government, I think it is corrupted but I am not going to fear it for my life. Also remember the government placed the laws in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. However it also serves many times to act as a deterrent against lesser crimes than murder. That is why many police officers carry sidearms as a part of their uniform. If we look at an armed police officer such as those who patrol the streets and area where I live, we see that they carry a baton (nowadays a telescoping variety rather than the traditional nightstick); quite often they carry chemical incapacitants such as mace or capsicum spray, and a sidearm. They also quite often carry a heavy torch such as a MagLite. (Oh and by the way Grandpa, that MagLite also makes a very good high-tech club when not being used as a torch; that's another reason they carry it). They're also useful in yet another way, as certain motorists have found out the hard way when they gob off at an officer over a traffic stop. "But I don't have a defective headlight, Officer, and what's this about a broken windscreen?" A few casual swings of the MagLite and quite a bit of broken glass later the cop says, "Like I said, a defective headlight and a broken windscreen. I'd get 'em fixed if I were you." I do notice however that despite this potential for misuse, MagLites haven't been banished from Police service. Joseph Wambaugh put it quite well in one of his novels (and Wambaugh is no friend of the NRA I might add) when he had one of his LA police characters say, (from memory, it's a long time since I read the novel) "If some character attacks you with his fists, well, that's what your nightstick is for, if he comes at you with a knife, you draw your sidearm and make a canoe of the bastard then and there, and if he comes at you with a gun you at least have a chance". Now some might say that's a ruthless attitude and to be fair, it is. However one ought to contrast the results of that attitude to two 20th Century British cases. Browne and Kennedy and the Braybrook Street Massacre. Grandpa will know of these cases, but for American readers, they both involved the fatal shooting of police in the course of their duties. I would submit that British Police Forces have paid rather heavily over the years for their showcase "unarmed Police". However police, whether armed or not, can't be everywhere at once, nor are there enough of them. Not even Hitler or Stalin ever quite got to where they had a Gestapo agent or NKVD man in every household, although that certainly wasn't for want of trying. Yet when there is a regular armed police force in a country it quite often happens that the country's citizens find that they are not allowed to carry weapons and are thus defenceless absent the police. What has happened is that a class of people have been created that are allowed to defend themselves with arms, while the rest of the people are not. Simple as that. Casey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramen666 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. However it also serves many times to act as a deterrent against lesser crimes than murder. Thank you someone trufully gave me the answer.The primary use is for killing unlike the bucket,the car, the ladder, the water in a pool, the difference is that they primarily used to kill. I don't know what else for target practice, hunting, there is not much other use for owning a gun other than out to kill. When protecting yourself what are you primarily going to also try to do? I am just pointing out the irony in this, my argument from the start is just make stricter laws but that is a no no for the gun lovers out there because they will infringe upon their rights. I just want to make it harder for people to get weapons, that is what they are and not tools. I want to make it harder for someone to get the weapons, yes there will be crime but we can lessen the chances of the guns falling in the hands of the wrong people. That is what I want....that is my argument since the begining of the first thread. You people seem to care so much about safety of your familes well getting the guns out the bad guys hands is a start. I do not see how this is wrong at all to think that....i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Jun your avatar what does it mean? I know it is not the German swaztica, but I am curious to know the meaning of it in a different culture. Jun,Gramps,Devlin these users all from other countries that don't have the gun problem it seems like the US. Listen to all the stuff they are saying, I am starting to see irony in the whole US gun thing. Lets say the second ammedment was never adopted for a second and people could not use firearms. They are still accessible but the temptation to get the weapon of the black market would be less. Crime would indeed be less, I believe because one way or the other someone got the gun the right way and ends up in the wrong hands. It is more accessible to get a gun with gun laws it seems, Cho seemed to have no problem. But lets just say that guns were banned from the start...what do you think would happen? Crime would exist, killings would but people being gunned down at mall,school would be less because it is harder to obtain the guns. I am not saying this is the way to go but look at it all sides of the sprectrum, from other countries cultures, UK seems it is working from Devlin, Gramps perspective, I feel something is wrong with gun system in the US. But what do I know, I am just observing what I see around me and come to conclusions based on what has happend in my life as does everyone else. That is why I am not paranoid of the government, I think it is corrupted but I am not going to fear it for my life. Also remember the government placed the laws in the first place. My avatar is the manji (in Japanese) the symbol of Buddhism. See here for more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika But lets just say that guns were banned from the start...what do you think would happen? Crime would exist, killings would but people being gunned down at mall,school would be less because it is harder to obtain the guns. That's what has apparently happened in Oz and Japan (and the U.K?), less availability of guns = less crime committed with guns. But as we said in the thread related to this earlier - comparing different cultures with different ideologies and populations is not going to give us a truly accurate comparison. And by the way, I just want to clarify again that I am in no way either for or against gun ownership. I am only interested in the differing opinions and ideas from BOTH sides (pro-gun & anti-gun). I am a student/teacher of Japanese martial combatives and have a keen interest in all things related to hoplology. I offer what I know from the Ozzy and Japanese perpective so that it can be simply compared to the U.S. - for interests sake only - not to condemn or preach to either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts